You are making an assumption that the month/year shown on the timeline is the month/year in which the photo was taken. Can you think of any other association other than this?
IH Fanboy
Member
- Member since May 23rd 2016
- Last Activity:
Posts by IH Fanboy
-
-
This is a case where a google satellite image was admitted : http://www.techtimes.com/artic…h-imagery-as-evidence.htm
Yes, the satellite images show the actual date, including the day.
QuoteHere's a how-to on getting Streetview admitted -- though this particular case was settled out of court -- http://www.plaintiffmagazine.c…ial_Plaintiff-article.pdf
(They ultimately got a certification from the Google Custodian of Records.)
Great find. So you either: get the defendant to admit the photo is accurate (okay, that makes sense), or you get a witness to testify (yes, that is what I have been suggesting). Or you can subpoena Google and they will send you a disc with photos on it, hopefully with the actual dates each was taken (although the article never addressed whether the disc they received had the actual dates taken).
-
Yes, it is. In the metadata. I don't mean physically in the photo pixels. That would be oh-so-20th century.
Metadata can be stripped, or never inserted. It depends on your equipment used and the file format. In any case, the metadata is not available through the google street view interface.
QuoteI mean all Google street view photos always include the date the
photo was taken.No they don't.
QuoteFor example this street view of Rossi's building was
taken in July 2016. Click on the Clock icon at the top left and you can
see previous views of the same place, going back to 2007, with the date
shown for each view.That is not the date the photo was taken.
-
It does not make a damn bit of difference.
Oh yes it does. You would never admit it though. Because you simply hate being wrong, and I've never witnessed you admit that you were wrong, even when it was plain as day--like your statement about patent trials / jury trials.
Quote1.5" or 3", it is way too small.
Going from 1.5 to 3 makes a huge difference in the pressure differential required to overcome losses, as I have shown in the past. It is not linear. But you know that. And by the way, we don't know what the diameter of the "main" was. That hasn't been revealed yet. It was greater than DN40--Murray did not dispute that.
QuotePipes used to move a megawatt of steam are a foot or more in diameter.
Pipes of a foot in diameter would be plenty, yes. Indeed, it would be well more than what would be required.
QuoteThere is not the slightest chance this pipe would allow that much steam.
Which pipe?
Quote
Ditto your nonsense about 101 deg C versus 103 deg C.Sorry, Jed, don't try to make your nonsense my nonsense. Maybe if you had been straight up about the numbers from the get-go, you wouldn't feel that nagging need to repeatedly address the temperature fiasco.
-
@Shane,
Good to be back. Glad you felt it necessary to at least comment on my comments.
-
Google photos are admissible these days, and the date is always right there on the photo. A Google photo was used by the investigators in Georgia looking into the arson destruction of I-85 in Atlanta, which has paralyzed the city.
The date is not right there on the photo (at least not on the google street view photos). All you get is the timeline month/year, which doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual date the photo was taken--that is the problem, and the reason why these are inadmissible.
Please cite to the court case where the photo was deemed to be admissible. You seem to reference an investigation--can you provide a link to the investigation?
-
There are no errors in Exhibit 5. If you think there are, you are seeing things where nothing exists.
Do I really have to spell this out again? Really?
Murray suggested in Exhibit 5 that all of the water flow, i.e.1398 kg/h, was forced through a DN40 pipe. He then went on to state that the pressure differential required to overcome losses in the pipe would preclude it. And guess what? If the pipe really was DN40, then he would be RIGHT! And in fact, back before we had access to the deposition evidence, I stated that if the exit pipe turned out to be DN40, I would immediately mark up Rossi and his team as entirely incompetent or worse.
But then what happened? Murray was put under oath, and a whole new story emerged!
"12· A.· · -- the BF units at the back of the reactor,
13·all of the pipes coming off were what I believe are
14·DN40, 40-millimeter pipes.· I actually have a picture of
15·a pipe joint that actually flags it as a DN40.
16· Q.· · Okay.· And those feed into a larger pipe,
17·correct?
18· A.· · They feed into a main, and then the main goes
19·across to the Johnson Matthey facility."215-3, page 163
If you fail to see that I am vindicated on the DN40 pipe fable, then you are not perceiving the situation with a fair mind.
-
The people there could see the pipe did not have a U. A video posted here shows what happens when there is no U. The flow meter does not work, period.
And yet, we don't have a single instance of "the people" testifying that there was no U. Don't you find that a little strange? No photographic evidence. No video evidence. Nada. Do you think this is the "dry powder" that Dewey suggested is being saved for the big finally?
-
No, the proof is the photos made of the pretend customer site do not show the pipe going up to the second floor.
Then what is this?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…dae2a28d5.png?w=480&h=551
Looks like at least four pipes to me. This was posted in the comments on ECW, and there is further commentary there:
-
@Bob
No insults, just stated opinion. And it isn't my job to provide proof that the heat exchanger is real. I have no ability to do so. I do have an ability, however, to point out that drawing any kind of solid conclusion at this point is premature.
You assume THH (a pseudo-anonymous poster) is more of an expert than the experts. That is your prerogative.
As for the exit pipe, Murray testified that the pipes fed into a single exit pipe that was larger than DN40. You can look at Murray's deposition. I've posted the excerpt before, so you could also click on my username and find it.
As for the multiple steam pipes to get the steam upstairs, that was Rossi's testimony. If you have multiple steam pipes in parallel with return condensate forming a vacuum in each of them, there will be a vacuum formed. And Rossi also testified that there was a pump that pumped the condensate back to the other side. Murray complained of an irritating noise in the warehouse--that was probably the pump. I had explained these as likelihoods some time ago, before the SJ motions and evidence. Many of you dismissed me then, and even with further evidence, continue to dismiss those possibilities.
-
"1) Rossi never mentioned any upstairs exchanger until deposition. Odd even for him."
+++ Why would he have? Murray never clarified the glaring errors in Exhibit 5 until his deposition. Why didn't he clear that up before his deposition?
"2) No one mentioned seeing long pieces of pipe going upstairs in any of their depositions. Including Rossi's witnesses. Especially convincing was the state regulatory inspector."
+++ As far as I remember, they weren't asked. And the state regulator never mentioned going upstairs, and was never asked about that part of the warehouse.
"3) Some have stated it would take at least DN150 pipe going upstairs to keep pressure down... a quick check on Home Depot.com does not show that they sell any of this pipe! Yet he testified that is where he bought it."
+++ Rossi testified that multiple pipes (at least four as I remember) led to the alleged upstairs heat exchanger. Home Depot sells 2in+ diameter 10 foot long steel pipes. Gang some of those together in parallel, and you could transmit the steam and heat energy. He stated under oath that there was an accounting of those purchases.
"4) The pressure required to move that volume upstairs would surely be higher than atmosphere, and thus meaning phase change did not happen at 101 or 103.
There goes that exit pipe size of being DN80 that you have so often stated was the case. What do you do with this now? You have said the entire case hinges
on the exit pipe being DN80. The heat exchanger precludes that!"
+++ So, you think it was DN40? Even Murray conceded in his deposition that the exit pipe was larger. You seem to have a hard time admitting that I have been vindicated on the DN40 fable.
"5) Why did Rossi tear this all out within days of shutting down the test?"
+++ He should have left it up. I don't know why or defend him on this. I really wish he would have, and I think it will damage his chances before the jury, just like the JMP ruse.
"6) Using Rossi's own testimony, the intake air and exhaust BOTH came in the same window. poses double problems."
+++ Well, technically, one went out and one came in. The outside is a huge heat sink.
"7) No photos that we have seen show this great exchanger. Do you not think Rossi would have provided a photo to support his testimony?"
+++ IH stated in the spoliation document that there were no photos, and then cited to a bunch of deposition excerpts that had nothing to do with whether there are no photos. I have no idea if there are photos or not. But I think IH trying to use Rossi's deposition as proof that there are no photos is ridiculous. He wasn't even asked the question (based on the deposition excerpts we have access to).
"8). Heat transfer has been calculated by THH with very good consideration and detail. Does not seem possible."
+++ There is one thing you can always count on: THH thinks he is more of an expert than the experts.
"9) System taken out in 2016, yet windows just replaced in 2017 while Mr. Wong was there? Amazing"
+++ The window mystery can be easily resolved by asking a few visitors to the Doral warehouse to state under oath what they saw and heard near the front entrance of the warehouse.
"10) Oh yes, and photos showing that the windows were in place during the time the exchanger was to be there."
+++ Ah, yes, the number one (well I guess 10 here) reason why IH Fanboys (except this one) have such a surety that the heat exchanger never existed: an inadmissible Google image with uncertain date.
-
@THH,
You are weird. Use your brain. Are these the best insults you've got? Thought this was supposed to be a place for more sophisticated exchanges.
-
@THH,
Okay, respect if you remain without conclusion on this issue, as do I. It seems that most of your comrades, however, have formed that conclusion already.
-
I think you have to be a bit strange to believe that this second floor heat exchanger actually existed. Ever.
I think you are a bit strange for putting words in my mouth. Did you not read my comment? I said: "Now, let me be clear: I do not know whether the heat exchanger ever existed or not."
It is you (and others here) who have already formed a conclusion that the heat exchanger did not exist, and on flimsy (non-admissible) evidence.
QuoteI take the point that as with many things in this story, where
evidence is spoliated and Rossi comes up with ever more ingenious
stories, proof is hard to come by.In this case maybe you could just go on probability?
- Why is there no evidence for its existence. At all. Other than a RossiSays?
Why is there no evidence for the flow meter being misplaced, other than JedSays? This one issue is probably the most important question to be resolved in this dispute. Jed claims for a fact that the return pipe was only half full and repeatedly points to Murray's deposition as proof. But Murray, when asked whether the flow meter was above or below the pipe inlet, stumbled on his language, equivocated, and then eventually said he didn't know. Do you really think Murray didn't know the answer to this question after his careful study of the layout, supposedly taking pictures and measurements, and then trying to reconstruct and simulate it all in a separate location?
QuoteWhy did Rossi claim on blogs ages ago that the 1MW did not heat up
his warehouse due to its going into an endothermic process? (BTW this is
an idea he clearly got from blogs, and is itself rubbish)?But, if the heat exchanger was as Rossi claims, then it would not dissipate anything like 1MW. Rossi (sorry, I mean Wong with an obscure Italian reference to the critical heat transfer coefficient) got it wrong. That cannot be disputed by anyone with a computer on the internet, ability to read Wong's report, and a calculator.
So the matter is unimportant. We already know that Rossi is duplicitous.
Do you have proof that no endothermic process was taking place? You say Wong, an expert in the matter, got it wrong. IH Fanboys (except this one) have a history of dismissing experts who disagree with them, but uplifting experts that agree with them to near god-like status.
-
There are many birds-eye angled air photos, well-dated.
And they are useless (at least indeterminate) for their oblique views.
-
Certainly no visitors have remarked upon a loud fan blowing large volumes of hot air out of the front of the building, only 3 or 4 m from the front door.Have they been asked? I can't see in any of the depositions where anybody was asked this question. Maybe those parts of the depositions have been hidden from us, as we only get a few selective parts of them.
One thing is for sure. If there was a large fan blowing out hot air out of an open window, more than one visitor would have noticed. This will easily be resolved by putting a few people up on the stand and asking them what they heard and saw in front of the Doral location.
-
The hard conclusion has been made: the heat exchanger never existed. And the proof? A google street view image with a timeline date of April, 2015. Nearly every IH Fanboy here (except this one) has pinned their hopes on this google street view image.
Now, let me be clear: I do not know whether the heat exchanger ever existed or not. But I refuse to jump to conclusions on the basis of a google street view image. Such images cannot be relied up on in litigation.
Here you can read about people observing that images can be taken long before the update actually happens on the timeline.
One of the most common complaints of Google street view is that it is out of date. So there is no incentive for Google to post an earlier date, and there is every incentive for Google to post the latest date possible, even if pictures were taken months in advance.
It would also be quite a remarkable thing for Google to update the entire database of street view images between April 1 and April 30, 2015. That would mean every street in every city would have to be driven with a google vehicle within a single month--an amazing feat.
I suggest that you all should be a bit more skeptical of your quick and not-well-thought-out conclusions.
-
There is no doubt the pipe was half full of water. There is physical proof of that, in photographs.
Can you please point to those photographs? Have you seen them?
-
IH's spoliation document (194.0) is interesting to me, even though it was shot down by the judge.
IH states that: "There are no photographs of this alleged heat exchanger. Rossi Dep. 235:5-9; 238:3-240:6; Leonardo Dep. 269:18-271:21; JMP Dep. 114:14-117:12; 120:9-124:25 [Ex. 8]."
However, none of the cited references say there are no photographs of the heat exchanger. I'm not saying there are extant photographs (I don't know whether there are or not), I'm just saying that the cited portions of the depositions don't support IH's proposition of there being no photographs.
IH goes on to state: "There are no receipts for the equipment Plaintiffs allegedly used to build the heat exchanger (including for the piping, the fans or the wood housing in the second story room). Leonardo Dep. 266:16-267:4; JMP Dep. 142:5-143:4; 144:20-145:23; 157:22-158:2."
However, none of the cited references say there are no receipts for the equipment used to build the heat exchanger. In fact, in the first cite, Rossi testifies that Leonardo paid for the pipes used in the heat exchanger, and that he supposes there are records reflecting those purchases. Then on page 267, Rossi testifies that there are records reflecting purchases of the fans. In the next cite (to the JMP deposition), Rossi testifies that his accountant should have receipts for the pump/recirculator. On page 144-145 of the JMP deposition, Rossi testifies that the piping was purchased from Home Depot, and that he has an accounting for that. On pages 157-158 of the JMP deposition, Rossi testifies that the wood used for the heat exchanger was purchased from Home Depot and another supplier.
So how IH was able to draw the conclusions that it did based on the cited references to the various depositions is beyond me.
I'm not impressed by the JMP ruse. But in equal measure, I'm not impressed with how IH is characterizing the situation.
-
Folks, I'm going to be taking a hiatus for the next few days. Some of you might be relieved by that. So if you want to attack me or my view points without a prompt incisive reply, now is your chance!
Best wishes to all, and may the truth, whatever it is, prevail and be set free.