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 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
musthave 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 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
