On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:14 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on > Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support > Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. > > >His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of > dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, > that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence > excludes the possibility. > > No water is trapped within the little water trap. Why do you think he has > a shut off valve after of the trap location? Do you think it is to stop > the high speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring > water? > >From Lewan's video that valve to the trap was closed at 3:00, but it's not clear that any water would be trapped from a mist of 99% liquid water by mass (>90% steam by volume). I don't know what the valve after the trap is for. What do you think it is for, and what is it's relevance? It was open in any case. > There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a >> large quantity of data. >> > >A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is > careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus > operandi. > > Prove it. > So, you can make statements without proof, but I can't? I think my claim is self-evident. For example, an isolated 1-kg device that could heat an olympic pool to boiling in an hour would resolve the impasse, and that's a small quantity of good data. Far less than that would be required, but it justifies the statement. On the other hand, your suggestion that a several kW device can't be unequivocally demonstrated (with ease) is insupportable. > Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. >> > >I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a > following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have > merit. In that, he succeeded. > > Just your opinion. > ...expressed to counter yours. Big deal. > >> Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power >> level to the 470 kW output region. >> > >The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat > demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, > that was the problem. > > Not true. Prove this is the reason. > Not sure if you understood my statement. I meant, the throttling back was not the objection I had to the demonstration, so your justification of it is wasted on me. The objection to the demo is that it failed to demonstrate more energy out than in. I don't have to prove what my objection was. But I don't think other skeptics had a problem with the throttling either. Do you have some complaints about that? Most of the complaints centered around unverifiable measurements, connected generators, and the like. > He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was > valid. Do you question his knowledge? Do you know better? > I question his report and his competence. The information on the report does not prove the test was valid, and a competent engineer would have made sure the report contained the necessary information to prove the test was valid. > [...] > >If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power > transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? > > Does the data support the claim? You always insist on data. Why do you > now say it is irrelevant? > What claim are you referring to? Rossi is claiming an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes, not me. And no, the data doesn't support that. That's why I don't believe it. Where do I say data is irrelevant? > > I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts. Were you there? > Did you discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know > far more than yourself? > I know what they reported. The report was supposed to justify their claim. If you accept their *measurements*, it doesn't. The assumption they make on the report is not justified. To that extent, he has not done his job. > > After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the >> test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. >> > >It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. (And that proof > is not in the report either.) That says nothing about whether or not water > was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving > 90% steam by volume. And > especially if the valve was closed. > > The valve following the trap can be closed. Please think about the system. > What's your point? If you close that valve, everything goes into the trap. What does that prove? > > You are kidding I guess about the 1 % figure. Ha Ha. Please explain how > that is required if the water level within the ECAT is dropping or rising > with power. This is not required to be a constant input water flow - > constant output flow system (full ECAT). Water and vapor are both present > within the ECAT device. What makes you think otherwise? > No. I'm not kidding about the 1%. In most of the demonstrations the pump is a constant-flow pump. There is no evidence for, nor a claim for, a feedback system that could control the input flow rate. And if there were a feedback system based on the output temperature, given the time constant, you would see a kind of oscillation in the output temperature, like you see with a thermostat, but there isn't. So, if the output is dry steam at a constant flow rate, then the temperature is directly proportional to the power. And since it varies by less than 2%, and the heat capacity of steam is half that of water, that corresponds to 1% stability in the power. Now, if you're claiming that the heating elements are completely submerged, so that the power fluctuations result in fluctuation of the output steam flow rate, then of course, the water level will depend on the power, and the input flow rate. The water level has to be within very tight bounds to keep the heating elements submerged with no liquid exiting. If those bounds represent about 10% of the volume of the ecat, then since the ecats are filled about 11 times in 5.5 hours, average flow rate has to right to within a per cent for a given average power output. For the input flow rate (on average) to be matched to the power produced (on average) to within 1 % is even less plausible than for the power to be stable to 1%. So either way, you still have some 'splainin to do. And if the heating elements *are* submerged, then you are agreeing that the output fluid is at the boiling point. So, then how can you know there is no liquid entrained in it? The most you can say is that there is *some* steam. So, 1% steam by mass is consistent with the measurement. That trap proved nothing, especially with it's valve closed. >But with the trap they were using, water would stop appearing at the onset > of boiling, because it would immediately produce a high speed gas > containing entrained mist. Of course, closing the valve would also cause > water to stop being trapped. > > Absolutely not. Think valve. > Sorry. You'll have to be less cryptic. If you have something to say, spit it out. I still don't understand how a tee in a conduit is going to trap liquid entrained in fast-moving steam. >Right, because no one can explain: > > >(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% > > Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets > argue this point in a separate posting if you wish. > The adjusting water-level theory requires accuracy to 1%; otherwise you need precision to 1%. Neither of those is plausible. See the argument above. > >(2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few > minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. > > This one is for you to explain. > No. I don't believe he gets an 8-fold power transfer increase, so I can't explain it. Rossi claims he's getting an 8-fold power increase, and you agree. So, you should explain how that could happen. Because the measurements are completely consistent with mostly water and a little steam, which requires no 8-fold power increase. So, my interpretation (1% steam by mass) is consistent with the measurements, and does not involve an 8-fold power transfer increase in a few minutes. Your interpretation (100% steam) is consistent with the temperature measurement, but requires an 8-fold increase in the power transfer in a few minutes, which is highly implausible. Therefore, my interpretation is more likely. And that's not the crux of it. The crux is that your interpretation, even if it were possible, is not *required*. And therefore the measurements do not require a 470 kW output. 70 kW output works better. > If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will > understand why. > You mean, you have no idea how to explain it, and you want to sound smart. >Also, when did they do this flow rate adjustment to get the water to stop > being trapped. There is no indication of that in the temperature record. > Did they do it the night before? > > This is not clear. Please rephrase the question and I will answer. > You said earlier that to get the right flow rate, they adjusted until water was no longer being trapped. When did they do this? Because changes in flow rate would cause corresponding changes to the temperature, but the entire temperature record is on-line, and there is no indication of any adjustment like this. > > All of the water is vaporized so the power can be determined to be 470 >> kW. >> > >Only in your dreams. > > Explain why this is not possible? I am waiting. > Because it takes two hours to heat the ecat to the necessary temperature for the onset of boiling. To cause 100% vaporization takes 8 times more power, and therefore the temperature difference between the heating element and the water has to increase by a factor of 8. Even if the power from the ecat were 470 kW, that's only about 3 times the input power during warmup, so it would still take much longer than 2 hours, let alone a few minutes. It's even worse than that, because as more of the liquid is vaporized, more of the power is removed from the system, and less of the power goes in to the heating element, and so it heats up more slowly as complete vaporization is approached. This is where a blank run would be useful to educate a lot of Rossi followers who are very confused about steam production in a flow-through system like this. Put in 200 kW electric heat into a blank system (or better, 2 kW into one of them) and show me you don't get exactly the same measurements that you get when you claim 470 kW (or 4.7 kW from one of them). > > >> There is not liquid water being ejected by the ECATs. >> > > >There is no evidence for that. > > There is, the engineer states this. Did you see otherwise or just > speculation? > A statement from the engineer is not evidence. The measurements he reports do not constitute evidence of dry steam. And in fact the temperature profile is almost incontrovertible evidence that it is not. So, it's not speculation, but it's not about me proving the steam is wet. The engineer has to prove it's dry to support the claim, and he has failed to do so. > Maybe I can see through the fog which some cannot. You should open your > eyes to the possibilities. > I don't think so. I think your fervent desire for Rossi to be right is fogging your judgement. > It is only a manner of time until you understand the truth. Some of us > are already there. > More religious testimony. > >> What does it take to get your attention? >> > > >Really isolate an ecat (just one), and use it to heat something really > big, like a pool of water, or to lift some really heavy weight. That would > be better. > > The proof of heat generation has been done during the October 6 testing. > Not even close. Rossi measured the temperature of the heat exchanger manifold instead of the temperature of the water. It's a rookie mistake. And the fact that the assembled experts didn't catch it and complain about it, disqualifies them as experts. Going by the flow rate and the temperature of the primary water, the output is consistent with 1 kW or so, and that means the output heat is no higher than the input. > >But sending all the heat down a drain or into the sky... not so much. > > He could have made a more dazzling display. But he chose to do what the > customer wanted. > Excuses...
