Posts by PIH

Quote from Alan Smith

No Thankyou. The level of discussion only just scrapes by now. Two Trumps, one Madoff and a Rossi is full house enough.

In all seriousness, Zero politics.

Sorry Alan,

I went to Bernie because it illustrates that the level of fault of the perpetrator

does not equal the level of blame for the victim. (and Mary went there first :))

Pete

Actually thinking about it, and with OGs post below,

I would like to withdraw that apology.

This thread is so entertaining BECAUSE it was Rossi that initiated preceedings.

I was following thread 1 and decided to register and comment

here in thread 2 because it was becoming so bizarre.

I would not have been at this forum were it not for this unusual circumstance.

So if I am to be sanctioned, so be it.

(But BM is not political and it it is not off topic

since it demonstrates the absurdity)

Pete

Quote from JedRothwell

1. In my opinion, these organizations are slightly at fault. Madoff deserves most of the blame, but they deserve a small slice.

2. They should insist that such opportunities be made available to all people, including middle class and poor people with a little money to invest. That is how public stock markets are supposed to work.

1. Just because they deserve a small slice, does not make the blame equal.

That is what we see here in this thread all the time.

Yes, Rossi was at fault because of X , but IH also did Y.

So they are equally to blame.

Because "X=wrong" doesn't make "Y=same_amount_of_wrong"

Again, as mentioned somewhere above, just because all lions are animals, does not make all animals lions.

2. Agree

Pete

And I would like to add to the above:

That if IH Conned Woodford etc into investing 50+ million,

then IH deserve to lose that also.

I would imagine that Neil is savvy enough to know that he can get that back right ?

If he thinks he has a case.

Pete

Quote from ele

Note that what you say automatically (by logic) extends also to all investors who gave money to IH.

So Bernie is automatically excused also.

It wasn't his fault that thousands of people lost BILLIONS of dollars.

It was their fault.

This is the BIG narrative here.

That because IH have some shady elements in their history,

they must share EQUAL blame.

Sorry, but NO.

The conman is the one at fault and deserves to be exposed as such.

The people who fell for it...........

Well should the following list be held accountable for their part in a con ?

Jewish Community Foundation of Los Angeles

The Spielberg charity

Mortimer B. Zuckerman Charitable Remainder Trust

Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation

Chais Family Foundation

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity

Sen. Frank Lautenberg charitable foundation

Julian J. Levitt charitable Foundation

J. Gurwin Foundation charitable Foundation

If you think IH should suffer, then you are OK with the list above suffering also

We know Rossi is a conman, at least because (by his own admission) of JMP.

Do you think Madoff should have walked free ?

And in actual fact gained 3 times more money from the Rubes above.

Or was it right to expose him ?

Conman <> Victim who did not do proper due dilligence.

Pete

Quote from IH Fanboy

....we have the photograph that Smith included in his report (you know, the one where he drew big bold red arrows to all sorts of things except the two missing panes in the window). Seems Smith is okay with misdirection........

a. Why on earth would he neglect to draw arrows to missing panes ?

b. I also notice in the outside photos, that he neglected to draw an arrow

to the planet Nibiru in the sky.

c. And that there are no arrows to the herd of pink unicorns in the parking lot.

The factual answer to a. is the same answer for b. and c.

Pete

Quote from IH Fanboy

It seems Jed does not understand the concept of a vacuum. Happy Easter to all!

And you don't understand that there can NEVER be a "steam" leak OUT from a system somewhere between Atmos and Vacuum.

Don't bother with the B.S. tab (or was it paper ?) causing a leak thing again.

Nobody believed it first time around.

Quote from IH Fanboy

.......then we are in outlandish literalist land...............

Rich coming from you.

The pipe IS...... when asking a question

Quote from IH Fanboy

E48 on JONP:

"Murray, Smith and IH are not going to like this. Smoking gun stuff:

Interesting photo from Dr. Wong:

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…0f3ffd3d44f80a741a558.png

Inquisitive minds would ask why is the floor on the left clean and not walked on?

Maybe because there was a steam pipe there, that connected the bypass in the JM container to the upper story heat exchanger?

Also note a telltale lighter mark from the centre of that clean patch toward the outer edge of the landing.

Sure looks like, to this Black Swan, that a steam pipe could have been there for the duration of the 350 day test.

Best regards,

Engineer48"

Display More

I'm sorry, but this is getting too ridiculous..

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that walking on a floor causes that much difference in wear/tear.

How many times do you need to walk on just the entrance to the room where you are installing

a massive heat exchanger ?

Do you go up there every few hours to make sure it is still exchanging heat ?

But NO, best not step foot once inside the Heat Exchanger room.

There is a MegaWatt of stuff going on in there.

And that ONLY a steam pipe could have caused that barely noticeable highlight on the floor.

The only way to know for certain would be to check with a child's input.

But make sure you phrase it :

"if someone had walked on this floor with muddy boots, where on this picture do you think that could have been ?"

Should get a definitive answer that way.

Pete

Quote from IH Fanboy

Pressure/temperature: this has been answered countless (dozens?) of times, so need to grace this one again any time soon.

By your standard:

DN40: this has been answered countless (dozens?) of times, so need to grace this one again any time soon.

I assume you are OK with that ?

Quote from LFH Sam

Mr Huxley,

I have noticed considerable changes in your grammar and writing so I would then like to know if you have ventured into an agreement where you are paid or if you have any other incentive for writing. The reason why I ask is because among various things I have noted that you started to use the connotation "we" a lot.

I would really appreciate if you answer these questions with yes / no / none of your business.

I, on the other hand, are here purely for my entertainment.

My day job is 6 fig.............

As a hobby, in the last two years, I took down the QEG web funding

(proof available if needed, TK, MD, M Yug and others know this).

I have recently shown that IHFB is either full of crap, or he doesn't own a kettle.

He becomes more sure by the day which says a lot about his kitchen.

Sadly, I came into this one too late (although I was following Pt 1),

and now, it is all too easy.

LFH, got anything tech that needs debunking ?

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'll use a little of my own.

Imagine a small misplaced tab or piece of tape near a pipe joint that "scoops" up steam and lets it through a small hole. In fact, the more I think of it, the more likely it seems this was it. It wouldn't matter if your piping system was constantly under a slight vacuum. The steam would still "leak."

I gave you an example of how you could test this in the comfort of your own home (well kitchen really),

in about 5 minutes at zero cost (well OK a little bit of electricity and water if you are metered).

Most of that 5 minutes would be spent waiting for the kettle to boil, so you could, in fact,

be productive with something else while waiting.

I agree with you that "imagination" can be used to get a leak OUT of a system under slight vacuum.

But in my kitchen, I like to use evidence and PV=T.

(I am excluding the number of moles and the ideal gas constant here as you no doubt well know)

Quote from IH Fanboy

Use your imagination. The pressure likely fluctuated at times, perhaps above atmosphere (and in fact I think the raw data shows that). Your mutually exclusive analysis is not realistic, in my opinion. The inspector said it was a leak, not a gush of steam.

I don't need imagination.

I use reality on a planet we inhabitants like to call Earth.

"steam" doesn't leak from a net vacuum system

and "steam" cannot condense without either P, V or T changing in the "right" direction.

Pick one.

Pete

Quote from WMartin

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.

And I bet you NEVER had a leak OUT of that system

Quote from IH Fanboy

@Pete,

Fake, fake, fake. Jed: "Fake, fake, fake!" Pete: "fake!!!!"

I really don't care how many times you endlessly repeat this word, you folks are single-minded and refuse to consider alternative explanations. There was a slight vacuum to move the steam, okay? The slight vacuum likely fluctuated some (in fact we see that in the set of raw pressure data, as pointed out by Para I believe). We know the state inspector saw steam: he testified to that, and he is a disinterested witness. We know Murray did not have an issue with the temperature probes or placement. Your narrowly constructed view of the situation is just that: close-minded.

And yet, spending 5 minutes in your kitchen will prove, that no "steam" leak can occur with a slight vacuum.

This is basic stuff, easily proven by my group of boy scouts.

Proven in schools daily. My 12 year old now knows this (as of our last den meeting).

So are you OK with the fact that there was either no "steam" leak

or that the pressure is wrong.

Pete

Quote from IH Fanboy

Anyone who would suggest that 0.0 bar indicated a perfect vacuum (and not gauge pressure or barg) and trumpeted that around the forums, is probably attempting to obfuscate the situation, since we all know the e-Cat was not installed in outer space (at least yet).

And yet, only a few posts ago, I pointed out to you, that a pressure of 0.0 barg (atmospheric) proves that there was either

no pressure leak (which you latched onto a while ago to prove there was steam),

or the pressure readings provided by Rossi are fake,

or the temperature readings provided by Rossi are fake.

OR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM VOLUME IS VARIABLE !!!!!!!!

PV=T

Which one do you accept ?

I have a suggestion for you, and it doesn't take a science lab.

In your kitchen, fill an inverted gallon plastic milk jug with steam from your kettle, screw the cap on, wait.

What happens and why ?

Ignoring this post will say a lot.

The penny will drop soon.

Pete

Quote from IH Fanboy

I guess the state inspector who has no horse in the race lied then.

Excellent point. Why would he.

So the obvious conclusion from that nugget is that the pressure readings are fake.

Either that or the pressure increased further along the system,

meaning that the "steam" could not condensate and hence cool down.

Ahhh, but that would mean the reported temperatures were fake.

What a conundrum

Pete

Quote from SSC

As IHFB has said few pages ago, the state inspector has testified that he observed a steam leak.....

Why on earth would anyone fill an entire warehouse with steam ?

Because obviously in a system where the internal pressure ranged from atmospheric to some untold level of vacuum,

the only possible way to have a leak is from (higher to lower pressure) the surrounding atmosphere INTO the system.

So if you believe the pressure readings, then you know

a. there could not be a steam leak OUT of the system

b. the readings are junk

c. the warehouse was full of steam and the leak was INTO the system

Pete

Quote from Roger

...Rossi sets up some kind of system....

...and transform whatever.....

...but what do I know, I only look at a timeline of facts and statements.

Are the above examples of "facts" or "statements"

Thx

Pete