Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: It is possible Murray looked over Penon's shoulder while the meter was > being crated for shipment. > Nope. That is not what happened. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

It is possible Murray looked over Penon's shoulder while the meter was being crated for shipment. I doubt he would have been allowed to touch it in the circumstances. There was also a rumor that Rossi had duplicate instrumentation in place, so it could have been that meter. Like everything

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The ERV broke the seals, disconnected it and sent the flow meter back to > the manufacturer for calibration. That is the statement. If you disagree > show some proof. > Exhibit 5 says Murray looked inside the meter, so it could not have been shipped

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The ERV broke the seals, disconnected it and sent the flow meter back to the manufacturer for calibration. That is the statement. If you disagree show some proof. Your ad hominem about the ERV is unwarranted and uncalled for. AA On 8/26/2016 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: No one said Rossi sent the meter back. I said the ERV did. > The ERV did not send the meter back. (The ERV is Rossi's puppet -- he does whatever he is told.) It is not in the court documents so you must have got it from IT or Murray, > or made it up.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

No one said Rossi sent the meter back. I said the ERV did. You say that is a lie but offer no proof for your statement. It is not in the court documents so you must have got it from IT or Murray, or made it up. AA On 8/26/2016 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

one in mind. Which? Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wro

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/26/2016 05:40 PM, David Roberson wrote: I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions. Why would he hire control experts if that were not the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

6, 2016 5:28 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: I was expecting you couldn't because it's secret. A little bird is about as solid as the rest of the speculations. You have a peculiar definition of the word &

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:55 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

all the facts are on the table. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:01 PM, David Rober

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Actually, that is central to the legal questions. People on Planet Rossi have the peculiar notion that contracts are enforced based strictly on the words in them. If you can write a clever enough contract, you can force someone to pay you no

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 05:28 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am trying to figure out how Rossi could have faked it just as you mention. We should be able to achieve that goal by using scientific logic, at least that is my assumption. Perhaps the fact that I leave open the possibility that he may be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric Walker wrote: > . . . You would say, "wait a minute, that doesn't make sense. You want me > to give you all that money without really believing or having a basis for > believing that what you're saying is true. Sorry, no dice." > > This is all apart from any legal

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in some reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwa

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: I was expecting you couldn't because it's secret. > A little bird is about as solid as the rest of the speculations. > You have a peculiar definition of the word "speculation." If I said, "I suppose Rossi did not send the flow meter back for

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

of that persuasion understand folks like me that want an ironclad case. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 3:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation David, y

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: I am not sure that I understand the point Eric. Why would any reasonable > person not want to know the real truth and not accept a possible > fabrication by the judicial system? Even though we are subject to the > court

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I was expecting you couldn't because it's secret. A little bird is about as solid as the rest of the speculations. Why no piping drawing, that is key to most of it? Easier to argue without the facts? AA On 8/26/2016 3:57 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

-Original Message- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: The cour

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/23/2016 12:27 AM, David Roberson wrote: Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules Is this known to be a fact? Has Rossi actually described in some reasonably clear way, rather than just giving a handwave to a leading question about feedback? Where

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Bosh. Go back to the discussion of *where the 1 megawatt of heat was > dumped**.* There was no megawatt of heat dumped on the "customer site". > Rossi claimed there was. What more proof do you need? The rest is just > details. The details may

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: This is why Darden is an idiot, because he signed a contract which says > just this! I will also add that IH roundly dispute that what happened in Doral, Florida, was what was specified in the contract they signed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric Walker writes: > ... It's now time > for you to pay up. Suppose for the sake of argument that the thing did > in fact flibbertygibbet. If you're being realistic, would you hand > over the money, given that you've had good reason in other contexts to > think that the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model to predict whether airplanes should have knocked down the WTC. Back in the day, a lot of people slammed FEMA for not doing exactly that, and for, instead, using a parametrized model to figure out /how/ the WTC collapsed. In the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: Reference? > A little bird. > > AA > > > On 8/26/2016 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > a.ashfield wrote: > > That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the >> flowmeter and shipped it back to the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: This is why Darden is an idiot, because he signed a contract which says > just this! He accepted a Rossi appointee to perform this 'test', and > signed a contract which forbids him from making any type of independent

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson wrote: The court will decide what it believes to be true. I personally want to > know what the real truth is and not what lawyers are able to convince the > judge or jury of. If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 02:05 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be allowed in the customers plant, *why should Murray be allowed to visit* it? Rossi did

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, David Roberson wrote: I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while not being an accurate assessment of the real power. I assumed that the information published by Engineer48

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On 08/26/2016 09:40 AM, Eric Walker wrote: On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda > wrote: Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Reference? AA On 8/26/2016 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the flowmeter and shipped it back to the manufacturer for calibration. He did not do

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The contract saying no one could visit the customer's facility has been widely reported. Rossi stated it and as far as I know IH has not denied it. AA On 8/26/2016 12:41 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: a.ashfield, you give warnings to people not to make speculations and then you speculate

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson wrote: > If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he should prevail in an > ideal world. > If Rossi is actually delivering the 1 MW then he and everyone else in that room is dead. They were all cooked in a matter of minutes. You can confirm that from the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2016 1:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: The court will decide who is right, not you. Technically th

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: > If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be > allowed in the customers plant, why should Murray be allowed to visit it? > Rossi did not allow Murray to visit the reactor, not the customer site. He allowed no one to visit

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi might be able to show gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam is being delivered while not being an accurate assessment of the real power. I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in E-CATWORLD.com is accurate. Here he reads the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the > flowmeter and shipped it back to the manufacturer for calibration. > He did not do that. That was a lie. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The court will decide who is right, not you. > Technically the jury will decide. Rossi asked for a trial by jury. But if the jury disagrees with Santostasi, the jurors will be mistaken. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield, you give warnings to people not to make speculations and then you speculate yourself all the time. Where is the contract between Rossi and IH saying they could not visit the "customer" operations? Again, please look the entire piece not single isolated bits. We already discussed how

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The court will decide who is right, not you. AA On 8/26/2016 11:58 AM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: /It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why do you think they could have contributed anything to the plant design or operation? They ultimately hired Murray, but lacking tech

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Eric, While the story is murky, I got the impression Murray was hired late in the game, had an IT background, and was not allowed in the plant;until the trial was over, let alone allowed in the customers plant. If IH and Rossi signed an agreement before the trial that no one would be allowed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

*It doesn't look like IH had a single technical person so why do you think they could have contributed anything to the plant design or operation? They ultimately hired Murray, but lacking tech expertise they hired someone with the wrong experience. Likewise, it seems that they were unable to

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:47 AM, a.ashfield wrote: Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that > should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the > documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the >

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Jed:: "It says they found lines of rust in the flow meter, which indicate how high the water went." That sounds most unlikely as the ERV was reported to have removed the flowmeter and shipped it back to the manufacturer for calibration. So when did they get to inspect it? I would think the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Jed: "Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that should be apparent to anyone who has had a chance to read all of the documents filed so far. Leonardo made zero effort to involve IH in the planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an effort to

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

ok, this is a good news for the affair... I'm not unrealistically optimistic anyway ;-> 2016-08-26 15:46 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell : > Alain Sepeda wrote: > > Just to confirm my understanding. >> it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection?

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Alain Sepeda wrote: Just to confirm my understanding. > it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection? > I have not heard this. This is not what Exhibit 5 says. It says they found lines of rust in the flow meter, which indicate how high the water went. This

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: Being a bit naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you > want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed working. > Whether or not this happened, there's a more general point that should be

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Just to confirm my understanding. it seems the rust have been cleaned after inspection? If I don't make an error, this tells much more. what other "evidence" have been cleaned. I remember of cooling circuit fluid (which thus may be salted, eg for highering vaporisation temp)... Being a bit

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I wrote: > I do not know the extent of the error from running the flow meter below > the minimum threshold might be. But I would never run a flow meter that > records only 36 pulses a day. That seems like a terrible idea. . . . > More to the point I would never pay $89 million based on such a

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: You know better than the manufacturer who says it does? > Not me. I.H. and Murray say the manufacturer says that flow is too low. Evidently, you have some other source of information. For some reason, you think that the face plate and manual are wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: Murray is speculating the stains he saw were proof. > Okay, that is a different story. But I think *you* are speculating here. You speculate that stains are not proof. I suppose just about anyone would agree that a rust water mark in a pipe and in an

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You know better than the manufacturer who says it does? On 8/25/2016 4:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: The flow meter works at the reported flow. No, it does not. It should give a good reading if it was

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Murray is speculating the stains he saw were proof. They are not. A piping drawing would end the argument. On 8/25/2016 5:38 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield > wrote: There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for Murray's >> speculations. >> > > Those are observations, not speculations. > Look here now: If you want to say "I don't believe it" or "I think Murray is lying" go ahead and say that. That is a

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The flow meter works at the reported flow. > No, it does not. > It should give a good reading if it was calibrated. > No, especially not when the pipe is half full. It was, definitely, half full. There is physical proof of that. > There is no

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The flow meter works at the reported flow. It should give a good reading if it was calibrated. There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for Murray's speculations. A piping drawing would probably clear up the controversy but you can't apparently provide such basic evidence. So

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: The writer said there was "No evidence". There obviously was. > The only evidence available indicates the flow meter was wrong and the test failed. There is no evidence that it worked. You cited a calibration as evidence that the flow meter was

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

The writer said there was "No evidence". There obviously was. You can claim it was wrong but not that there was no evidence. Where is the piping drawing necessary to figure out who is right? On 8/25/2016 9:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

a.ashfield wrote: "The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no > evidence it was." > No evidence? How about 102.8C @ atmospheric pressure, according to the > gauges? > It is not possible this was at atmospheric pressure. If that is what the

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

would ever consider seriously. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.

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

o:dlrober...@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: 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

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote: Just consider what you would believe if shown

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

t; Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm Subject: 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 w

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

al Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he could fake it. The power calculatio

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeinghow he could fake it. The power calculations depend on the

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

can pull off a similar scam and get $100 million!! ;-) Naw, that is not something that I would ever consider seriously. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]

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

!! Naw, that is not something that I would ever consider seriously. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation David Rober

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

;frobertc...@hotmail.com><mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com><mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Dave-- The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liqui

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

it. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback wil

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

concern you. That is a non issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober.

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

. That is a non issue. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: It appears tha

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

supplied. You should read over my previous posts and I suspect you will find much in common with my thoughts. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inter

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

is happening? I do not know but it has a ring of truth to it if the customer is not getting the 1 MW as reported. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inter

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

.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am Subject: 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.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

it's kept at boiling to make it easy to fake the results. Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM,

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson wrote: That is not entirely true because

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

ddress. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmosph

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

the pressure gauge then it is time to focus on the Bernoulli effect. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Possibly

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

technique would go a long way toward ensuring dry steam is always generated. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Yo

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

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

ould address. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure. That is dry steam. That

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

of the parties should address. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure. That i

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Dave-- The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water. If the conditions are 1 bar at a temperature above

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

l.com> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Dave-- Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from? I thought the pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

or dying out of the CATS. This is an important factor that both of the parties should address. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

and reasonable manner. Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Dave--

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

ubject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Dave-- Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from? I thought the pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs. I think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured. Bob Cook Bob, I used a steam

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

; Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation Dave-- Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from? I thought the pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs. I think your assumed conditions above 1

  1   2   >