Keep reading. He says it is impossible to know for sure, but given the likely pressure it probably was.
Keep reading my comment. Yes, you would need a vacuum formed on the other side. Murray states that. I and others had stated that long ago. We were ridiculed for it by THH and others. But that is what you would need. And that is probably what existed. How else are you going to evacuate the heat and pump the condensate back?
Remember the mis-matched water meter serial number FUD that was pushed on all of us here? As if this was proof of fraud?
All just one big mistake by Murray. 215-03, pages 263-264.
Except that the section of transcript you quote from Murray appears to be considering the hypothetical situation where the 0 pressure reading from the data is accurate, which is a detail that is in dispute.
And yes, I acknowledged that right after I quoted the excerpt. And then I explained that Murray said a vacuum would be needed. And I agree with that. And there probably was a vacuum. In fact, not sure how else you would do it.
I suggest you put together an investment consortium, purchase an Ecat from Rossi and start printing money.
But you won't do that because?
I don't know, if the Quark X is put on the market, and it works, I might just do that. Thanks for the suggestion!
note if the there was an upstairs (say 10 feet above ground level) the water pressure in the pipe due to the added height of the water would be 1.3 bars at the bottom. (bp about 107C)(
Not if you formed a vacuum with two big fans at the end of the pipe work blowing heat out a window, and a pump pumping the condensate back to the plant.
No, there wasn't. See document 215-03, starting on p. 167. Learn something about thermodynamics and steam.
Except that Murray says exactly the opposite--that the water could not have been in liquid form.
"·9· Q.· · Can you have liquid water that is 101 degrees
10·Celsius at zero pressure?
11· A.· · If zero pressure, give -- which pressure?
12· Q.· · Relative.
13· A.· · Relative.· No, you wouldn't normally have
14·that, but --
15· Q.· · What about gauge?
16· A.· · That's the same.· Relative is --
17· Q.· · Okay.
18· A.· · Absolute?
19· Q.· · What about absolute?· Sorry.
20· A.· · Oh, you could -- you would not have at a, at
21·a pressure of zero absolute, your water would absolutely
22·be a gas.
23· Q.· · Okay.· And so at relative or absolute, or
24·gauge or absolute, water could not be at the temperature
25·of 101 degrees Celsius in the liquid form --·1· A.· · So we --
·2· Q.· · -- correct?
·3· A.· · Well, I would have to look at the
·4·thermodynamic tables and look at exactly what the, the
·5·state is.· We don't know what the flow rate is.· We know
·6·what a temperature is, and we know we have a pressure
·7·measurement that is outside of the operational range of
·8·the pressure transducer.
·9· Q.· · Sir, I'm, I'm asking you, if you have zero
10·relative pressure or zero absolute pressure, whether
11·water can exist in its liquid form at 101 degrees C.
12· A.· · No."
215-03, pages 171-172
Murray then complained that you would have to have a vacuum on the other side. (Wow, think we have been here before.) Rossi testified that there was a pump on the other side. Murray testified of an irritating noise in the lab (probably the pump).
P&F were forthcoming and open in all of their procedures, testing methodology and measurement protocols, this is where fault was found with their results.Rossi has done none of this, because if he did, the entire Ecat charade would have ended the same month it started.
Just like the P&F charade was ended the same month it started, right? 
So if there was water under a bit of pressure, and slightly above sea level boiling point, then it would leak as steam.
So you think that by and large there was no phase change? And you think that for all of Rossi's previous tests there was no phase change? That nobody ever noticed that? That Darden, JT Vaughn, Murray, Dameron, Dewey, and all of the others who visited the Darden plant would never have noticed that?
Isn't it interesting that (at least from the depositions that I have read so far), none of them have ever claimed what you are claiming. Jed has been a big advocate for there being no steam, but as far as I can tell, it has been only Jed (and now you). [Edit: Dewey might have suggested it before, but I could be wrong. Can't seem to find it right now.]
And even if there was no steam, and the water was heated to slightly above sea level boiling point, there would still be a massive release of excess energy, assuming the flow meter was correctly positioned. And see, it all comes back to the flow meter. This case will be decided on that issue.
Eric (sorry for the Erik misspelling above), I think it was you who stated that important context was omitted:
COP of 5 and 9 with IH's own reactors: 214-22.
As for the claimed COP of 11, IH stated: "We tested our plant . . . for four days." Now, you pointed out that the excerpt available in the deposition appeared to be referring to the Ferrara test, although it doesn't state that in the deposition. And the Ferrera test was a 2 day test not a 4 day test. Erik followed your comment stating that important context had been omitted from the excerpt, with which I agree. I then conceded that upon closer inspection, it probably refers to the Ferrara test. The timing of the test is similar, although the 2 and 4 day discrepancy, and the fact that IH (presumably JT Vaughn) states that "we tested our plant" seem a bit curious, don't you think?
@Shane D,
I think that exchange is hilarious, but okay, I'll back off on the FUD accusation. I actually highly value your presence here, despite our more recent differences (you at one time were one of the only others "on the fence" so to speak, and it's been lonely since you went full IH).
And as for the steam, the steam ought not to be high pressure according to the data. So that fits. And you must admit, having a disinterested party testify that there was steam is a pretty big reveal.
@ Shane,
Context matters. He also admitted to not having any knowledge about the type of activities that were being performed using the steam. Anyway, small potatoes. The big take away from this is that there was steam.
Jed:
Jed again:
Jed again:
Disinterested state inspector: there was steam.
207-52, page 169:
4 Q. Now, stepping back for a moment back to
5 you had mentioned, again, seeing steam coming out of
6 one of the pipes --
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. -- near the red shipping containers.
9 A. Correct.
[The "red shipping containers" refer to the e-Cat, see bottom of page 169.]
207-52, page 169:
"17 ... and that was not high pressure steam but it
18 was a steam leak
."
This is probably one of the most important depositions that we have on the record. Because we have been hearing the no phase-change FUD for a long time now. There was steam. And that is very important to know in untangling this mystery. It in fact makes it very difficult to claim that there was no excess energy, and in fact points to massive amounts of it.
Display MoreDewey,
You are wound up too tight. Relax. The more I go through all the documents, the more confident I am that IH will win. Even with a second rate law firm...which JD is not, and the dumbest of jurors, the evidence is just so overwhelming.
Just finished the James Stokes deposition; 207-52...yes I am slow.
He is a Florida state radiation inspector, and inspected Doral accompanied by 2 detectives. He was followed around by Fabiani -the guy who thought Russia was more suitable for his lifestyle than Miami Beach after IH counter-sued, although the place is so small, Fabiani could be at the other end, and still appear like he was following. Anyways, Stokes has plenty of experience in manufacturing worksites, and of steam.
Nothing in the JMP area he testified, other than small tools. No equipment one would associate with manufacturing. He was well aware of what 1MW was, and said no way there was that, nor 1/4 that taking place. Admitted it could have been 1/10th that. Steam coming out of one pipe was "pressurized steam", and not "high pressure".
Odd he did not mention stumbling over Rossi's heat dissipation contraption running along the floor, up the steps, and out a window, or two, over the one office. Oh, and the office appeared totally unused.
No problem though, because iHFB, and Just Another Troll living up to his name, have assured me Tesla did all this stuff too.
Shane, now you made me have to go read 207-52. I'm pretty disappointed in your analysis. I haven't known you to FUD before.
James Stokes testified that there was a container and piping on the JMP side, not just small tools. I think we all are aware of that by now.
Stokes admitted that he had no ability to know how much or the temperature of the steam being produced:
207-52, Page 210
"13 Q. You also have no ability to know how much
14 or the temperature of the steam being produced by the
15 plant?
16 A. That is correct."
He wasn't there to investigate any of that. All he was doing was walking around with his Geiger counter--that's it. 207-52, Pages 95-96.
As for the pressure, he said it wasn't high pressure, and when he had previously said "pressurized" he meant he had noticed a leak.
207-52, page 169.
"10 Q. You had used the word pressurized steam.
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. What makes you state that? What do you
13 mean by pressurized steam?
14 A. Well, pressurized steam is going to give
15 you a little bit of a hissing sound and it's going to
16 get louder and louder and higher and higher in
17 pressure and that was not high pressure steam but it
18 was a steam leak.
19 Q. So it wasn't high pressure steam, it
20 wasn't --
21 A. It wasn't something that would turn over
22 a steam turbine, no."
He didn't mention the heat exchanger on the second floor because he wasn't asked about it. In fact, the second floor isn't even mentioned in his deposition so he likely never even went up there.
What is also interesting to me is we have a non-interested party testifying that there was steam.
@Dewey,
I see lies everywhere. And I'm not happy about it.
@Dewey,
I think Shane's quoting of JONP was in jest and supportive of you. Shane is suggesting that a sock puppet wrote it. (Correct me if I'm wrong Shane.)
The data provided is fake junk.
That sounds like a winning argument. You should most definitely pull that one out during trial.
215-03, page 368 (Murray again)
"8· Q.· · And for lack of a better word, I think there
9·were discrepancies between Fabiani's numbers versus the
10·FP&L's numbers.· Do you have any reason to believe that
11·that is a result of Mr. Fabiani manipulating the data
12·that he was putting into his spreadsheets?
13· A.· · At this point, I have no evidence of that
14·whatsoever.
15· Q.· · And do you anticipate any kind of work in the
16·future between now and trial where you would come to a
17·different conclusion?
18· A.· · I can't say at this point because I think
19·that there's a lot of data that's just becoming
20·available.· For example, I think the raw data from
21·Mr. Fabiani just became available, and I have not looked
22·at that at all." (emphasis added.)
