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
