Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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

[a.ashfield]

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 in this case the facts are not well enough known to form 
a judgement yet, despite your touching faith in Murray.  The missing 
pipe drawing should be enough to make you suspicious.

AA

On 8/26/2016 10:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 out. One side or the other is lying. My bet is that Penon 
is lying. You apparently think Murray is. If you are right, Rossi will 
prove it is a lie, and I.H. will get in trouble.


Your ad hominem about the ERV is unwarranted and uncalled for.


Exhibit 5 shows that Penon is an idiot. Anyone who would try pass off 
that pack of lies is an idiot. However, he was not so stupid that he 
attempted to answer the questions. I gather he went back to Italy 
instead. I doubt there can be a trial without his testimony, and I 
doubt he will come back to the U.S. to face I.H.'s counter-suit.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 out. One side or the other is lying. My bet is that Penon is lying.
You apparently think Murray is. If you are right, Rossi will prove it is a
lie, and I.H. will get in trouble.



> Your ad hominem about the ERV is unwarranted and uncalled for.
>

Exhibit 5 shows that Penon is an idiot. Anyone who would try pass off that
pack of lies is an idiot. However, he was not so stupid that he attempted
to answer the questions. I gather he went back to Italy instead. I doubt
there can be a trial without his testimony, and I doubt he will come back
to the U.S. to face I.H.'s counter-suit.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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.


I got it from Exhibit 5.

It is in the court documents. Murray said he looked inside the meter. 
He could not have done that if Penon had sent it back. If you believe 
Exhibit 5, you see the meter was not sent back. If you don't believe 
Exhibit 5 then you think I.H. is filing lies with the court. Rossi 
could prove this is a lie by filing shipping papers showing the meter 
was gone. I.H. would get in big trouble. I doubt they would be so stupid.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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.


I got it from Exhibit 5.

It is in the court documents. Murray said he looked inside the meter. He
could not have done that if Penon had sent it back. If you believe Exhibit
5, you see the meter was not sent back. If you don't believe Exhibit 5 then
you think I.H. is filing lies with the court. Rossi could prove this is a
lie by filing shipping papers showing the meter was gone. I.H. would get in
big trouble. I doubt they would be so stupid.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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 calibration," 
that would be speculation. What I said was a positive assertion, not 
speculation. You seem to think you can recast sentences and their 
meanings without regard to syntax.


If you do not believe me, you should say so, rather than putting words 
in my mouth.


Why no piping drawing, that is key to most of it?  Easier to argue
without the facts?


No, the rust is the key. A drawing might be wrong, but physical 
evidence is proof. But how do you know these are not facts? For that 
matter, how do you know I have not seen a piping drawing? As I have 
pointed out before, you have (another!) peculiar notion which is that 
information you personally have not seen does not exist.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/26/2016 06:31 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I am referring to the famous HotCat test where the three scientists 
wrote a nice long report.  I believe it was the last demonstration 
before the year long test.  Perhaps someone can find the exact 
reference, but it has been a while now.  Jed, give me a hand here.



Thanks -- this actually sounds interesting.  I had long since stopped 
following Rossi at that point (after concluding that his tests four or 
five years back were clearly fraudulent) and so I missed it.


If you can find a report on it I'd appreciate it.  No rush, though! I 
have other stuff I'm supposed to be doing tonight, rather than 
dissecting one of Rossi's old tests.


Anyhow I'd actually find deconstructing that a lot more interesting than 
deconstructing the year-long test.  If you know of a paper on it, with 
things like graphs and tables and actual data, that would be great.


(For the record I do not doubt that the test took place!  I doubt the 
results were as they appeared, but that's something else again, and it's 
based on the Uri Geller effect -- once someone is proved a liar I doubt 
everything they say, so if Uri Geller claims something now, I doubt it's 
true.  If he does a demo for some scientists, and they believe it's all 
true, I doubt they're right.  But that doesn't mean it's not interesting 
to go over it and try to find the glitches.)


It was well publicized and included a several day period during which 
the output was set to a fixed power.  During the test the input power 
being supplied to the device was slowly dropping as presumably more 
excess power was being generated.  A temperature sensor was attached 
to one end of the device which fed back that information into his 
control box.  Does this ring any bells?


I suppose we can search further if you really doubt that the test took 
place.   I feel a bit lazy at the moment.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.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 reason?



I don't know why he does anything.  I was asking for a specific 
assertion.  AFAIK he never made such an assertion.



Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any
significant period of time had he not discussed that issue?


People who looked seriously at his output power curves stopped taking 
him seriously years ago.  So, this objection is not relevant.


It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his
systems open loop especially when you should recall the HotCat
test performed by respected scientists.  They took notes which
clearly showed the input power being throttled back in time as the
output power was maintained at a constant level.  This is the
obvious finger print of negative feedback.


No, I recall no such thing.  In fact Rossi did indeed supposedly run 
his demos open loop four or five years ago. He set the input power to 
a fixed value and then showed the output power ramping up to a value 
several times the input.


And this appears to be the same, exact system, just replicated many 
times.  So, the assumption that there's feedback in it now seems 
unsupported, just like the assertion that there's a recirc pump which 
is pulling the pressure below 1 atm at the other end of the steam pipe.


And no, I don't recall any clear report by independent parties that 
the input power was definitely throttled back while the output power 
remained fixed.  Please give a specific example -- I really recall no 
such thing.


There were a handful of more or less independent tests; presumably you 
have 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 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 does this information come from? What was the feedback
parameter
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it
control, and how?

I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I am referring to the famous HotCat test where the three scientists wrote a 
nice long report.  I believe it was the last demonstration before the year long 
test.  Perhaps someone can find the exact reference, but it has been a while 
now.  Jed, give me a hand here.

It was well publicized and included a several day period during which the 
output was set to a fixed power.  During the test the input power being 
supplied to the device was slowly dropping as presumably more excess power was 
being generated.  A temperature sensor was attached to one end of the device 
which fed back that information into his control box.  Does this ring any bells?

I suppose we can search further if you really doubt that the test took place.   
I feel a bit lazy at the moment.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.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  reason?


I don't know why he does anything.  I was asking for a specific
assertion.  AFAIK he never made such an assertion.



  Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any  
significant period of time had he not discussed that issue?


People who looked seriously at his output power curves stoppedtaking 
him seriously years ago.  So, this objection is not relevant.


  It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his  
systems open loop especially when you should recall the HotCat  test 
performed by respected scientists.  They took notes which  clearly showed 
the input power being throttled back in time as the  output power was 
maintained at a constant level.  This is the  obvious finger print of 
negative feedback.


No, I recall no such thing.  In fact Rossi did indeed supposedly runhis 
demos open loop four or five years ago.  He set the input powerto a fixed 
value and then showed the output power ramping up to avalue several times 
the input.

And this appears to be the same, exact system, just replicated many
times.  So, the assumption that there's feedback in it now seems
unsupported, just like the assertion that there's a recirc pumpwhich is 
pulling the pressure below 1 atm at the other end of thesteam pipe.

And no, I don't recall any clear report by independent parties thatthe 
input power was definitely throttled back while the output powerremained 
fixed.  Please give a specific example -- I really recallno such thing.

There were a handful of more or less independent tests; presumablyyou 
have 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 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 does this information come from? What was the feedback  
parameter 
  (i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly,  
did it 
  control, and how?
  
  I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never  
seen it 
  stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.
  

  

  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Jed,

I worry that you are placing too much emphasis upon that rust stain.  It would 
be wise to speak with an expert from the company that makes the device to 
determine if they agree.  Also, you should be able to get additional 
information about that stain from the witness.  He should be able to tell you 
where the flow meter was located relative to pumps, tanks, and etc.  Was it in 
the lowest point in the return system for instance?

Are you holding back information from us due to it being proprietary?  Why 
should I.H. not reveal everything they know about the system design?  The 
reason I ask is that we should be capable of figuring out whether or not the 
flow meter was starved of coolant water by that relatively minor bit of 
information.  Rust stain is one clue, but surely the other information would 
support that conclusion if it is valid.

I agree that the stain appears to be strong evidence if proven true.  But, the 
actual layout of the system should add additional support.  Who benefits by 
hiding this data from us?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 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 "speculation." If I said, "I suppose 
Rossi did not send the flow meter back for calibration," that would be 
speculation. What I said was a positive assertion, not speculation. You seem to 
think you can recast sentences and their meanings without regard to syntax.


If you do not believe me, you should say so, rather than putting words in my 
mouth.


 

Why no piping drawing, that is key to most of it?  Easier to argue
without the facts?



No, the rust is the key. A drawing might be wrong, but physical evidence is 
proof. But how do you know these are not facts? For that matter, how do you 
know I have not seen a piping drawing? As I have pointed out before, you have 
(another!) peculiar notion which is that information you personally have not 
seen does not exist.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 
contract, you can force someone to pay you no matter what happens in 
the real world...


It all depends on the court and the jury; but certainly, if you can 
prove fraud, the case goes out the window. Otherwise, some courts 
respect strict interpretation, and don't draw assumptions about the 
intent of the contract. Many contracts are written for strict 
interpretation, and outside of fraud, there are good reasons to 
believe that this test was never intended by Rossi to 'prove' the 
thing worked.*It looks to me like he intended it to be a performance 
test, and nothing more. *


But a "performance test" would absolutely show whether it worked. That's 
/exactly/ what it would show, in fact.


How could it not be intended as a demonstration that it worked? Either 
it performs as asserted or it's broken, and this test should have shown 
that.


This is not like a "safety" test of a new drug, that doesn't check to 
see if it works -- in this case, "performance" was all there was to it.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

You wont get an arguement from me suggesting that I.H. should pay without 
knowing the truth.   The truth is what I seek; did the Rossi system deliver 1 
MW for the year or did it not?  We owe it to Rossi and I.H. to determine the 
actual truth of the matter.

I realize that many on the list have drawn a final, absolute conclusion already 
while operating upon many of the possible facts.   But I do not know what is 
true or not, or who is telling the truth or not.  For example, how do we know 
for a certainty that someone actually climbed up on the roof and attempted to 
capture the outward heat flow rate?  At that time, why did they not look down 
through the fan cover to see what type of equipment was visible?  Did they say 
the vent was opaque?  Would you not take a sneak look?

Perhaps we need to water board both parties and get to the truth?  Or, it might 
be easier to wait until 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 Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 orders that does 
not prove that they are honest and accurate.




My point is that if you were the trustee of a lot of other people's money, and 
someone did the equivalent of saying, "trust me, what just happened was a 
1-year 1MW test that just completed successfully," and you were not able to 
verify that proposition yourself to your own satisfaction, hopefully you would 
not give them any money. 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 questions.  It's a matter of what financially 
responsible behavior would look like on the part of IH.  I'm arguing they 
shouldn't give 89 million dollars to someone unless they really believe that 
money is owed.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 reason?


I don't know why he does anything.  I was asking for a specific 
assertion.  AFAIK he never made such an assertion.



Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any 
significant period of time had he not discussed that issue?


People who looked seriously at his output power curves stopped taking 
him seriously years ago.  So, this objection is not relevant.


It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his systems 
open loop especially when you should recall the HotCat test performed 
by respected scientists.  They took notes which clearly showed the 
input power being throttled back in time as the output power was 
maintained at a constant level.  This is the obvious finger print of 
negative feedback.


No, I recall no such thing.  In fact Rossi did indeed supposedly run his 
demos open loop four or five years ago.  He set the input power to a 
fixed value and then showed the output power ramping up to a value 
several times the input.


And this appears to be the same, exact system, just replicated many 
times.  So, the assumption that there's feedback in it now seems 
unsupported, just like the assertion that there's a recirc pump which is 
pulling the pressure below 1 atm at the other end of the steam pipe.


And no, I don't recall any clear report by independent parties that the 
input power was definitely throttled back while the output power 
remained fixed.  Please give a specific example -- I really recall no 
such thing.


There were a handful of more or less independent tests; presumably you 
have 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 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 does this information come from? What was the feedback parameter
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it
control, and how?

I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Craig Haynie]

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 matter what happens in 
the real world...


It all depends on the court and the jury; but certainly, if you can 
prove fraud, the case goes out the window. Otherwise, some courts 
respect strict interpretation, and don't draw assumptions about the 
intent of the contract. Many contracts are written for strict 
interpretation, and outside of fraud, there are good reasons to believe 
that this test was never intended by Rossi to 'prove' the thing worked. 
It looks to me like he intended it to be a performance test, and nothing 
more. Of course, if the apparent incompetence of Penon is legitimate, 
then I wouldn't rule for Rossi on this issue. But otherwise, don't put 
me on a jury and expect unwritten assumptions to be honored.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 
telling the truth is where we differ.


Yes.  And you're so reasonable in general I don't understand how you can 
still think Rossi might have been telling the truth.


It's like the WTC collapse -- after watching videos of it a disgusting 
number of times, and after watching an absurd number of videos of 
demolitions to really learn what they looked like, and after doing some 
back of the envelope calculations on momentum and expected collapse 
speeds, and after considering the difficulties in setting up a 
demolition to behave as the actual collapse did, and observing things 
like the puff of smoke from the bottom of the building which should have 
been followed by a bottom-up collapse (if it were really a demolition 
and that really was the bottom being blown out as claimed by the 
hoaxers) rather than a top-down collapse (as actually happened on the 
videos I watched so many times), I was no longer able to entertain the 
idea that explosives had anything to do with the collapse.  Not because 
FEMA said so, but because it was just about impossible to imagine how 
that could have worked.  (And I still don't understand Steven Jones, who 
is a physicist and should have known better.)


By the same token, after going over Rossi's figures and graphs with a 
fine tooth comb four or five years back, and after considering the 
absurdity of tuning the system to produce low-grade steam rather than 
something more useful and clear-cut, with the assertion that it's /dry 
dry dry/ and never any solid proof to back that up, and after observing 
that the ecat power curve /could not possibly be what he claimed/, I no 
longer consider the possibility that he's telling the truth to be a 
believable option.  The only question I might have regards some of the 
details of how he faked it.


As far as I can tell, this is the same, exact demo system he exhibited 
four or five years ago, just with a lot more units, and with the water 
being recirculated.  The setup is the same -- heaters bringing the water 
up to boiling, steam is produced /just above boiling/, and the claim is 
made that the steam is dry.  And everything hinges on the steam being 
/dry/, which would be obvious and inarguable if only the temp were 10 or 
20 degrees higher -- but it isn't.  And the only demos done with liquid 
output water below 100C, which should have been rock solid proof, were 
done without flow meters in the circuit during the actual run.





At this point all I can say is that we need more data before
we can prove that Rossi is not being truthfully. 



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 be interesting, but
they follow the proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.



How can you believe he might be truthful?  I don't get it.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 questions.
>

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 matter what happens in the real world. This resembles
the notion among income tax conspiracy believers that that if the flag in a
courtroom has a fringe, the court is not legitimate and you can ignore the
judgement:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flag.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments#Conspiracy_arguments.2C_in_general

This is sort of a magical escape clause that the conspiracy people think
the government can be forced to abide by. It doesn't work that way. They
end up in jail, fringe or no fringe. You might call this a fringe belief.

In real life, a judge, mediator, or consumer agency applies common sense
when enforcing a contract, or excusing payment. It makes no difference what
the contract says. If it is clear that the services were not rendered, or
the goods not delivered, or the goods were defective, the customer does not
have to pay.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I recall Rossi discussing power control on numerous occasions.  Why would he 
hire control experts if that were not the reason?

Do you think that anyone would have taken him seriously for any significant 
period of time had he not discussed that issue?  Of course he has never given 
us a wiring diagram to review and it would have been a major surprise otherwise.

It seems a bit unfair for anyone to state that Rossi runs his systems open loop 
especially when you should recall the HotCat test performed by respected 
scientists.  They took notes which clearly showed the input power being 
throttled back in time as the output power was maintained at a constant level.  
This is the obvious finger print of negative feedback.

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 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 does this information come from?  What was the feedback parameter 
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it 
control, and how?

I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it 
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 calibration," that would
be speculation. What I said was a positive assertion, not speculation. You
seem to think you can recast sentences and their meanings without regard to
syntax.

If you do not believe me, you should say so, rather than putting words in
my mouth.



> Why no piping drawing, that is key to most of it?  Easier to argue without
> the facts?
>

No, the rust is the key. A drawing might be wrong, but physical evidence is
proof. But how do you know these are not facts? For that matter, how do you
know I have not seen a piping drawing? As I have pointed out before, you
have (another!) peculiar notion which is that information you personally
have not seen does not exist.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 telling the 
truth is where we differ.  I am much closer to believing that he performed some 
type of magic trick than that his system is delivering 1 MW  but, until all the 
evidence is presented I refrain from passing final judgement.

It is obvious that you and Jed are totally convinced of malice, but I would 
hope that you and the others 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, you are doing the equivalent of using a physics model topredict 
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 howthe WTC 
collapsed.

In the case of 9/11 they used the parametrized approach because itwas 
already screamingly in-your-face obvious that airplanes hit thebuildings 
and then they fell down and they were trying to figure outhow, not whether, 
they collapsed.

The same goes here.  From the lack of gigantic heat sinks stickingout 
of the roof of the "customer site", we know beyond a reasonabledoubt that 
there was no 1 MW of heat.  So a detailedanalysis of the data should be 
directed toward determining howthe heat was faked, not whether the heat was 
faked.

Your approach is to analyse the details in an attempt at determining
whether the heat was faked.  But we already know that.

It's like you've watched a magician make a woman turn into a tiger,and 
you're trying to analyze everything you saw him do while he wason stage in 
an effort to determine whether she really turned  into a tiger.  Seriously, 
that's not going to lead to anythingof much value.  Trying to figure out 
how he faked it wouldbe a lot more useful.




On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A.  Lawrence wrote:



  
  
On 08/26/2016 02:04 PM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
I have been pursuing my model as to how Rossi mightbe able to show 
gauge readings that imply that 1 MW of steam isbeing delivered while 
not being an accurate assessment of thereal power.

I assumed that the information published by Engineer48 in
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.
  
  Why?
  
  The readings which were recorded are extremely  implausible, to the 
point of being impossible.  So why would you  assume they're correct?
  
  It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded,  were 
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written  down.  And 
once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls  immediately -- a 
tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus  another inaccuracy in 
recording the flow rate, and you're done.
  
  Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as  
recorded was exactly as the gauges read?
  
  
  
 
At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we
can prove that Rossi is not being truthfully.  
  
  Bosh.  Go back to the discussion of where the 1 megawatt ofheat 
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 be interesting, but they follow the proof in 
this  case, they don't provide the proof.
  
  


  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Eric Walker]

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 orders that does not prove that they are honest and accurate.
>

My point is that if you were the trustee of a lot of other people's money,
and someone did the equivalent of saying, "trust me, what just happened was
a 1-year 1MW test that just completed successfully," and you were not able
to verify that proposition yourself to your own satisfaction, hopefully you
would not give them any money. 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 questions.  It's a matter of what
financially responsible behavior would look like on the part of IH.  I'm
arguing they shouldn't give 89 million dollars to someone unless they
really believe that money is owed.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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 manufacturer
for calibration.


He did not do that. That was a lie.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 orders that does 
not prove that they are honest and accurate.

Dave

 

 

 

-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 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 should prevail in an 
ideal world.




Suppose I have a frobnicator that I claim can flibbertygibbet.  I'm willing to 
sell it to you not for 1000 dollars, or 100,000 dollars, but 100,000,000 
dollars.  You agree and give me a handsome initial sum, which covers my showing 
you how to work the thing and any future improvements.  Now I hold it behind my 
back, and have one of my friends stand behind me, and I operate the device 
where you can't see it.  The friend says the frobnicator did indeed 
flibbertygibbet.  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 thing doesn't work as advertised?  I sincerely 
hope not.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 does this information come from?  What was the feedback parameter 
(i.e., what temperature probes were used) and what, exactly, did it 
control, and how?


I know a lot of people have assumed this, but I have never seen it 
stated as a fact, and I have never seen it claimed by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 be interesting, but they *follow* the proof in
> this case, they don't provide the proof.
>

Well said. Start with the simple, direct proof.

Do not get lost in the details. There are many details we do not know, but
the overall answer is clear from the photos of the room.



> The reason is *$100 million dollars*.  For a contract that size, IH's man
> should have been allowed to visit anything he bloody well wanted to visit,
> including following Rossi when he goes to the bathroom just to be sure it's
> all on the level.  If Rossi were honest then his behavior would be
> inexplicable.
>

Exactly! Again you cut to the chase. This is the key issue. Let us not be
distracted by evasions, interpretations of the contract, and so on. Even if
the contract said I.H. people were not allowed into the customer site,
Rossi and his lawyer Johnson should have thrown aside the contract and
opened the door. It was worth $89 million to them, if the claims are true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Eric Walker]

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 or in any of
its amendments.  And in that sense they would disagree with your
characterization, above.  Unless some other document comes to light that
provides further information, their case seems like a good one, although
the law will not necessarily go the way one expects it to.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Craig Haynie]

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 thing doesn't work as advertised? I sincerely hope not.
>
> Eric

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
evaluation or opting out if he disagrees with the final report. 

His saving grace may be that Rossi is looking like a fraud with the
information we've currently seen; and that may not go unnoticed by the
court.

Craig

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 case of 9/11 they used the parametrized approach because it was 
already screamingly in-your-face obvious that airplanes hit the 
buildings and then they fell down and they were trying to figure out 
/how/, not /whether/, they collapsed.


The same goes here.  From the lack of gigantic heat sinks sticking out 
of the roof of the "customer site", we know beyond a reasonable doubt 
that /there was no 1 MW of heat/.  So a detailed analysis of the data 
should be directed toward determining /how/ the heat was faked, not 
/whether/ the heat was faked.


Your approach is to analyse the details in an attempt at determining 
/whether/ the heat was faked.  But we already know that.


It's like you've watched a magician make a woman turn into a tiger, and 
you're trying to analyze everything you saw him do while he was on stage 
in an effort to determine /whether she really turned into a tiger/.  
Seriously, that's not going to lead to anything of much value.  Trying 
to figure out /how he faked it/ would be a lot more useful.




On 08/26/2016 03:24 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



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 in 
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.


Why?

The readings which were recorded are /extremely/ implausible, to the 
point of being impossible.  So why would you assume they're correct?


It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded, were 
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written down.  
And once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls immediately 
-- a tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus another 
inaccuracy in recording the flow rate, and you're done.


Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as recorded 
was exactly as the gauges read?





At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can 
prove that Rossi is not being truthfully. 


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 be interesting, but they 
/follow/ the proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 manufacturer for calibration.
>>
>
> He did not do that. That was a lie.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Eric Walker]

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
> evaluation or opting out if he disagrees with the final report.
>

The contract nowhere says that IH would allow the equivalent of Leonardo
performing the trick behind their back.  There are many reasonable
expectations that are not captured in a contract that can be used to
invalidate it.  One of them is that IH would be going against their
fiduciary duty to their investors to intentionally purchase something they
are unable to distinguish from a lemon.

Beyond this I know little about the soundness of IH's decision to enter
into this specific license agreement and would be as interested as anyone
to know more about the thinking that went into it.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Eric Walker]

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 should
> prevail in an ideal world.
>

Suppose I have a frobnicator that I claim can flibbertygibbet.  I'm willing
to sell it to you not for 1000 dollars, or 100,000 dollars, but 100,000,000
dollars.  You agree and give me a handsome initial sum, which covers my
showing you how to work the thing and any future improvements.  Now I hold
it behind my back, and have one of my friends stand behind me, and I
operate the device where you can't see it.  The friend says the frobnicator
did indeed flibbertygibbet.  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 thing doesn't work as
advertised?  I sincerely hope not.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 not allow Murray to visit the reactor, not the customer 
site. He allowed no one to visit the customer site.


Murray was an I.H. employee, so Rossi was obligated to allow him in.


The reason is /$100 million dollars/.  For a contract that size, IH's 
man should have been allowed to visit anything he bloody well wanted to 
visit, including following Rossi when he goes to the bathroom just to be 
sure it's all on the level.  If Rossi were honest then his behavior 
would be inexplicable.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 in 
E-CATWORLD.com is accurate.


Why?

The readings which were recorded are /extremely/ implausible, to the 
point of being impossible.  So why would you assume they're correct?


It's a very reasonable guess is that the readings, as recorded, were 
entirely bogus -- the actual values were not what was written down. And 
once you've admitted that detail, the rest of it falls immediately -- a 
tiny inaccuracy in recording the pressure, plus another inaccuracy in 
recording the flow rate, and you're done.


Who are the hoard of witnesses that attested that the data as recorded 
was exactly as the gauges read?





At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can 
prove that Rossi is not being truthfully. 


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 be interesting, but they /follow/ the 
proof in this case, they don't provide the proof.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 working.


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 persuade them of its validity.  We are even given to 
understand that IH had objected to the Doral business being construed 
as the GPT.  This should put anyone on notice that *the territory 
we're in here is not normal territory but instead **Alice in 
Wonderland territory*.


That says it well.  I've been involved in a lot of contract R over the 
last few decades, and that's basically what this is, so I have some idea 
of what kind of behavior one might expect to see from both sides of the 
table.  On the other hand, I've /never/ worked on a deal for $100 
million -- it was always much smaller amounts.  The idea that someone 
could behave the way Rossi did, on a deal this size, and still have any 
chance of satisfying the customer and collecting on the contract is 
beyond bizarre; it's totally hallucinogenic.


It's no surprise at all that it ended with a lawsuit.  The only 
surprise, really, is that IH waited until the end of the "test" and 
didn't initiate a suit a whole lot sooner than they did, since they 
already had $11 million in the kitty, dumped down a hole for nothing in 
return.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 that. That was a lie.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 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 the location of the "customer" was not 
congruent with them using 1 MW for industrial processing in a retailer 
zoned area in a small warehouse, we already discussed the homemade 
business card with an not existing director of engineering (with no 
real online presence of any kind), how the business card has a photo 
of a plant in Japan that has nothing to do with the customer, a 
strange name for the company JM Products, similar to a well known and 
real chemical products company, but M stands for Matthew and no 
Matthey (super weird), the flowmeter operating below specs, Fabiani 
not giving raw data even if he promised to do so, Penon not answering 
simple and direct questions from Murray and so and so on.
You may defend Rossi on one of these items but how you can conceive of 
a defense that deals in a reasonable way with all these issues (and 
the list is not exhaustive at all)?
It is clear you are simply in denial and cognitive dissonance if you 
can ignore the whole picture.

Murky you say?

Giovanni








On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:17 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:


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 in the customers plant, why should Murray be
allowed to visit it?  It was the ERV's job to report on how well
the plant worked.
If I were Rossi, I too would be suspicious of of letting an
unknown  IH employee snoop around.  In retrospect it seems that
Rossi had already become suspicious of IH's motives.
It also seems extraordinary to me that IH would divulge details of
their dirty linen to an outsider like Jed.   If it were Murray, an
independent consultant, who leaked the information, it doesn't
look good for him.
AA

On 8/26/2016 11:54 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

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 planning and execution of the
alleged GPT, and at no point was there an effort to persuade
them of its validity. "

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
understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do
something about it.
AA


That was me, not Jed.  Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am
unfamiliar with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any
technical claims being made.  Perhaps Murray was their only man.
Perhaps they retained one of the best engineering firms in the
world. Whichever case it was is irrelevant to the point that was
being made, which is that the alleged GPT was not done with IH's
participation.  This is even more strange than the fact that
Murray was prevented from seeing the customer area.  If the fact
about IH not being involved in the arrangements for the test does
not raise a red flag for you, I don't know what would.  I suspect
that nothing would.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 photos of the room. That's in the real world, not an ideal
world.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 should prevail in an 
ideal world.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
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 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

[Jed Rothwell]

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 the customer site.

Murray was an I.H. employee, so Rossi was obligated to allow him in.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 pump front panel values for 24 total devices which 
indicate green condition.  The green suggests that the devices are operating 
exactly as programmed and delivering .115 kg/second of coolant to the ECAT 
series.

In my model I assume that the interior of each of the individual ECATs is 
heated to 130 C by the heating mechanism.  This liquid water then exits each 
ECAT through a restrictive opening that allows a portion of the liquid to flash 
into vapor after exiting.  I chose this scheme because there does not appear to 
be any form of active water level control for each device.  This also allows 
some form of active feedback to regulate the temperature since liquid is the 
only phase contained within the heating region.

Under those conditions, the power being delivered is approximately 30.1 kW if 
the temperature of the returned coolant is 68 C.  The temperature of the 
flashed liquid vapor combination is approximately at 102 C according to 
reports, but this actual temperature can vary depending upon the actual 
pressure present at its measurement point.  Also, a pump can be placed after 
the condenser system which allows the pressure at Rossi's device to be at or 
even below atmospheric pressure if desired.  This appears to hang up some 
vorts, but it should not be claimed that the pressure must be above atmospheric 
when that is not necessary.

Then I decided to see if Bernoulli's principle could be applied to this 
situation in a manner that might help explain why gauges might show confusing, 
conflicting readings.  This seems to be possible provided the pipe inside 
diameter used to carry the steam away from Rossi's system is 2 cm or less.  If 
that pipe is 4 cm, then Bernoulli can not offer much help in this particular 
scenario.  For example, I calculated that a temperature difference of 1.75 C 
would exist between the stationary steam mixture and the steam moving through 
that 2 cm diameter pipe at a velocity of 34.9 m/s.  The temperature estimate is 
based upon the pressure drop using Bernoulli's equation.

This series of calculations are interesting but not definitive.  For instance, 
where is the pressure gauge located relative to the temperature gauge?  If they 
are co located then the Bernoulli effect would not be significant.  Even though 
1.75 C degrees is a significant amount of temperature increase, it still would 
not be enough to fill the entire gap between the litigating parties.  And, of 
course how large is the inner diameter of the actual connecting pipe?  My bet 
is that they use at least a 4 cm diameter product which would drop the 
calculated value very significantly.

At this point all I can say is that we need more data before we can prove that 
Rossi is not being truthfully.  It is not easy to come up with a scientific 
explanation as to how people could be observing the demonstration, while 
reading the important metering and not throwing up their hands in great protest 
if a scam is being conducted.  There is plenty of reason to suspect fraud, but 
to prove how it is taking place is not easy.

Every magic trick that I have seen has a clear scientific explanation as to how 
it is conducted.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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

[Jed Rothwell]

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

[Giovanni Santostasi]

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 the location of the "customer" was not congruent
with them using 1 MW for industrial processing in a retailer zoned area in
a small warehouse, we already discussed the homemade business card with an
not existing director of engineering (with no real online presence of any
kind), how the business card has a photo of a plant in Japan that has
nothing to do with the customer, a strange name for the company JM
Products, similar to a well known and real chemical products company, but M
stands for Matthew and no Matthey (super weird), the flowmeter operating
below specs, Fabiani not giving raw data even if he promised to do so,
Penon not answering simple and direct questions from Murray and so and so
on.
You may defend Rossi on one of these items but how you can conceive of a
defense that deals in a reasonable way with all these issues (and the list
is not exhaustive at all)?
It is clear you are simply in denial and cognitive dissonance if you can
ignore the whole picture.
Murky you say?

Giovanni








On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:17 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> 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 in the customers plant, why should Murray be allowed to visit it?
> It was the ERV's job to report on how well the plant worked.
> If I were Rossi, I too would be suspicious of of letting an unknown  IH
> employee snoop around.  In retrospect it seems that Rossi had already
> become suspicious of IH's motives.
> It also seems extraordinary to me that IH would divulge details of their
> dirty linen to an outsider like Jed.   If it were Murray, an independent
> consultant, who leaked the information, it doesn't look good for him.
> AA
>
> On 8/26/2016 11:54 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> 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
>> planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an
>> effort to persuade them of its validity. "
>>
>> 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
>> understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do something about it.
>> AA
>>
>
> That was me, not Jed.  Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am unfamiliar
> with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any technical claims being
> made.  Perhaps Murray was their only man.  Perhaps they retained one of the
> best engineering firms in the world. Whichever case it was is irrelevant to
> the point that was being made, which is that the alleged GPT was not done
> with IH's participation.  This is even more strange than the fact that
> Murray was prevented from seeing the customer area.  If the fact about IH
> not being involved in the arrangements for the test does not raise a red
> flag for you, I don't know what would.  I suspect that nothing would.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 expertise 
they hired someone with the wrong experience. Likewise, it seems that 
they were unable to understand if the plant was working and if it 
wasn't, do something about it.

AA/
/
/
It doesn't matter if IH had not technical expertise. In fact, the 
fiduciary duty of Rossi should be even higher because of that.

Besides Rossi's audience is the world, not just IH.
If Rossi was not the scam that he is, he should try to convince the 
entire world, let alone other potential investors besides IH, that his 
technology is real.
Doing misleading things (as noted in a interconnected web of lies), 
not involving his partners and investors, avoiding answering questions 
in a direct way, coming up with excuses after excuses and never 
delivering the goods should discredit Rossi for good but his ardent 
followers never give up no matter what idiocy Rossi does and says.


By the way no matter the field of expertise Murray's questions in 
Exibit 5 are relevant and to the point. They are questions we all ask 
and Penon or Rossi never answered.
Fabiani never sent the raw data even when requested to do so several 
times (even renouncing to be paid for his services in exchange of the 
raw data).
Is not all this makes you suspicious (it makes me disgusted), even a 
little bit?


Giovanni



/
/

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:47 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 planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and
at no point was there an effort to persuade them of its validity. "

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 understand if the plant was
working and if it wasn't, do something about it.
AA

On 8/26/2016 9:40 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 working.


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 persuade them of its validity.  We
are even given to understand that IH had objected to the Doral
business being construed as the GPT.  This should put anyone on
notice that the territory we're in here is not normal territory
but instead Alice in Wonderland territory.  If Leonardo believed
that there was a real GPT underway (not a sure thing as far as I
can tell), they will have been proceeding under the understanding
that it was a purely formal thing, to check off some check
boxes.  All of this is independent of the actual manner in which
the alleged GPT was carried out -- whether a shoddy job was done,
or whether it was a bona fide test demonstrating ~ 1MW power for
a year -- which one gathers is a topic of earnest debate on E-Cat
World.

More likely it seems to me is that even Rossi was not of the
understanding that the whole business in Florida was legitimately
the GPT.  Instead I wonder whether the Doral activity was being
conducted for reasons that were not transparent from the
lawsuit.  One thought is that Rossi was putting pressure on IH to
back out of the license agreement on favorable terms, so that he
could enter into a new business arrangement unencumbered with a
more tractable business partner.  IH were unwilling to do so, and
so Rossi sought various ways of raising the stakes, first acting
erratically and then going through the motions of the GPT. 
Perhaps he was of the assumption that IH would want to avoid bad

publicity enough not to allow the matter to go to trial.  If so,
this seems like a miscalculation on his part or a desperate endgame.

IH may have had reasons either to continue with the license
agreement, or at least not cancel it without being reimbursed for
various expenses incurred in Florida beyond the 11.5 million they
had already 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 in the customers plant, why should Murray be allowed to visit 
it?  It was the ERV's job to report on how well the plant worked.
If I were Rossi, I too would be suspicious of of letting an unknown IH 
employee snoop around.  In retrospect it seems that Rossi had already 
become suspicious of IH's motives.
It also seems extraordinary to me that IH would divulge details of their 
dirty linen to an outsider like Jed.   If it were Murray, an independent 
consultant, who leaked the information, it doesn't look good for him.

AA

On 8/26/2016 11:54 AM, Eric Walker wrote:
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 planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and
at no point was there an effort to persuade them of its validity. "

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 understand if the plant was
working and if it wasn't, do something about it.
AA


That was me, not Jed.  Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am 
unfamiliar with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any 
technical claims being made.  Perhaps Murray was their only man.  
Perhaps they retained one of the best engineering firms in the world. 
Whichever case it was is irrelevant to the point that was being made, 
which is that the alleged GPT was not done with IH's participation. 
This is even more strange than the fact that Murray was prevented from 
seeing the customer area.  If the fact about IH not being involved in 
the arrangements for the test does not raise a red flag for you, I 
don't know what would.  I suspect that nothing would.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Giovanni Santostasi]

*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
understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do something about
it.AA*

It doesn't matter if IH had not technical expertise. In fact, the fiduciary
duty of Rossi should be even higher because of that.
Besides Rossi's audience is the world, not just IH.
If Rossi was not the scam that he is, he should try to convince the entire
world, let alone other potential investors besides IH, that his technology
is real.
Doing misleading things (as noted in a interconnected web of lies), not
involving his partners and investors, avoiding answering questions in a
direct way, coming up with excuses after excuses and never delivering the
goods should discredit Rossi for good but his ardent followers never give
up no matter what idiocy Rossi does and says.

By the way no matter the field of expertise Murray's questions in Exibit 5
are relevant and to the point. They are questions we all ask and Penon or
Rossi never answered.
Fabiani never sent the raw data even when requested to do so several times
(even renouncing to be paid for his services in exchange of the raw data).
Is not all this makes you suspicious (it makes me disgusted), even a little
bit?

Giovanni





On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:47 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
> planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an
> effort to persuade them of its validity. "
>
> 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
> understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do something about it.
> AA
>
> On 8/26/2016 9:40 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 working.
>>
>
> 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
> persuade them of its validity.  We are even given to understand that IH had
> objected to the Doral business being construed as the GPT.  This should put
> anyone on notice that the territory we're in here is not normal territory
> but instead Alice in Wonderland territory.  If Leonardo believed that there
> was a real GPT underway (not a sure thing as far as I can tell), they will
> have been proceeding under the understanding that it was a purely formal
> thing, to check off some check boxes.  All of this is independent of the
> actual manner in which the alleged GPT was carried out -- whether a shoddy
> job was done, or whether it was a bona fide test demonstrating ~ 1MW power
> for a year -- which one gathers is a topic of earnest debate on E-Cat World.
>
> More likely it seems to me is that even Rossi was not of the understanding
> that the whole business in Florida was legitimately the GPT.  Instead I
> wonder whether the Doral activity was being conducted for reasons that were
> not transparent from the lawsuit.  One thought is that Rossi was putting
> pressure on IH to back out of the license agreement on favorable terms, so
> that he could enter into a new business arrangement unencumbered with a
> more tractable business partner.  IH were unwilling to do so, and so Rossi
> sought various ways of raising the stakes, first acting erratically and
> then going through the motions of the GPT.  Perhaps he was of the
> assumption that IH would want to avoid bad publicity enough not to allow
> the matter to go to trial.  If so, this seems like a miscalculation on his
> part or a desperate endgame.
>
> IH may have had reasons either to continue with the license agreement, or
> at least not cancel it without being reimbursed for various expenses
> incurred in Florida beyond the 11.5 million they had already paid.  The
> terms for canceling the license agreement may have been too objectionable
> to Rossi without significant modification.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Eric Walker]

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
> planning and execution of the alleged GPT, and at no point was there an
> effort to persuade them of its validity. "
>
> 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
> understand if the plant was working and if it wasn't, do something about it.
> AA
>

That was me, not Jed.  Apart from the hiring of Murray, I am unfamiliar
with the preparations that IH took to evaluate any technical claims being
made.  Perhaps Murray was their only man.  Perhaps they retained one of the
best engineering firms in the world. Whichever case it was is irrelevant to
the point that was being made, which is that the alleged GPT was not done
with IH's participation.  This is even more strange than the fact that
Murray was prevented from seeing the customer area.  If the fact about IH
not being involved in the arrangements for the test does not raise a red
flag for you, I don't know what would.  I suspect that nothing would.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 ERV would not have 
allowed either party to access the meter.  Your earlier story was stains 
in the pipes.



On 8/26/2016 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
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 resembles the ring in a dirty bathtub, or the high water mark on 
a wall from a flood. If the pipe had been full, the rust would be 
evenly distributed throughout the orifice.


It does not say anyone cleaned it up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 persuade them of its validity. "


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 understand if the plant was working and if it 
wasn't, do something about it.

AA

On 8/26/2016 9:40 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 working.


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 persuade them of its validity.  We are even given to 
understand that IH had objected to the Doral business being construed 
as the GPT.  This should put anyone on notice that the territory we're 
in here is not normal territory but instead Alice in Wonderland 
territory.  If Leonardo believed that there was a real GPT underway 
(not a sure thing as far as I can tell), they will have been 
proceeding under the understanding that it was a purely formal thing, 
to check off some check boxes.  All of this is independent of the 
actual manner in which the alleged GPT was carried out -- whether a 
shoddy job was done, or whether it was a bona fide test demonstrating 
~ 1MW power for a year -- which one gathers is a topic of earnest 
debate on E-Cat World.


More likely it seems to me is that even Rossi was not of the 
understanding that the whole business in Florida was legitimately the 
GPT.  Instead I wonder whether the Doral activity was being conducted 
for reasons that were not transparent from the lawsuit.  One thought 
is that Rossi was putting pressure on IH to back out of the license 
agreement on favorable terms, so that he could enter into a new 
business arrangement unencumbered with a more tractable business 
partner.  IH were unwilling to do so, and so Rossi sought various ways 
of raising the stakes, first acting erratically and then going through 
the motions of the GPT. Perhaps he was of the assumption that IH would 
want to avoid bad publicity enough not to allow the matter to go to 
trial. If so, this seems like a miscalculation on his part or a 
desperate endgame.


IH may have had reasons either to continue with the license agreement, 
or at least not cancel it without being reimbursed for various 
expenses incurred in Florida beyond the 11.5 million they had already 
paid.  The terms for canceling the license agreement may have been too 
objectionable to Rossi without significant modification.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Alain Sepeda]

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?
>>
>
> 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 resembles the ring in a dirty bathtub, or the high water mark on a
> wall from a flood. If the pipe had been full, the rust would be evenly
> distributed throughout the orifice.
>
> It does not say anyone cleaned it up.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 resembles the ring in a dirty bathtub, or the high water mark on a
wall from a flood. If the pipe had been full, the rust would be evenly
distributed throughout the orifice.

It does not say anyone cleaned it up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Eric Walker]

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
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
persuade them of its validity.  We are even given to understand that IH had
objected to the Doral business being construed as the GPT.  This should put
anyone on notice that the territory we're in here is not normal territory
but instead Alice in Wonderland territory.  If Leonardo believed that there
was a real GPT underway (not a sure thing as far as I can tell), they will
have been proceeding under the understanding that it was a purely formal
thing, to check off some check boxes.  All of this is independent of the
actual manner in which the alleged GPT was carried out -- whether a shoddy
job was done, or whether it was a bona fide test demonstrating ~ 1MW power
for a year -- which one gathers is a topic of earnest debate on E-Cat World.

More likely it seems to me is that even Rossi was not of the understanding
that the whole business in Florida was legitimately the GPT.  Instead I
wonder whether the Doral activity was being conducted for reasons that were
not transparent from the lawsuit.  One thought is that Rossi was putting
pressure on IH to back out of the license agreement on favorable terms, so
that he could enter into a new business arrangement unencumbered with a
more tractable business partner.  IH were unwilling to do so, and so Rossi
sought various ways of raising the stakes, first acting erratically and
then going through the motions of the GPT.  Perhaps he was of the
assumption that IH would want to avoid bad publicity enough not to allow
the matter to go to trial.  If so, this seems like a miscalculation on his
part or a desperate endgame.

IH may have had reasons either to continue with the license agreement, or
at least not cancel it without being reimbursed for various expenses
incurred in Florida beyond the 11.5 million they had already paid.  The
terms for canceling the license agreement may have been too objectionable
to Rossi without significant modification.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Alain Sepeda]

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 naive I would say it is not smart to clean evidences when you
want to convince someone it works, and it is indeed working.
If my insurance company says I lie to them about a catastrophe in my house,
my best reaction is to protect all evidences, to protect the scene until
the company's expert (and mine) can see the reality without losing any
details of convincing evidences.

It really make you like you are hiding evidences.


2016-08-26 0:03 GMT+02:00 Jed Rothwell :

> 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 instrument is there because that's how high the water was. I
> would say that goes beyond speculation, right to the level of common-sense
> proof. I doubt you will find a plumber or some expert on pipes who looks at
> a stain and comes up with some other explanation. I doubt that you can
> think up some other plausible explanation, and if you do, you will be
> speculating.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 sloppy
report. Even if the manufacturer of the flow meter told me: "We put 1,200
kg minimum on the face plate but it might work okay at a lower rate" I
still would not trust that result.

If you want someone to pay $89 million based on a technical evaluation, you
must make it highly professional. All instruments must be within
specification, with extensive cross-checking. The procedures have to be
strictly according to ASME textbooks. You cannot use an instrument that is
sorta-maybe-might-be within spec but the manufacturer's own face plate says
it isn't.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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. I have not seen your
source, so I cannot judge, but I doubt it.

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. Every flow meter I
have seen records a significant pulse at least every second (when the fluid
is moving). Running one so slowly it only turns over a digit every 40
minutes is crazy. That's an invitation to trouble. That is far too
insensitive.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 instrument is there because that's how high the water was. I
would say that goes beyond speculation, right to the level of common-sense
proof. I doubt you will find a plumber or some expert on pipes who looks at
a stain and comes up with some other explanation. I doubt that you can
think up some other plausible explanation, and if you do, you will be
speculating.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 calibrated.


No, especially not when the pipe is half full. It was, definitely, 
half full. There is physical proof of that.


There is no real evidence the pipe was half full except for
Murray's speculations.


Those are observations, not speculations. He did not suppose, imagine 
or wonder if there is rust in the pipe and in the flow meter. He and 
others _observed that fact_.


You should not distort the facts by calling an observation "speculation."


A piping drawing would probably clear up the controversy but you
can't apparently provide such basic evidence.


I don't need to. The rust is all the proof you need. As I said, if you 
don't believe that Murray and the others observed rust, you will not 
believe a piping drawing from them either.


I would advise you not to believe what Rossi said about this. He lied.

So you keep repeating speculations.


Again, calling an observation or measurement "speculation" does not 
make it speculation. You don't get to redefine English words.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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
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 valid argument. You 
have your reasons for thinking that.


However, when you claim that Murray says he "speculated," you distort 
the discussion. He did not say he speculated. He said he observed 
"iron stain." You are misrepresenting his claims. Perhaps you are 
confused, or you forgot what he said. Let me remind you:


"The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes
indicate that the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as
required by the manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a
substantial portion free of liquid. See Exhibit A."


"Visible" means "observed." It is NOT SPECULATION. It could be a lie. 
It could be a mistake. But it is not speculation. You confuse the 
issue by calling it that. Let's keep things straight, please.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 valid argument. You have your
reasons for thinking that.

However, when you claim that Murray says he "speculated," you distort the
discussion. He did not say he speculated. He said he observed "iron stain."
You are misrepresenting his claims. Perhaps you are confused, or you forgot
what he said. Let me remind you:

"The visible iron stain waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that
the pipe was not continuously full of liquid, as required by the
manufacturer’s specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of
liquid. See Exhibit A."


"Visible" means "observed." It is NOT SPECULATION. It could be a lie. It
could be a mistake. But it is not speculation. You confuse the issue by
calling it that. Let's keep things straight, please.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 real evidence the pipe was half full except for Murray's
> speculations.
>

Those are observations, not speculations. He did not suppose, imagine or
wonder if there is rust in the pipe and in the flow meter. He and
others *observed
that fact*.

You should not distort the facts by calling an observation "speculation."



> A piping drawing would probably clear up the controversy but you can't
> apparently provide such basic evidence.
>

I don't need to. The rust is all the proof you need. As I said, if you
don't believe that Murray and the others observed rust, you will not
believe a piping drawing from them either.

I would advise you not to believe what Rossi said about this. He lied.



> So you keep repeating speculations.
>

Again, calling an observation or measurement "speculation" does not make it
speculation. You don't get to redefine English words.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 you keep repeating speculations.
 AA

On 8/25/2016 1:31 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

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 correct. 
That is not evidence. That is like saying a car can run, therefore a 
car with no gasoline can run. The flow meter was the wrong size and it 
was used incorrectly. Therefore, it gave the wrong answer. That is a 
fact. Calibrating it five times a day would not make the flow meter 
give the right answer when you use it the wrong way.


Pointing to a calibration in response to Murray's comments is a good 
example of a Rossi evasion. Instead of answering a question, he throws 
out a irrelevant assertion.


You ask: How could the flow meter work when the pipe was half full?

He responds: It was calibrated.

You ask: The flow rates and pressures physically impossible. How can 
this be?


He responds: Penon is a nuclear reactor expert.

You can claim it was wrong but not that there was no evidence.


As shown in Exhibit 5, the evidence proves it is wrong. There is no 
evidence the flow meter or pressure were right.


Where is the piping drawing necessary to figure out who is right?


A drawing is not necessary. The rust in the pipe and flow meter proved 
the piping was wrong. If you trust I.H. and Murray, and you think they 
are telling the truth, the rust alone is enough proof. You do not need 
a piping drawing. If you do not trust them, a piping drawing will not 
convince you, because you will say it is fake.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 correct. That
is not evidence. That is like saying a car can run, therefore a car with no
gasoline can run. The flow meter was the wrong size and it was used
incorrectly. Therefore, it gave the wrong answer. That is a fact.
Calibrating it five times a day would not make the flow meter give the
right answer when you use it the wrong way.

Pointing to a calibration in response to Murray's comments is a good
example of a Rossi evasion. Instead of answering a question, he throws out
a irrelevant assertion.

You ask: How could the flow meter work when the pipe was half full?

He responds: It was calibrated.

You ask: The flow rates and pressures physically impossible. How can this
be?

He responds: Penon is a nuclear reactor expert.



> You can claim it was wrong but not that there was no evidence.
>

As shown in Exhibit 5, the evidence proves it is wrong. There is no
evidence the flow meter or pressure were right.



> Where is the piping drawing necessary to figure out who is right?
>

A drawing is not necessary. The rust in the pipe and flow meter proved the
piping was wrong. If you trust I.H. and Murray, and you think they are
telling the truth, the rust alone is enough proof. You do not need a piping
drawing. If you do not trust them, a piping drawing will not convince you,
because you will say it is fake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 > 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 gauge showed, it was wrong. I have heard the gauge did not show this.


"They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and
there's no evidence that it did."
No evidence?  A sealed, factory calibrated meter doesn't count?


A factory calibration will not help if the meter is the wrong type and 
it is used in a pipe half full of water. A factory calibration can 
only show that the meter will work right when it is used correctly.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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
gauge showed, it was wrong. I have heard the gauge did not show this.



> "They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no
> evidence that it did."
> No evidence?  A sealed, factory calibrated meter doesn't count?
>

A factory calibration will not help if the meter is the wrong type and it
is used in a pipe half full of water. A factory calibration can only show
that the meter will work right when it is used correctly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

"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?


"They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no 
evidence that it did."
No evidence?  A sealed, factory calibrated meter doesn't count?  You 
prefer the the guesses of someone that wasn't even there when the plant 
was running?.


AA

On 8/24/2016 7:44 PM, 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 no 
evidence that it did.


If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the 
output power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You haveput 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 people 
were viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  
That is what I am attempting to understand and to find an explanation 
as to how this can happen right under their noses.


I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I 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]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> 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 full drive
input power.  It is not likely that there is enough reserve to
fill in that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, 
half the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other 
days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are 
saying we should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he 
was lying about that, but the rest might be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, 
there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to 
make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a 
Harry Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the 
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and 
so on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence 
strongly indicates that none of it is true.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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).

I have heard rumors that the actual numbers shown on the gauge were higher.

That's all I have heard.


If it really was 0.0 bar or barG, it seems a little odd that they would
record only 1 decimal digit of precision. I would make it at least 3
digits: 0.026 (or whatever). Maybe the instrument only shows 1 digit? The
flow meter only shows the nearest 1,000 liters, meaning in only clicks over
36 times a day. That's a nutty choice for an instrument. It should measure
thousands of units per day.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: David Roberson<mailto: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 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 been revealing the 
trick within my postings.  Please realize that when anyone claims that the data 
is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect.  
Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the 
demonstration.  It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data 
to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met.

Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that 
case.  My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the 
correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet.  If my understand of 
Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C 
at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is 
approximately 0 bar at the output port.

All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe 
location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the 
pressure gauge.  That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power.  The other 
missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water 
by a second problem.  This flow issue has less support at the moment.

Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, 
and 0 bar were accurate?  How could you conclude the steam was wet under that 
condition?   That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

Dave




-Original 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 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 than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power could have 
been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked at how many gauges, 
the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- 
it doesn't have to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather 
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous 
difference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam line.  That would have been 
diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either steam or water, of 
course).

On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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 people were viewing 
the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am 
attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to how this can happen 
right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I 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><mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com><mailto: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.com>> 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 full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.

Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half the 
reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See Exhibit 5. 
I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that 
part of his 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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, if it's actually 0 +/- 0.1, as would be implied by 
the statement "0.0 bar", then a pressure at the high end of that would 
push the boiling point up by enough so that 102.8 would no longer be 
assuredly dry.  (But that's based on a quick Google search for water 
vapor pressure tables, and could be wrong.)


The other interesting question here is, 0 bar above /what?/ What was 
atmospheric pressure on site -- was that measured?  The temperature is 
absolute but the pressure isn't (unless this was done on the surface of 
the Moon and 0 bar really meant, /zero bar/), and the baseline 
atmospheric pressure may have a significant impact.




On 08/24/2016 08:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You couldhave 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 otherwise what you state must be correct and the output would 
have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 bar.


I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his 
results.  Of course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would 
be exactly 0.0 bar.  That must be a case of his rounding of the 
numbers to emphasize the dryness of the steam.  When this case goes to 
trial his actual numbers might still suggest dry steam without a 
Bernoulli trick or two.


Dave



-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 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 
the /steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow 
requires a pressure differential.  Unless the pressure on the 
"customer site" was below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where 
the steam entered the line /must/have been above atmospheric 
pressure.  So, the 0 bar number must be wrong.


How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field 
when it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't 
take a huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple 
degrees.  Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is 
slightly over atmospheric, matter what was claimed.  As I said 
earlier, this has been the issue since the beginning, four or five 
years ago:  The steam temperature is always kept low enough so that, 
with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's 
"totally dry" may be false.


Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must 
have been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam 
would not flow without a differential), then there must be an 
explanation for the error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.





-Original 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 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 than claimed, and the steam was wet, the
power could have been just about anything.  No matter how many
people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be
the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have
to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an
enormous difference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*.  That
would have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly
with either steam or water, of course).

On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:

You haveput 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.

Anot

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 otherwise what you state 
must be correct and the output would have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 
bar.

I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his results.  Of 
course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would be exactly 0.0 bar.  
That must be a case of his rounding of the numbers to emphasize the dryness of 
the steam.  When this case goes to trial his actual numbers might still suggest 
dry steam without a Bernoulli trick or two.

Dave

 

 

 

-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 that  the steam 
readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that can't beaccurate.  The 
volume of steam was quite large; consequently, theflow rate in the steam 
pipe must have been very fast, andto drive that flow requires a pressure 
differential.  Unless thepressure on the "customer site" was below 
atmospheric, the pressureat the point where the steam entered the line 
musthave beenabove atmospheric pressure.  So, the 0 bar number must be 
wrong.

How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my fieldwhen 
it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn'ttake a huge 
overpressure to raise the boiling point by a coupledegrees.  Throughout 
I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure isslightly over atmospheric, 
matter what was claimed.  As I saidearlier, this has been the issue since 
the beginning, four or fiveyears ago:  The steam temperature is always kept 
low enough so that,with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the 
claim thatit's "totally dry" may be false.

Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently musthave 
been, else the system would not have worked at all, as thesteam would not 
flow without a differential), then there must be anexplanation for the 
error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.



 


 


 


-Original  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 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 than claimed, and the steam was wet,
  the power could have been just about anything.  No matter  
how many people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion  is going 
to be the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet  steam -- it doesn't 
have to be very wet to be carrying  most of the mass as liquid 
rather than gas, since the  liquid phase is so compact, and that 
makes an enormous  difference to the output power.
  
  What more do you need?
  
  BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam
line.  That would have been diagnostic (had it been  chosen to work 
correctly with either steam or water, of  course).
  
  
On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
You have put together agood arguement.  His refusal to 
allow access to thecustomer 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 people were viewing the gauges during the
period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am
attempting to understand and to find an explanationas to 
how this can happen right under their noses

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 the 
/steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow requires a 
pressure differential.  Unless the pressure on the "customer site" was 
below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where the steam entered the 
line /must/have been above atmospheric pressure.  So, the 0 bar number 
must be wrong.


How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field when 
it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't take a 
huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple degrees.  
Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is slightly over 
atmospheric, matter what was claimed.  As I said earlier, this has been 
the issue since the beginning, four or five years ago:  The steam 
temperature is always kept low enough so that, with very slightly 
elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's "totally dry" may be 
false.


Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must have 
been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam would 
not flow without a differential), then there must be an explanation for 
the error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.






-Original 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 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 than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the 
output power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*.  That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:

You haveput 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 people
were viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a
problem.  That is what I am attempting to understand and to find
an explanation as to how this can happen right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I 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]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> 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
full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is enough
reserve to fill in that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some
days, half the reactors produced more power than all of them did
on other days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I
suppose you are saying we should ignore that part of his data. We
should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might be true.

I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I
said, there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time
trying to make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the
logic in a Harry Potter book.

Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site,
and so on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence
strongly indicates that none of it is true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 been revealing the 
trick within my postings.  Please realize that when anyone claims that the data 
is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect.  
Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the 
demonstration.  It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data 
to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met.

Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that 
case.  My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the 
correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet.  If my understand of 
Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C 
at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is 
approximately 0 bar at the output port.

All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe 
location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the 
pressure gauge.  That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power.  The other 
missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water 
by a second problem.  This flow issue has less support at the moment.

Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, 
and 0 bar were accurate?  How could you conclude the steam was wet under that 
condition?   That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original 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 seeinghow 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'sno 
evidence that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many peoplelooked at 
how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some numbers 
assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be verywet to be carrying most of 
the mass as liquid rather than gas, sincethe liquid phase is so compact, 
and that makes an enormousdifference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam line. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to workcorrectly with either steam 
or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


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  
people were viewing the gauges during the period and not  finding a 
problem.  That is what I am attempting to understand  and to find an 
explanation as to how this can happen right  under their noses.
  
  I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I 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]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  

  

  
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote:
  
 
  
  


If half the reactors aretaken out the power would 
definitely fall inhalf without the external loop.  
Even withit, there is only a certain amount of  
  correction that is possible which would be
seen with all of the individual devices
running at full drive input power.  It isnot likely 
that there is enough reserve to  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 no
> evidence that it did.
>

Yes. I estimated that if the fluid was entirely water, that plus a flow
meter reading three times too high would reduce the COP to 1. The flow
meter pipe was reportedly about half full of water, and the flow meter was
the wrong kind, so an error on this scale is plausible.

I do not mean I am sure this is what happened. Some other combination of
errors might explain it. Perhaps it was a mixture of steam and water, and
perhaps the flow meter was off by a factor of 6. Or, perhaps there were
problems with the thermometers. I think there may have been.

I think in any scenario, wet steam is likely to be the biggest contribution
to the error.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the output 
power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You haveput 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 people were 
viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That 
is what I am attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to 
how this can happen right under their noses.


I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I 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]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> 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 full drive input
power.  It is not likely that there is enough reserve to fill in
that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, 
half the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other 
days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are 
saying we should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he was 
lying about that, but the rest might be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, 
there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to 
make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry 
Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the 
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so 
on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly 
indicates that none of it is true.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 specifics, but they were upset.

In Exhibit 19, you see that Rossi refused to allow Murray to visit in July
2015. This is also very disturbing. And it shows that I.H. was worried
about the test and wanted to send another expert.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 people were viewing 
the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am 
attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to how this can happen 
right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I 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]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.




Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half the 
reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See Exhibit 5. 
I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that 
part of his data. We should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might 
be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, there is 
not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to make sense of 
fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the customer, 
Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so on, all seem 
fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly indicates that none of 
it is true.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is
> enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.
>

Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half
the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See
Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we
should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he was lying about
that, but the rest might be true.

I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, there
is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to make sense
of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry Potter book.

Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the customer,
Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so on, all seem
fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly indicates that none
of it is true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

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 the liquid phase the 
velocity of the mixture and the pressure drop along the steam pipe to the 
customer's facility.


The condenser at the end of the steam line creates a negative pressure to drive 
the flow of steam.  Common dynamics and control (D programs are used to design 
the feedback to provide inherient stability in the system.


If as I suspect, reactor control depends upon magnetic resonances within the 
reactor, I may take only one reactor to maintain power within a small band of 
total reactors output.  The reactors may even exhibit a negative temperature 
coeff. and thereby establish a steady power output inherient to the reactor 
design, given a steam demand fixed by condenser pressure/temperature.


Bob Cook


From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: 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 any 
evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is 
probably working much as he states.

My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence 
to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is 
dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is not clear that the fluid 
flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof.

I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of 
steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. 
states with respect to the temperature and pressure values.  I am hoping there 
is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific and 
reasonable manner.  Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook <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 liquid phase 
and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 bar at a temperature 
above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.

Bob

From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto: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 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him t

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 back to the 
input.  I will spare you the explanation at this time, but you really do need 
some form of input power control in order to prevent thermal runaway.

And yes, I have gone to lengths discussing how active coolant control could 
achieve about the same and some additionally useful goals.  You will not get an 
arguement from me about how valuable that technique can be.

I understand your frustration with Rossi and what he states.  If he is found to 
be lying to us and have no significant excess power I for one will be quite 
pissed!

My current plan is to attempt to come up with a scientifically valid scenario 
that explains how this particular demonstration could be faked while under the 
observation of several experts.  This type of trick should require the meters 
to read in a manner that does not draw excessive attention.   I believe I am 
close to finding a way to do 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:


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.
  
  I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of  
feedback.  A well designed system is generally more stable than an  
uncontrolled one.


For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and hehas 
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the powerin order to 
match the water flow rate.

He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power issupposed 
to control the reaction.

He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run anecat 
with the heater shut off.  He just said it was, and that thatis why he must 
always have an electric heater going inside thethings when they're running. 
  The only way it could be "dangerous"to operate them without a heater is 
if cranking up the heat would  somehow shut down the reaction -- otherwise, 
just exactly whatdo you do if it starts to run away?  Turning off the 
heater isn'tgoing to help at that point -- among other things, the thermal  
  energy produced by the reaction is supposedly far, far larger thanthe 
electrical energy of the heater!  The electric heater just makesit hot, 
which the reaction itself is already doing; to kill thereaction you need a 
way to make it cold.  Turning up thecooling water flow rate would make a 
whole lot more sense as a wayto SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed -- 
but that, of course,wouldn't provide an excuse to keep the electric heater 
goingthroughout the entire test.

"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently assumed,in order 
to explain the unexplainable.  Rossi doesn't even hand-waveit away, AFAIK.  
He just ignores the fact that he's claimingsomething ridiculous when he 
produces "dry steam" at the boilingpoint with a fixed input flow rate and 
no feedback mechanism.

This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedbackmechanism, 
and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to theheaters.  (Except that 
he was caught apparently cranking up thepower to the electric heater at one 
point during one test, but thatwas something he denied, not something he 
said was necessary tomatch flow rate to output power.)

And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".



And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam at boiling? 
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a wholelot 
more useful for just about any application you care to name.  Itseems like 
he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune thepower level of the 
system to match the water flow rate in order toguarantee the steam is "low 
grade", which seems entirely pointless... except that it makes it possible 
to pass off hot water as steam.




  
  For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can  
compensate for it.  Do not let the use of negative fee

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 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 difficult to handle.  That is not the way 
I would approach this problem.

I would construct a system around each of the reactors separately.  In the 
scenario I am outlining I would have a temperature sensor that measures the 
temperature within a single reactor shell.  This measurement would then be 
compared to a fixed and predetermined level.  For instance 130 C.  Since the 
water flow rate is assumed constant into the device, its internal temperature 
will reach the comparison temperature and then the feedback loop will reduce 
the drive in a linear or other manner.  When properly designed, the system will 
settle at the desired temperature at which point the power fed into the heating 
mechanism will exactly balance the power being lost as the hot water leaves the 
enclosure into the piping.  When the liquid water exits the enclosure it 
partially flashes into vapor, but mostly remains water.

If this technique is applied to all of the devices(24?) then the total sum of 
them all is a constant power being delivered to the customer.   Now, if the 
customer needs the overall power to be controlled and constant an exterior loop 
could be applied.  A temperature or pressure sensor would be required to feed 
information back to the controller where it is compared to a desired power 
setting.  The error should be properly filtered and used to input the changing 
requirement to all of the 24? units in parallel.  Delays would be very 
difficult to handle in this case, but I suspect it can be achieved with proper 
design.

I also suspect that the data seen thus far is not accurate.  Attempting to 
answer your other questions is going to be difficult without taking that issue 
into account.  I will give it my best.

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 full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.

I agree with all of your numbered points except it is unclear that there is no 
feedback of any type.  For this exercise I am assuming that hot water is the 
actual phase that exits each ECAT.  A small fraction of that water will flash 
into vapor provided the internal temperature is significantly above the stream 
supplied to the customer.  My calculations are that the volume of vapor to hot 
water is about 87 to one when the internal ECAT temperature is around 130 C.  
Can this amount of vapor hide that much water?  I really do not know the answer 
to that question.

Dave 

 

 

-Original Message-
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 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 gets hotter when another cools, so overall they 
balance?


Especially, why wouldn't this cause the power to fall by half when half the 
reactors are turned off? It does not, according to Rossi. The power remains 
almost the same. It is actually higher on some days, as Murray pointed out.


Actually, I assume that is because the data is fake. Penon just stuffed some 
numbers into the table. But if we take it seriously, that seems to indicate:


1. There is no control mechanism.


2. There is a peculiar mechanism that allows reactors to double their output 
when half the reactors are turned off.


3. It is hot water under pressure, not steam. Then again, even hot water should 
be cooler when half the power is off.


Honestly, I do not think this data is real, and it is probably not worth 
spending a lot of time analyzing.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 designed to keep the net thermal 
output constant.


I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of 
feedback.  A well designed system is generally more stable than an 
uncontrolled one.


For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and he has 
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the power in order 
to match the water flow rate.


He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power is supposed 
to control the reaction.


He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run an ecat 
with the heater shut off.  He just said it was, and that /that/ is why 
he must always have an electric heater going inside the things when 
they're running.   The only way it could be "dangerous" to operate them 
without a heater is if /cranking up the heat would somehow shut down the 
reaction/ -- otherwise, just exactly what do you do if it starts to run 
away?  Turning off the heater isn't going to help at that point -- among 
other things, the thermal energy produced by the reaction is supposedly 
far, far larger than the electrical energy of the heater!  The electric 
heater just makes it hot, which the reaction itself is already doing; to 
kill the reaction you need a way to make it /cold/.  Turning up the 
cooling water flow rate would make a whole lot more sense as a way to 
SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed -- but that, of course, wouldn't 
provide an excuse to keep the electric heater going throughout the 
entire test.


"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently _assumed_, in 
order to explain the unexplainable.  Rossi doesn't even hand-wave it 
away, AFAIK.  He just ignores the fact that he's claiming something 
ridiculous when he produces "dry steam" at the boiling point with a 
fixed input flow rate and no feedback mechanism.


This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest 
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedback 
mechanism, and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to the 
heaters.  (Except that he was caught apparently cranking up the power to 
the electric heater at one point during one test, but that was something 
he denied, not something he said was necessary to match flow rate to 
output power.)


And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".



And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam /at boiling/? 
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a whole lot 
more useful for just about any application you care to name.  It seems 
like he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune the power 
level of the system to match the water flow rate in order to guarantee 
the steam is "low grade", which seems entirely pointless ... except that 
it makes it possible to pass off hot water as steam.






For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can 
compensate for it.  Do not let the use of negative feedback 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...@aol.com>> 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 and 
unvarying. That seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.


The power is not perfectly stable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 gets hotter when another cools, so
overall they balance?

Especially, why wouldn't this cause the power to fall by half when half the
reactors are turned off? It does not, according to Rossi. The power remains
almost the same. It is actually higher on some days, as Murray pointed out.

Actually, I assume that is because the data is fake. Penon just stuffed
some numbers into the table. But if we take it seriously, that seems to
indicate:

1. There is no control mechanism.

2. There is a peculiar mechanism that allows reactors to double their
output when half the reactors are turned off.

3. It is hot water under pressure, not steam. Then again, even hot water
should be cooler when half the power is off.

Honestly, I do not think this data is real, and it is probably not worth
spending a lot of time analyzing.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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.

I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of feedback.  A 
well designed system is generally more stable than an uncontrolled one.

For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can compensate for it. 
 Do not let the use of negative feedback 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> 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 and unvarying. That 
seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.


The power is not perfectly stable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 and unvarying.
That seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.

The power is not perfectly stable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 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 say a power 
delivery rate is 1 MW is required.

I don't understand what you refer to as no feedback control by terms.  It would 
not be required by my scenario, but why not allowed?

I also assume that the liquid level within each unit is not actively regulated. 
 The coolant just needs to have a sufficient flow rate to fill up the ECATs at 
a modest pressure.

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.  This is not required in my scenario but not 
disallowed.

My scenario is that the steam supplied to the customer is very wet indeed.  If 
dry, then much more power would be delivered to the customer than many believe.

Your last statement is pretty much what I have been attempting to simulate in 
support of the idea that 1 MW is not being 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]: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 thepower output to vary down from 
the nominal 1 MW.

So, there was no feedback control of the power level, bydefinition 
of the terms of the test.

  And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, bytestimony 
of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate.
  
In short, there was no possible active matching of power  level to flow 
rate.
  
The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient toexactly 
vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore,coincidence.  (Either that, 
or the steam was not dry.)

Am I missing something?  When stated this way, this sounds like a
no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of thesetup.  If 
this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and itsoutput temp was always 
within a few degrees of boiling, then it hadto be a fake.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 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 possible 
for the water to remain below total fill after days or months of operation.  
That liquid water would not pour out in liquid form if heated to for example to 
130 C by the internal heating mechanism provided a pressure restriction device 
is in place.  This type of device was quite in evidence during a couple of 
Rossi's last demonstrations.

No matter what form the water leaves the package in, it takes heat energy away 
from the reactor somewhat proportional to the exiting temperature.  In other 
words, he can increase the rate of water flowing through his devices which will 
lead to a lower temperature appearing inside assuming constant heat addition.  
Likewise, if that liquid in not boiling, a thermal control loop can easily 
maintain a desired set point.  If allowed to boil, the temperature is much more 
difficult to control accurately.

To operate a control loop one needs to have a temperature that resides above 
the system output temperature by at least a small amount.  If this is not done 
then the internal heater would never need to be engaged if sufficient 
temperature is available backwards through that outer port which arises from 
some of the other devices.  We saw evidence that Rossi's earlier ECATs 
contained temperatures of up to 135 C which would certainly be sufficient to 
control.  And, of course the device would need to contain the pressure 
associated with that temperature.

Now, my present hypothesis is that the liquid residing within each reactor 
component is not boiling at all, or at least to a significant degree.  The 
vapor only appears in the output as a result of the flashing of the hot liquid 
water into wet steam at that output pipe.  This scenario appears to be entirely 
possible as long as the water temperature is controlled at for example 130 C.

I showed calculations in an earlier series of posts that the vapor under that 
condition would have a volume of almost 100 times the associated liquid.  That 
ratio tends to suggest that the water would be carried along for the ride 
toward the customer device.  Is this what 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]: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 into a big boxy outer structure and came 
into  contact with the inner section at a multitude of locations where  
it extracted heat through the fins.


But the shape really doesn't matter.  It's just thermodynamics.  Aslong 
as it's a flow-through boiler the same conclusions must apply-- the water 
comes in , flows along , turns to steam at , flowsalong  as steam, and exits the reactor.  
Whetherit's a big box, a tea-kettle shaped vessel, or a collection of pipes 
   or a thin, wide sheet, there still must be a continuous flow fromthe 
input to the output.

And there will be a line of demarcation between water and steam,with, 
one may expect, higher temperatures on the steam side.

If (flow_rate * heat-of-vaporization  +  flow_rate *
heat-to-raise-to-boiling) is not exactly matched to thepower generated, 
either the effluent will be water (or water mixedwith steam), or it will be 
superheated steam, but in either case, aslong as the power level and flow 
rate are constant, the outputtemperature would be expected to be fixed, and 
the "boiler" willcontain at least some liquid water.


  
  You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling. 


Sorry!  I see that now, I think.


 I just wanted to express the thought that only a  small volume of water 
would remain in liquid form within the  unit.  Since it is assumed that 
more heat is generated than needed  to boil all of the water entering, it 
becomes apparent that the  temperature of the ECAT must rise and not remain 
at the boiling  point.  This increase in temperature can be detected and 
therefore  a thermal loop can control it.


Yes.  But no such loop has ever been described.  From the beginning
there has been talk of how that could be done  but it didn't

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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 turned off or fully off, which is suspicious.)



> And there was no feedback control of the flow rate,
>
> *by testimony of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate. *In
> short,
> *there was no possible active matching of power level to flow rate.*
>

That was my conclusion, too.



> The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly
> vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence.  (Either
> that, or the steam was *not dry*.)
>

Plus I think the pressure was higher than 0.0 barG.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

re treacherous models for analysing the ecat 
(since they're fill-once-and-boil rather than flow-through) but a tea 
kettle is still informative in this case:  A half full kettle can 
still produce wet steam.  It all depends on the arrangement of the 
heating element and how much contact it has with the steam/water 
mixture after it leaves the surface of the liquid water.


Ultimately, the geometry of the boiler doesn't matter.  The issue is 
/_how_ is the temperature prevented from rising significantly above 
boiling?/  If we're assuming the things actually work as claimed and 
trying to understand them in those terms, then speculation about how 
it /could have been done/ is irrelevant -- how does Rossi claim it was 
done?  AFAIK he ignores the issue and provides no explanation.


And, there is the related and equally important question, _/why/_/is 
the temperature prevented from rising significantly above boiling?/  
One possible answer to this is all too obvious, and unless you can 
think of an alternative, I'll go with, "/It's kept just above boiling 
to obfuscate the question of whether it's actually dry steam or 
not/".  IOW 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, 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 the
port as a combination of vapor and liquid water leading to wet
steam.  This would take place at a constant temperature which
would make thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber
then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized
immediately upon entry.


No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry". Assuming the 
design is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up 
with, you've got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the 
arrangement on an internal combustion engine.  (Or it could be set up 
as an old fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes 
running _through_ the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either 
way -- the water _flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from 
one end to the other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ 
just sit in a "chamber" until it boils away.)


It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the 
water jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and 
some /particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially 
becomes a mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to 
be heated, as steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket.  
The parts of the chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the 
parts where there's liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor 
chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the difference may not be all 
that significant.


*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking 
place **/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./*  After the water 
hits boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be 
superheated to some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ 
conduit.


There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so 
the effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise 
arbitrarily.   It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which 
implies an exact match between power provided and power consumed by 
vaporizing the water, despite the lack of either active power level 
control or flow rate control.


It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards
under this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise
in temperature without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature
feedback would be asked to take over control of the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was
obvious due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps
in the system.  Do you now believe that level control is not
being used in the system?  I am not totally convinced that
feedback water level control is not part of the main plan once
everything settles down in production.  That control 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

You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor
shortly after 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

above boiling to 
obfuscate the question of whether it's actually dry steam or not/".  IOW 
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, 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 the port as a
combination of vapor and liquid water leading to wet steam.  This
would take place at a constant temperature which would make
thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber
then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized
immediately upon entry.


No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry". Assuming the design 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up with, you've 
got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the arrangement 
on an internal combustion engine.  (Or it could be set up as an old 
fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes running 
_through_ the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either way -- 
the water _flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from one end 
to the other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ just sit in 
a "chamber" until it boils away.)


It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the 
water jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and 
some /particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially 
becomes a mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to be 
heated, as steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket.  The 
parts of the chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the 
parts where there's liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor 
chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the difference may not be all 
that significant.


*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking place 
**/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./*  After the water hits 
boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be superheated to 
some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ conduit.


There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so 
the effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise 
arbitrarily.   It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which 
implies an exact match between power provided and power consumed by 
vaporizing the water, despite the lack of either active power level 
control or flow rate control.


It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards
under this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise
in temperature without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature
feedback would be asked to take over control of the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was
obvious due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps
in the system.  Do you now believe that level control is not being
used in the system?  I am not totally convinced that feedback
water level control is not part of the main plan once everything
settles down in production.  That control 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

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.  If the ERV is
mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard
to believe the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of
steam is so small compared with the latent heat of
vaporization one would expect the temperature of (dry) steam
in the closed system to be driven well above boiling -- not
just barely over it.

This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the
temperature barely a

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 contact 
with the inner section at a multitude of locations where it extracted heat 
through the fins.

You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling.  I just wanted to express 
the thought that only a small volume of water would remain in liquid form 
within the unit.  Since it is assumed that more heat is generated than needed 
to boil all of the water entering, it becomes apparent that the temperature of 
the ECAT must rise and not remain at the boiling point.  This increase in 
temperature can be detected and therefore a thermal loop can control it.

Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on its way to 
the outside port.  And, indeed this is exactly the scenario that could be used 
to generate dry steam if properly employed.

So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in error I must 
assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within each of the 24 or ? 
devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form which flashes into a liquid, 
vapor combination.  If the complete filling of the ECAT portions by water does 
not take place then Jed's position is undermined pretty much as you are 
describing.

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, 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 the port as a combination of vapor and liquid 
water leading to  wet steam.  This would take place at a constant 
temperature which  would make thermal control difficult.
  
  On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber  
then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized  immediately upon 
entry.

No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry".  Assuming thedesign 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set upwith, you've got a 
reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlikethe arrangement on an 
internal combustion engine.  (Or it could beset up as an old fashioned 
steam locomotive boiler, with multiplepipes running through the reactor 
chamber, but it's the sameidea either way -- the water flows through a 
heated aqueductof some sort, from one end to the other, growing hotter as 
ittravels; it does not just sit in a "chamber" until it boilsaway.)

It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses thewater 
jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (andsome particular 
location in the duct work) so that itinitially becomes a mixture of steam 
and water droplets, and thencontinue to be heated, as steam, as it 
traverses the remainder ofthe jacket.  The parts of the chamber being 
cooled by steam may behotter than the parts where there's liquid water in 
the jacket butsince the reactor chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the 
   difference may not be all that significant.

In fact, this is exactly the scenario which  must be taking place if 
the effluent is dry steam, asclaimed.  After the water hits boiling, in 
order to betotally dry, the steam must be superheated to some extent as it  
  continues to traverse the heated conduit.

There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, sothe 
effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just risearbitrarily. 
  It just shouldn't be exactly at boiling,which implies an exact match 
between power provided and powerconsumed by vaporizing the water, despite 
the lack of either activepower level control or flow rate control.


  It  might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under  
this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in  temperature 
without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature  feedback would be asked 
to take over control of the process.
  
  Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was  obvious 
due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps  in the system.  
Do you now believe that level control is not being  used in the system?  I 
am not totally convinced that feedback  water level control is not part of 
the main plan once everything  settles down in production.  That control 
te

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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 the port as a combination 
of vapor and liquid water leading to wet steam.  This would take place 
at a constant temperature which would make thermal control difficult.


On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then 
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon 
entry.


No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry".  Assuming the design 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up with, you've 
got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the arrangement on 
an internal combustion engine.  (Or it could be set up as an old 
fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes running _through_ 
the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either way -- the water 
_flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from one end to the 
other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ just sit in a 
"chamber" until it boils away.)


It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the water 
jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and some 
/particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially becomes a 
mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to be heated, as 
steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket.  The parts of the 
chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the parts where there's 
liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor chamber itself is above 
boiling anyway, the difference may not be all that significant.


*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking place 
**/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./*  After the water hits 
boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be superheated to 
some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ conduit.


There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so the 
effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise 
arbitrarily.   It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which implies 
an exact match between power provided and power consumed by vaporizing 
the water, despite the lack of either active power level control or flow 
rate control.


It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under 
this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in 
temperature without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature feedback 
would be asked to take over control of the process.


Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious 
due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the 
system.  Do you now believe that level control is not being used in 
the system?  I am not totally convinced that feedback water level 
control is not part of the main plan once everything settles down in 
production.  That control 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

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.  If the ERV is
mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to
believe the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is
so small compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would
expect the temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be
driven well above boiling -- not just barely over it.

This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature
barely above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees
above.  Either there's feedback nailing the power output to the
level needed to /just exactly/ vaporize the water (with
essentially no heat left over to superheat the steam), or there is
feedback nailing the water flow rate to the be just fast enough to
consume all the heat from the system in vaporizing the water, or
there is a miraculous coincidence between the heat produced and
the water flow rate.

We /know/ there's no feedback controllin

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 which hopefully might explain how 
the measurements are incorrect.  Recently I referred to Bernoulli's principle 
as perhaps getting into the act to muck up the meter readings.  I now believe I 
may have found out how to apply that principle in order to achieve that goal.

My present understanding of Bernoulli's principle would suggest the following 
connection if I wanted to cheat the measurement results.  It is necessary to 
place the temperature gauge at a location that is at the most extreme position 
located away from the main single pipe heading toward the customer.  For 
example, if 6 ECATS are feeding into one of the parallel collection pipes I 
would put the thermometer at the output of the first in the series.  Steam from 
that location would have to travel furthest before it reaches the main feed 
pipe and thus vapor leaving that nearby ECAT would be moving at the slowest 
velocity relative to the main final pipe stream.

This location is ideal because the steam(wet or dry) is moving at the slowest 
velocity there.  As the flow moves down the collection pipe it encounters more 
ECAT sources which force it to speed up.  The pressure and temperature of the 
fluid drops as it gains velocity by flowing through a restriction.  In this 
case the restriction is generated by the additional sources adding to the total 
flow through a fixed pipe diameter.

Bernoulli's principle is a conservation of energy relationship.  In this case 
as the fluid moves faster it gain kinetic energy which must be extracted from 
the internal energy of the fluid.  That is why the pressure and temperature 
falls as more equal sources are added to the stream.

The bottom line is that it is necessary for both the pressure and the 
temperature gauges to be located at the same point if an accurate state reading 
is to be obtained.  When we eventually recieve a diagram showing the spatial 
arrangement of the gauges it is important that both temperature and pressure 
gauges are co located if we are to believe that the steam is dry.   If we 
notice that the temperature gauge is removed from 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 the answers were too "secret" like the piping layout.



On 8/24/2016 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>wrote:
  


  
 The ERV is wellenough qualified that he is less likely to be 
confusedthan 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, and the ERV  said nothing because 
cannot think of any more excuses or  evasions.




 

  
 He is the onlyindependent judge there.





He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data  is a crude 
fraud, and his claims are absurd and  impossible. That is why I.H. 
is suing him -- as they  should.




- Jed



  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 water 
leading to wet steam.  This would take place at a constant temperature which 
would make thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then 
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon entry.  It 
might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under this condition 
since the chamber would likely begin to rise in temperature without adequate 
coolant.  Here, the temperature feedback would be asked to take over control of 
the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious due to 
having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the system.  Do you now 
believe that level control is not being used in the system?  I am not totally 
convinced that feedback water level control is not part of the main plan once 
everything settles down in production.  That control 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


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, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry thenplenty of power is 
being supplied to the customer.  If the ERVis mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry. 
  
  
  Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the  
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to  believe 
the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is  so small 
compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would  expect the 
temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be  driven well above 
boiling -- not just barely over it.
  
  This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the  
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature  barely 
above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees  above.  Either 
there's feedback nailing the power output to the  level needed to just 
exactly vaporize the water (with  essentially no heat left over to 
superheat the steam), or there is  feedback nailing the water flow rate to 
the be just fast enough to  consume all the heat from the system in 
vaporizing the water, or  there is a miraculous coincidence between the 
heat produced and  the water flow rate.
  
  We know there's no feedback controlling the flow rate,  because that 
was rock steady.
  
  No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the  
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing  about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to  believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the  reaction (if there is a 
reaction) can be controlled with the  precision needed to keep the output 
temperature so close to  boiling -- and we also have no reason to believe 
anyone would even  want to do that.
  
  So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that  
the "feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling  is 
provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently  the steam 
must be very wet.
  
  
  
  
 Butthat is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
   this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, thereis no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states istrue.  He may be 
confused by the location of gauges, etc.

AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and
not under automatic control according to his picture.  If true,that 
would eliminate the feedback level control that wasdiscussed earlier.  
It is my opinion that some form of automaticlevel control is required 
in order to produce a stable systemthat prevents liquid filling or 
dying out of the CATS.  This isan important factor that both of the 
parties should address.

Dave
  
 
  
  
-OriginalMessage-
 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 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, and the ERV said nothing because cannot think 
of any more excuses or evasions.


He is the only independent judge there.


He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data is a crude 
fraud, and his claims are absurd and impossible. That is why I.H. is 
suing him -- as they should.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

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, and the ERV said nothing because cannot think of any more
excuses or evasions.



> He is the only independent judge there.
>

He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data is a crude fraud, and
his claims are absurd and impossible. That is why I.H. is suing him -- as
they should.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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.  If the ERV is mistaken that the 
steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.


If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is 
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the temperature 
of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to believe the 
effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is so small 
compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would expect the 
temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be driven well 
above boiling -- not just barely over it.


This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the 
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature 
barely above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees 
above.  Either there's feedback nailing the power output to the level 
needed to /just exactly/ vaporize the water (with essentially no heat 
left over to superheat the steam), or there is feedback nailing the 
water flow rate to the be just fast enough to consume all the heat 
from the system in vaporizing the water, or there is a miraculous 
coincidence between the heat produced and the water flow rate.


We /know/ there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because that 
was rock steady.


No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the 
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the reaction (if there 
is a reaction) can be controlled with the precision needed to keep the 
output temperature so close to boiling -- and we also have no reason 
to believe anyone would even /want/ to do that.


So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that the 
"feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling is 
provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently the 
steam must be very wet.




But that is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, there is no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states is true.  He may 
be confused by the location of gauges, etc.


AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not 
under automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that 
would eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed 
earlier.  It is my opinion that some form of automatic level control 
is required in order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid 
filling 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 Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is 
dry steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid
phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is
phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over
in a dynamic flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture
separator in the system to assure no carry-over.

Bob

*From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
to obtain my data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures abo

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.


If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric 
while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry. But that is the root 
of the problem; both parties do not agree that this is true.  Only one 
can be right in this case.  Also, there is no law of nature that 
ensures that what the ERV states is true.  He may be confused by the 
location of gauges, etc.


AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not 
under automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that would 
eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed earlier.  It 
is my opinion that some form of automatic level control is required in 
order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid filling 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 Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is 
dry steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid
phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is phase
is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in
a dynamic flowing system. Normally there would be a moisture
separator in the system to assure no carry-over.

Bob

*From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
to obtain my data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings
a bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose
did not appear to impact the answers to a significant degree.  In
one of Rossi's earlier experiments the temperature within his ECAT
was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as the calculated
power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached
the maximum. At the time I concluded that this must have occurred
as a result of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of
the temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure
(39.2 psi absolute) was the value required to keep the liquid
water in saturation with the vapor.  Rossi is using a feedback
system to control the heating of his modules and that requires him
to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102
C?) as a minimum. There is no guarantee that he regulates them at
130 C as I assumed, but that temperature was consistent with
having a ratio of vapor volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger
ratio of flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream. 
Likewise, the ratio would drop if a lower temperature is assumed.

  The 130 C appeared to be near to his earlier design, and I had
to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a better
temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

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 any evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally 
dry then Rossi's system is probably working much as he states.


My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific 
evidence to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the 
ECAT system is dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is 
not clear that the fluid flow rate is low enough to null that opinion 
without further proof.


I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the 
quality of steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct 
conflict to what I.H. states with respect to the temperature and 
pressure values.  I am hoping there is a method which connects their 
different beliefs in a scientific 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--

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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in 
equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase. The gas is phase is at 102 
degrees and is said to be super heated.


The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a 
dynamic flowing system. Normally there would be a moisture separator 
in the system to assure no carry-over.


Bob

*From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com <mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>>
*Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com <mailto: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 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to 
obtain my data points.


According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 
99.9743 C degrees.

At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have 
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.


Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not 
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a 
bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not 
appear to impact the answers to a significant degree.  In one of 
Rossi's earlier experiments the temperature within his ECAT was 
measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as the calculated power 
being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached the 
maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a 
result of the filling of his device by liquid water.


I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi 
absolute) was the value required to keep the liquid water in 
saturation with the vapor.  Rossi is using a feedback system to 
control the heating of his modules and that requires him to operate 
each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 C?) as a 
minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of 
vapor volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.


Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger 
ratio of flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, 
the ratio would drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C 
appeared to be near to his earlier design, and I had to choose 
something.  Do you have a suggestion for a better temperature or 
pressure to assume?


Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

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.  If the ERV is mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.


If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric 
while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the temperature of 
the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to believe the effluent is 
dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is so small compared with the 
latent heat of vaporization one would expect the temperature of (dry) 
steam in the closed system to be driven well above boiling -- not just 
barely over it.


This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the beginning:  
There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature barely above 
boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees above.  Either 
there's feedback nailing the power output to the level needed to /just 
exactly/ vaporize the water (with essentially no heat left over to 
superheat the steam), or there is feedback nailing the water flow rate 
to the be just fast enough to consume all the heat from the system in 
vaporizing the water, or there is a miraculous coincidence between the 
heat produced and the water flow rate.


We /know/ there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because that 
was rock steady.


No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the 
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the reaction (if there is 
a reaction) can be controlled with the precision needed to keep the 
output temperature so close to boiling -- and we also have no reason to 
believe anyone would even /want/ to do that.


So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that the 
"feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling is provided 
by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently the steam must be 
very wet.




But that is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, there is no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states is true. He may be 
confused by the location of gauges, etc.


AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not 
under automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that would 
eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed earlier.  It 
is my opinion that some form of automatic level control is required in 
order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid filling 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 Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is 
dry steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid
phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is phase
is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in
a dynamic flowing system. Normally there would be a moisture
separator in the system to assure no carry-over.

Bob

*From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
to obtain my data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings
a bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is being 
supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is mistaken that the steam is dry then 
I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric while 
the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.  But that is the root of the 
problem; both parties do not agree that this is true.  Only one can be right in 
this case.  Also, there is no law of nature that ensures that what the ERV 
states is true.  He may be confused by the location of gauges, etc.

AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not under 
automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that would eliminate the 
feedback level control that was discussed earlier.  It is my opinion that some 
form of automatic level control is required in order to produce a stable system 
that prevents liquid filling 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 Calculation


Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That isdry 
steam.
That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.


On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


  




  
Dave--
  

  
  
The steam table indicates a condition of equilibriumbetween the 
liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water.  Ifthe conditions are  
1 bar at a temperature above the 99.9743there is no liquid phase in 
equilibrium with the steam (gas)phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 
degrees and is said to besuper heated.   
  
  

  
  
The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phasecarry-over in a 
dynamic flowing system.  Normally therewould be a moisture 
separator in the system to assure nocarry-over.  
  
  

  
  
Bob
  


From:David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.




I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos.  were never 
measured.




Bob Cook
  
  Bob, I used a steam table  
calculator located at  
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html   
   to obtain my data points.
  
  According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0
  bar at a temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
  At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 
 15.7902 psi absolute.
  Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at   
   101.928 C.  I must have accidentally written 
 the last digit in error for some reason.
  
  Does this answer your first question?
  
  You are correct about the assumed pressures   
   above 1 atmosphere not being measured  
directly.  I admit that I rounded off the  readings a 
bit, but the amount of error  resulting from the values 
I chose did not  appear to impact the answers to a 
significant  degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier 
experiments  the temperature within his ECAT was 
measured  to reach a high of about 135 C just as the
  calculated power being measured at the output 
 of his heat exchanger reached the maximum.  At 
 the time I concluded that this must have  occurred 
as a result of the filling of his  device by liquid 
water.
  
  I chose 130 C for my latest calculations  
mainly as an estimate 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

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 any 
evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is 
probably working much as he states.

My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence 
to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is 
dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is not clear that the fluid 
flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof.

I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of 
steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. 
states with respect to the temperature and pressure values.  I am hoping there 
is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific 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--


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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.   



The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.  



Bob


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.


Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is dry 
steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:



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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in 
equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 
degrees and is said to be super heated.



The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a 
dynamic flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator 
in the system to assure no carry-over.



Bob


*From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to 
obtain my data points.


According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 
99.9743 C degrees.

At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have 
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.


Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not 
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a 
bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not 
appear to impact the answers to a significant degree.  In one of 
Rossi's earlier experiments the temperature within his ECAT was 
measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as the calculated power 
being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached the 
maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a 
result of the filling of his device by liquid water.


I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi 
absolute) was the value required to keep the liquid water in 
saturation with the vapor.  Rossi is using a feedback system to 
control the heating of his modules and that requires him to operate 
each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 C?) as a 
minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of 
vapor volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.


Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger 
ratio of flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream. Likewise, 
the ratio would drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C 
appeared to be near to his earlier design, and I had to choose 
something.  Do you have a suggestion for a better temperature or 
pressure to assume?


Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

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 the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.


The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.


Bob


From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.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.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 
C?) as a minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of vapor 
volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger ratio of 
flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, the ratio would 
drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C appeared to be near to his 
earlier design, and I had to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a 
better temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave