Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You don't need "active feedback." The steam escapes the reactor shortly after being formed On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote: As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is being supplied to the customer.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

No. At 102.8C and atmospheric pressure the stem would be dry without a water separator. On 8/23/2016 11:48 PM, David Roberson wrote: Bob, I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be ensured that there is a moisture separator in the proper location. Have you seen

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be confused than say Murray. He is the only independent judge there. That is the whole purpose of having an ERV. On 8/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote: As Ihave stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is being

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I have gone to reasonable lengths in earlier posts to explain why having drive power available could actually be a positive factor in a thermal feedback design. It is not obvious by any means, but one can achieve relatively high gains of output to input power when output power is partially fed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Wondering about some things while I'm making dinner. How accurate is the "0 bar" number believed to be? (I should probably know this already from earlier discussion, but I don't; sorry.) "0" by itself carries no precision information; it's got no significant digits. If I'm not mistaken,

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

AA-- The moisture carry-over depends upon the mixing of the liquid phase (small droplets) with the super heated steam phase. The mixing depends upon the friction of the conduit down stream of the point in the reactor where the steam is heated, baffles or other devices that catch and remove

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You have put together a good arguement. His refusal to allow access to the customer site being one that bothers me the most. Why not go to that little effort in order to receive $89 million? I can not understand that type of logic. Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he could fake it. The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no evidence it was. They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no evidence that it did. If the flow was lower

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he > could fake it. > > The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no > evidence it was. > > They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

It is not simple to figure out how to explain the temperature reading 102.8 C while the pressure shows atmospheric and at the same time find the steam wet. That is the only way to explain how the observers were faked out so readily. I suspect that there is a way to make this happen and I have

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You could have a pressure reading of below atmospheric at the output of Rossi's system if you were to place a pump in the return line carrying the hot liquid back to his device. Some claim that this is the actual configuration. I am assuming that that is true for my calculations since

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

J.R. Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day? Are you saying one reactor always gets hotter when another cools, so overall they balance? If you attempt to enclose the complete structure of 24? devices with a single feedback loop then it will be pretty

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson wrote: > Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were > viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem. I believe they did find problems. They complained to various people, including me. They did not reveal many

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote: Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate? But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that /can't/ be accurate. The volume of steam was quite large; consequently, the flow rate in

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson wrote: > If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half > without the external loop. Even with it, there is only a certain amount of > correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual > devices running at

RE: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Dzve-- Good pressure sensors are usually designed to avoid flow velocity effects on the determination of a static pressure. In other words they account for your concern. Bob Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: David

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > How accurate is the "0 bar" number believed to be? (I should probably > know this already from earlier discussion, but I don't; sorry.) > It is shown as "0.0 bar" in Rossi's data. In Exhibit 5, Murray assumed this was supposed to be barG (1 atm).

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Possibly the answers were too "secret" like the piping layout. On 8/24/2016 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be confused than say Murray. That cannot be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of heat generation and water input flow. For example, if 1% extra liquid water is continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will eventually overflow and begin to flow out of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

AA, even an ERV can be mistaken which everyone needs to realize. If Rossi is indeed supplying 1 MW to his customer then he needs to be compensated. On the other hand, a significant amount of evidence is being presented that this may not be true. I have been developing a possible scenario

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson wrote: That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of heat generation and water input flow. For example, if 1% extra liquid water is continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will eventually overflow and begin to flow out of

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's previous devices. For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had his thermal generation components contained within a large thinned mass. The incoming water essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure and came into

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson wrote: Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's previous devices. For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had his thermal generation components contained within a large thinned mass. The incoming water essentially fell

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then /it was impossible to control the power level via feedback from the output temperature/. Any such feedback control would have caused the power output to vary down from the nominal 1 MW. So, there was no feedback control of the power level,

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: So, there was no feedback control of the power level, > *by definition of the terms of the test.* > Yes, and the data shows this as well. Power is pretty much the same day after day. (It was even the same on days when Rossi said the reactor was half

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I think we are basically on the same page in this discussion. The main difference is that I suspect that the amount of heat being generated within each Rossi device is not sufficient to boil all of the water that is entering into it. Under that assumption I can not determine how it would be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Your first point supports the idea that the control would need to exist within each of the sources at an elevated temperature. I assume 130 C. Water leaving all of the units at such a controlled temperature would deliver a constant power if the water flow rate were constant. This is not to

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback will even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well. If some internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that varies with time, the feedback can be designed to keep the net thermal output constant.

[Vo]:one LENR comment

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-24-2016-lenr-one-comment.html I hope we will get more info tomorrow. peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson wrote: Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback will > even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well. Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day? Are you saying one reactor always

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be confused than > say Murray. > That cannot be true. Murray asked critical questions in Exhibit 5. The ERV could not even answer them. He did not even try. Murray showed that the test is bunk,

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson wrote: > It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the > un boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the > individual heating drive elements. > As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson wrote: Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback will even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well. If some internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that varies with time, the feedback can be