Are you saying that in the approximately 600 feet of pipe need for the correct surface area of pipe was some how occupied only the area not covered by the photos?
Also the supply and return piping, control loops, control and block valves, supports, instrumentation, etc.
Thanks to Dewey Weaver 's post below for reminding me, you can add a steam expansion loop into the exchanger system.
Following the inevitable appeal after the Rossi vs Darden trial, it seems likely that Rossi will put on a public demonstration of the QuarkX.
Should that prove successful enough to surface in the main line media that will have a significant influence on the appeal.
Whatever happens Rossi is unlikely to make much money as IH will probably take Chapter 11 if they lose and he has large legal costs.
woodworker can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that appeals courts do not usually assess matters of fact but only matters of law. They will be only looking for errors in the trial that would result in a different outcome.
Abd just posted a mistrial because of jurors being excused from service. The trial starts over tomorrow.
The heat exchanger was dismantled at the end of the test: it is not invisible, it is simply no longer there. Who took the photos? Do the photos show all the environments from every angle? You can not prove in any way that the heat exchanger was not there, so stop expressing about it as if you possess the absolute truth.
Rossi sued IH. As plaintiff, he has the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence. Where are his pictures or even purchase receipts? Why was the exchanger only mentioned after an unfavorable heat dissipation analysis? Why has no person except Rossi seen this exchanger?
I enjoyed your post, but what prompts you to ask this question? Can you point to which evidence leads you to think that nobody noticed?
I am drawing a conclusion from the lack of evidence in the court records. This is not a home depot job. You would have to go to a piping supply to get that large of piping and elbows. 7+ tons of material in one order would have a paper trail and if I were sueing for 89 million plus triple damages I would make sure that it was part of the deposition record. The construction of the exchanger should be tax deductible as a business expense and might even be eligible for a tax credit so he would have kept the records for IRS purposes.
Thanks for finding the quote for me.
I did some calculations on the heat exchanger. 220 Meters of 6 inch schedule 40 piping and 41 6 inch schedule 40 180 degree elbows come to over 15000 pounds just for the piping alone in the heat exchanger. I would question the ability of a second floor being able to handle that kind of load. Also, the second floor is listed as having only one ladder to enter or exit from the second floor in one deposition. (I forget which). OSHA regulations require at least two exits in any operating unit. Assuming that 1/2 of the welding would be done offsite ahead of time, It would take a minimum of 5 10 hour days for a crew of 10 to perform the installation. That assumes that everything goes perfectly. In the real world, this project would probably take 2-3 40 hour weeks to install. I can't list an estimate for running the piping to and from the exchanger because I do not have any data.
No one noticed a crew like that working in the plant?
Notes: a crew of ten would consist of 1 supervisor, 1 expeditor, 1 laborer, 1 crane or fork lift operator, 2 pipefitters, 2 welders, and 2 pipefitter helpers. This would be the most efficient use of time.
This calculation assumes that you can get a 10 meter piece of piping with an elbow attached into the second floor. More welds in place would add more time to the installation.
This calculation does not include supporting the exchanger because I do not have enough data.
Building the encasing box would require at least two carpenters and two insulators once the exchanger is installed. I have not done either job. My estimate would be one to two weeks for that but I could be way off.
You could do this job with a crew of three but the amount of time to finish would go up by at least a factor of three.
The appellate trial is basically a determination if a mistake was made, and if so, was it big enough to need fixing by the appellate court. The only facts decided by the appellate court are those necessary to make this determination. The appellate court can determine:
1) no error in the trial
2) there was an error but it does not change the outcome
3) there was an error but it can be fixed by the original judge
4) there was an error and the only way to fix it is to have a whole new trial
Most of the time the appellate court finds either 1 or 2 above. The timeline of 5 years for appeals to finish posted by someone else is reasonable. You can expect a minimum of 2 years after this case for resolution because one side will be appealing no matter what.
Also, in my opinion, I do not think that IH will settle. I think if they were going to it would have already happened because I do not believe Rossi will except anything less that a NDA and return of his IP. I think that IH is determined to crush Rossi after being sued.
I think we'd also need someone real to buy and test it!
Anyone for Orbo?
But the other way round. I've yet to hear a straight answer...
Thanks for clarifying my statement. I forgot to make that part explicit.
For your second part, the crickets are still deafening.
I believe we are getting off the topic of the question asked of IH Fanboy. Those who do not believe that Rossi has a valid product all would happily change their mind if Rossi would just offer the product for sale that he has claimed to already have sold to several (secret) buyers. What would it take those who believe in Rossi to stop believing in him and his product?
Edited for spelling.
I find that the idea that IH fraudulently represented LENR to the investors unlikely ridiculous because if we had there would be a three way not a two way lawsuit. Woodford, etc. have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders/investors to look out for their financial interests which would include civil and criminal action. The only way that a civil lawsuit would be out is if Woodford, etc. figured the cost of a lawsuit was not recoverable in court. I have seen multiple way civil lawsuit among clients, engineering companies, and contractors multiple times over much less money.
For example, I was hired as a pipefitter working for a contractor who was hired by an engineering company to install a new vessel in an industrial plant. The job was supposed to take four weeks working 40 hours a week with a crew of 14-17. The company I was hired by were hired on a cost plus basis. The engineering company told us to fabricate the piping according to drawings instead of us going out and taking onsite measurements. This decision sent the job into 7 weeks consisting of 2 40 hour weeks, two 60 hour weeks, two 84 hour weeks, and one 70 hour week. Before the client had even signed off on the vessel their was a three way lawsuit started and this was peanuts compared to what is at stake here.
Your scenario here is very plausible, I agree. It is only just different from IH's stated position - in the I need to continue bit. Whereas IH are saying - well - we have bought that IP fair and square and we will not give it up for nothing because even though with Rossi's stuff not working it is probably not worth anything you never know.
I think the understanding people view from the Rossi side is a lot more interesting, if you want to do it. I'm not sure I do understand Rossi.
I don't have time right now to make up a story like I did with Darden but in my opinion Rossi is a paranoid who is also lying to himself. He got these early test results that looked good making him think he is the greatest inventor ever who is going to get rich and save humanity at the same time. I think he actually believes he has this awesome invention. This is why he can get others to support him because he is sincere in his belief. Then when people object to something in his experiments, the paranoia kicks in and they are now the enemy. Every action he takes must be interpreted in light of his us verses them mentality. Now his entire self worth is vested in proving himself and his invention right. Because every person who disagrees with him is the enemy, anything is justifiable in the good cause. Also, every person that confronts him makes him more of a martyr because he is being persecuted. This is why people can not work with him because their is no way to bring him back into reality. A lot of great inventors in the past have worked this way. Some succeeded in spite of it, more got destroyed because of it.
This board uses a lot of us verses them psychology. The assumption is that one side must be good and the other side evil. Instead we need to view each side as people. Now people frequently are not logical or rational in their thinking nor are they simple. Every person, for lack of better words, is both good and evil at the same time. Here is my evaluation of Darden et al.
Person: Hey Darden have you seen the news about this amazing new invention, according to press releases this E-cat thing produces much more energy than is put in and is ready to produce in a couple of years.
Darden: Looks interesting, let's check it out.
Darden: Rossi, I've seen some of your stuff but it looks like you'll need a lot of money to get it off the ground. Think you'll be interested in selling your invention?
Rossi: I might be if the price is right. Let me show you what I've got. All of these highly respected scientist agree with me that I've got something. I just need to work out a few bugs to get it ready for commercial production.
Darden: What your proposing looks good. Let me talk to my investors.
Darden to investors: Hey for about 20 million up front in costs, we can be in on the ground floor of something that could be worth billions but it's high risk.
Darden to Rossi: We have a deal. Here's 1.5 million, let's see your patent and plant. Hey, that first test looks pretty god, Here's another 10 million, show us how to get this ready for commercial production and reliability. We'll also pay up front costs and give you another 90 million when we succeed.
Darden to investors: This guy is a lot harder to deal with than we thought and we're having a lot of trouble replicating his successes but we've already sunk a lot of money into it. We need to continue. Best case scenario we still get rich. Worst case scenario, we prove we don't need to look at this method of LENR anymore. Also, by continuing we can hold onto the patent in case someone gets it to work.
Darden: After all the help and money we gave Rossi, after doing everything he wanted, he has the gall to sue us for his failure to transfer the technology to us??? Fine, pay back is a B***h! We'll make sure he never gets anyone to support him again!
If I felt like it, I could do the same thing from Rossi's point of view but someone else can do that if they feel like it. My whole point is that the world is seldom black and white.
IH Fanboy wrote
You might be right, but that would mean Smith was lying (or mistaken). He stated it was 4.5 ID.
Easy enough mistake to make if your not a pipe fitter or a mechanical engineer.
Edit
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I have only a little background in instrumentation. I believe that the statement would be correct talking about tubing. It might indicate Smith has a background in instrumentation.
I have seen a lot of statements about 4 1/2 inch I. D. Piping. The pipe is actually 4 1/2 inch O.D. and 4 inch I.D. Pipe at sch 40. More at thinner piping and less at thicker piping. All piping in imperial measurements are listed by I.D. at sch. 40. Thus 2 inch piping is 2 3/8 inch O.D. Just thought I would clarify it for everyone. So if you really want to do accurate calculations, you have to know the wall thickness of the piping.
I suspect AR is already considering an appeal, which requires the introduction of fresh evidence. But that is the wildest of conjectures based on his erratic personality.
Generally speaking, appeals are not allowed to introduce new evidence. Appeal court rulings are restricted to matters of law. The only exception is usually when an appeals court orders a whole new trial.
I am not clear on your thoughts here. Is the photo you posted showing the cardboard box? My understanding was that the heat exchanger used 200 meters of piping. This would be a rather large device and certainly not fit in the box shown.
Also, Rossi's testimony was that it was built using "day labor", so I do not think it was a purchased unit.
200 Meters is not all that much piping. The exchanger requires at least four lines running to it to work; Steam supply, condensate return, product supply, and product return. That cuts total travel down to 50 meters each. next you have to take out vertical travel to the second floor. that takes an estimated 8-10 meters out of each line leaving about 40 meters in each line for horizontal travel. In America, 200 meters of piping would be bout 60 sticks of piping. On, average even with careful use, your going to lose about 1/6 of a meter to wastage for every stick of piping, that's about 10 meters total or 2 meters for each system. (Note I'm using rough figures not exact calculation.) That leaves about 38 meters of horizontal travel available to have a single line system. Add in control loops, bypasses, headers, drains, etc. quickly brings me to the conclusion that if the exchanger existed it was a very simple system People drastically underestimate how much piping is needed to run industrial plants. I built a fuel gas supply to one boiler one time that ran over a 1000 feet of piping just for supply to a single boiler.
I can appreciate why you would think it would have been found and fixed, but apparently it wasn't, given that the state inspector testified that he observed a steam leak.
I'm not arguing that leaks did not occur, I am just arguing that the tape hypothesis does not make sense.
What is comic-book science is the way you twist the words of others. Can you not imagine a small tab or misplaced piece of tape on a pipe joint that "scoops" up steam and causes a leak? Why is this so hard to fathom?
I can not imagine that something like that would not get caught and fixed in hydrostatic testing before the unit starts up. Typically (read always in real industrial settings) an engineer looks at the system and determines max operating pressure. Then piping is tested at one and a half times maximum operating pressure. Any leaks found are fixed and then tested again before the plant is allowed to operate. Anything like the piece of "tape" you suggest would be found and removed before the plant was put into service. Also, I have never worked at a plant that uses threaded joints in steam service. You always use flanged, welded, or sweated fittings because heating causes expansion of piping which can create leaks in threaded fittings. If you were to use threaded fittings, they would not use Teflon tape to seal the joint but high temperature Teflon paste,
All these talks of 0.0 bar readings reminds me of an exotic wax plant were I worked as a maintenance pipefitter. The plant required pressure of less than 10 microns to operate. It is an unholy pain to get pressure that low. We had three pumps working in a series in the system. At startup we would typically get 400 microns. We would then spend the next 12-48 hours going around spraying helium at each possible leak point while a technician would read a spectrometer downstream to look for a leak. One time a half turn on a drain valve plug dropped us from 200 microns to 6 microns.
Wrong. If there are two paths after the pump, and there is a diverter valve which can shut off one path or the other, then the shut off path becomes a cul de sac. No flow. Just like a domestic radiator with one valve closed. There would be no point in having valves both sides of the filter unless you needed to service it, in which case you would probably fit a manual lever valve each end to enable simple removal.
You always want block valves before and after a filter and a bypass around it. Other wise you have to shut the entire system down to clean it. Ideally you want two filters for each system so you can keep running filtered product while cleaning the other filter.
