subject:"\[Vo\]\: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged."

The manufacturer shows the performance down to low flows.  The largest 
error is 3%
Agreed that the the flowmeter should not be run half full but there is 
no evidence it was.

Show the piping diagram or quit going on about it.

AA

On 8/20/2016 9:51 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

As you should know by now, as it has been repeated several times,
the detailed manufacturer's literature shows that the flow meter
works well at the actual flow rate.


No, it does not. Furthermore, the manufacturer says you should not use 
it in a pipe half full of water, which is what Rossi did.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Giovanni Santostasi  wrote:

As we repeated many times it is never one thing with Rossi:
>
> 1) flowmeter working range is at higher rates that what claimed was
> observed by ERV
> 2) there is evidence pipe was half full . . .
>

> Any of these problems would be pretty serious by themselves but it is the
> multiple interconnections of this web of misdirections, lies, trickery of
> all kind that is what makes impossible for any real objective and rational
> person to accept any other explanation that Rossi did it again, one of his
> scams for which he went to prison before.
>

Exactly! Well said. People need to look at the totality of the evidence.
Also, they need to stop making ad hoc excuses for one thing after another.
One item on the list might be an honest mistake or it might have a
plausible explanation, but not all of them combined.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

As we repeated many times it is never one thing with Rossi:

1) flowmeter working range is at higher rates that what claimed was
observed by ERV
2) there is evidence pipe was half full
3) heat produced would have caused problems if dumped in small warehouse no
matter what you did with it
4) JM Products is a fake company, with fake employers, fake business cards
and so on
5) Rossi didn't allow IH to visit the customer operations
6) and so on...

Any of these problems would be pretty serious by themselves but it is the
multiple interconnections of this web of misdirections, lies, trickery of
all kind that is what makes impossible for any real objective and rational
person to accept any other explanation that Rossi did it again, one of his
scams for which he went to prison before.

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> As you should know by now, as it has been repeated several times, the
>> detailed manufacturer's literature shows that the flow meter works well at
>> the actual flow rate.
>>
>
> No, it does not. Furthermore, the manufacturer says you should not use it
> in a pipe half full of water, which is what Rossi did.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

> As you should know by now, as it has been repeated several times, the
> detailed manufacturer's literature shows that the flow meter works well at
> the actual flow rate.
>

No, it does not. Furthermore, the manufacturer says you should not use it
in a pipe half full of water, which is what Rossi did.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


Jed,
As you should know by now, as it has been repeated several times, the 
detailed manufacturer's literature shows that the flow meter works well 
at the actual flow rate.  Presumably the faceplate shows the boundaries 
for which the normal accuracy warranty applies.  As the flowmeter was 
calibrated by the manufacturer there should be no problem.


There is no evidence the pipe was only half full except for Murray's 
claim of "stains."  Apparently he didn't see the plant in operation.  It 
has been explained the drain only half emptied the pipe.  What is 
required is a detailed pipe drawing when an engineer can tell if that 
was a potential problem.  As Murray has failed to back up his claim with 
such a drawing or even a description and apparently lacks experience in 
these matters, I rate the ERV's opinion higher.

There i no known conflict between the ERV and manufacturer.


On 8/20/2016 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I take the manufacturer's and ERV's word for the flow over Murray's.


The manufacturer's face plate says this flow meter's minimum flow is 
higher than what Rossi recorded! The manufacturer's manual says you 
should not run this in a half-full pipe, which is what Rossi did. If 
you take the manufacturer's word, then you cannot take the ERV's word. 
They are in conflict.


Which do you believe? They cannot both be right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

I take the manufacturer's and ERV's word for the flow over Murray's.
>

The manufacturer's face plate says this flow meter's minimum flow is higher
than what Rossi recorded! The manufacturer's manual says you should not run
this in a half-full pipe, which is what Rossi did. If you take the
manufacturer's word, then you cannot take the ERV's word. They are in
conflict.

Which do you believe? They cannot both be right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


I take the manufacturer's and ERV's word for the flow over Murray's.


On 8/20/2016 2:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Do you have short term memory problems?  I pointed out the meters
were all under 24 hr surveillance.


Says who? I doubt it. In any case, the flow meter was wrong. Whether 
it was under surveillance or not, it was wrong. I doubt the pressure 
gauges showed 0.0, but if they did, they were wrong too.


Read what the manufacturer actually says, not what Jed writes.  It
is good for the actual flow rate.


No, the flow rate was below the minimum according to the 
manufacturer's face plate, and the pipe was only half full. The 
manufacturer's manual says a half-full pipe will give the wrong 
answer. It warns against it. Peter Gluck says that condition cannot 
occur, but this manual and other flow meter manuals I have seen warn 
against it, so I suppose it can occur. Why would they warn against a 
condition that cannot happen?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

As far as I can tell, all the reasons Murray came up with have been shot 
down.


You previously stated Exhibit 5 proved your point.  I showed that it 
confirmed mine.




On 8/20/2016 2:45 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

Murray an "expert"?  He wasn't even an engineer, he was an IT guy
with connections to DOD.


And yet he discovered a long list of reasons why the test was invalid. 
So did I, for that matter, and I am no engineer.


"According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10
months or for 3 ERV reports),

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to
November 2015 was on
average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

Yes, I overlooked that, as I said. That number is impossible. The 
report also describes a month in which the figure was exactly 36,000 
per day. That is also impossible.


What is your point?

2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C
and 102.8º C*, respectively..

Yes. Rossi reported the water was 60ºC in his data that I have, and in 
his interview with Lewan. That is what I reported earlier. Perhaps it 
varied from 60 to 68.


But again, what is your point? No one disputes these temperature.

3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be
*0 kPaG, *so the steam was dry

That pressure is impossible, for the reasons given by Murray. Also, if 
that were the pressure, it is another reason the flow meter did not 
work. It has to have higher pressure.


4) The only power consumption figure we have is from Lewan ~20 kW.*"
*

That is correct as far as I know.

What is your point about it?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

Do you have short term memory problems?  I pointed out the meters were all
> under 24 hr surveillance.
>

Says who? I doubt it. In any case, the flow meter was wrong. Whether it was
under surveillance or not, it was wrong. I doubt the pressure gauges showed
0.0, but if they did, they were wrong too.

> Read what the manufacturer actually says, not what Jed writes.  It is good
> for the actual flow rate.
>

No, the flow rate was below the minimum according to the manufacturer's
face plate, and the pipe was only half full. The manufacturer's manual says
a half-full pipe will give the wrong answer. It warns against it. Peter
Gluck says that condition cannot occur, but this manual and other flow
meter manuals I have seen warn against it, so I suppose it can occur. Why
would they warn against a condition that cannot happen?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

Murray an "expert"?  He wasn't even an engineer, he was an IT guy with
> connections to DOD.
>

And yet he discovered a long list of reasons why the test was invalid. So
did I, for that matter, and I am no engineer.


> "According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or
> for 3 ERV reports),
>
> 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November
> 2015 was on
> average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.
>
Yes, I overlooked that, as I said. That number is impossible. The report
also describes a month in which the figure was exactly 36,000 per day. That
is also impossible.

What is your point?


> 2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C and
> 102.8º C*, respectively..
>
Yes. Rossi reported the water was 60ºC in his data that I have, and in his
interview with Lewan. That is what I reported earlier. Perhaps it varied
from 60 to 68.

But again, what is your point? No one disputes these temperature.


> 3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be *0 kPaG,
> *so the steam was dry
>
That pressure is impossible, for the reasons given by Murray. Also, if that
were the pressure, it is another reason the flow meter did not work. It has
to have higher pressure.


> 4) The only power consumption figure we have is from Lewan ~20 kW.
> *"*
>
That is correct as far as I know.

What is your point about it?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Do you have short term memory problems? I pointed out the meters were
all under 24 hr surveillance.
Read what the manufacturer actually says, not what Jed writes. It is
good for the actual flow rate.

On 8/19/2016 1:22 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
How a single photograph taken at a particular point in time proves
anything in terms of daily data?
Also Jed point was that the flowmeter could not read any flow that was
smaller than 36 kg/day as stated in the manual.

Giovanni

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:44 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:

Engineer48 gives flow rates from the digital controlled pumps on
ECat World here:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/19/analyzing-e-cat-plant-pumps-indicate-cop1-engineer48/

He goes on to comment that some data from the ERV's report is
given by IH in Item 5
*
"WE HAVE ERV DATA*

IH exhibit item 5 states:

According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10
months or for 3 ERV reports),

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to
November 2015 was on
average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C
and 102.8º C*, respectively.

3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be
*0 kPaG*

*Surprise, Surprise Jed's claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I
mean does that really surprise anybody?"
*

As for the 0.0 barG steam pressure, the superheater steam can be
drawn through the piping and into the heat exchanger by a slightly
lower pressure, maybe -0.2 barG on the outlet of the primary side
of the heat exchanger.

So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input
water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature and
pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".

Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.

(He shows a picture of the actual report below that can't be
reproduced here.)

As I've commented several times already, it is better to wait for
that actual facts before jumping to conclusions on second hand
reports.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Murray an "expert"?  He wasn't even an engineer, he was an IT guy with 
connections to DOD.
As for the rest of your comment, I have answered it all before. Exhibit 
5 says:


"According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or 
for 3 ERV reports),


1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 
2015 was on

average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C and 
102.8º C*, respectively..


3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be *0 
kPaG, *so the steam was dry*

*

4) The only power consumption figure we have is from Lewan ~20 kW.*"
*



On 8/20/2016 11:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If they knew something was wrong, why didn't they DO something
about it?


They tried to do something, as you see in the Answer and in Exhibit 5. 
Rossi refused to let their expert in the door! See Exhibit 19.


Exhibit 5 shows the ERV's analysis that indicates the plant was
working very well.


Good grief! "Working very well" on what planet? The flow meter was the 
wrong size and only half in the water, so it was giving the wrong 
answer. The data for flow rates and pressure were blatantly false. The 
pressure was impossible:


"The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0
kPaG and the piping is DN40. For steam to flow, a pressure
differential is required to overcome the losses in the pipe. Given
the foregoing, this would require that the pressure on the JMP
side of the building was significantly below atmospheric (vacuum)
and that the steam would flow at extraordinary velocity. But this
was obviously not the situation present at the location."


There was no ventilation equipment except for a broken fan hanging 
from the ceiling, so there could not possibly be even 100 kW, never 
mind 1 MW. The data showed 1 MW of constant heat production on days 
when Rossi, in his blog, reported the machine was half turned off, or 
fully turned off, and eyewitnesses confirmed this.


The arrangement with the "hidden" customer was lunatic, and it obvious 
the customer was completely fake.


And much else was wrong with it??? If this is your idea of "working 
well" what would be a fiasco?


You seem to be disconnected from reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Axil Axil

Making nano and microparticles using aluminum as a substrate requires huge
amounts of energy to heat water to near boiling, The leaching process uses
25% and up sodium hydroxide to remove the aluminum to leave the particle
nanocavity surface preparation exposed.

Particles need to be leached multiple times to remove all the aluminum.
That requires a lot of hot water. That 60C leaching solution would go down
the drain.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Having an independent customer use the heat and with the customer knowing
> how much heat is required to keep his product line running, would have been
> a wonderful confirmation that the measurements on the Rossi side of the
> wall were correct.  Certainly that was the spirit of the contract terms for
> the GPT.  Making the customer's side secret, and the customer's log of the
> heat coming into his factory a secret, certainly looks bad for Rossi and
> makes the whole contrived test look like a scam.  If I were Rossi (and not
> running a scam), I would want that independent customer's validation that I
> had delivered the heat - it would make the test incontrovertible.  Instead,
> so far the opposite has happened - at least until the customer is
> subpoenaed to testify in court to the heat consumption of his "factory".
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:25 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevant to the
>> contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discover a problem
>> after their hired gun failed to do so.
>> It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying you don't
>> believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going to measure the main
>> drain to see how much it warmed.
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Daniel Rocha

That's quite a revelation. And what would they gain complaining to you? I
hardly doubt they would get more expertise given their extreme
incompetence, as you imply. I think they made you a noisy broken record to
distract the people who takes LENR seriously from looking at the case
objectively

2016-08-20 13:36 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>  They were complaining about it to many people, including me.
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Daniel Rocha

I think Rossi is a friend of someone at IH for over 20 years. More like 30
years.

2016-08-20 13:05 GMT-03:00 Russ George :

>  that being that the two parties are in cahoots on all this
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Daniel Rocha

That's not a bad idea. I thought about this, but nagging IH fans is more
entertaining and buys some time for people working with NiH not to be
roasted.

2016-08-20 13:05 GMT-03:00 Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com>:

> In all of this demented nattering over Rossi and IH no one seems to have
> suggested the obvious, that being that the two parties are in cahoots on
> all this. Using the old but perfect advice, 'follow the money', since IH
> has happily used Rossi to take in scores of millions from investors it
> showcased Rossi's year-long demo repeatedly to they surely have been the
> ones receiving the lion's share of the cash in this saga. Nothing makes for
> better cover like the age old drama of the pot calling the kettle black.
> That there is no SEC investigation of the affair and money men is revealing
> and suggests the entire thing is fomented by nefarious producers.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 8:32 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.
>
> Jed,
> AA  At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a
> year with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until
> the test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?
>
> Jed They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and
> in Exhibit 5.  You need to stop making stuff up.
>
> If they knew something was wrong, why didn't they DO something about it?
> Exhibit 5 shows the ERV's analysis that indicates the plant was working
> very well.
>
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Russ George  wrote:

In all of this demented nattering over Rossi and IH no one seems to have
> suggested the obvious, that being that the two parties are in cahoots on
> all this.

This lawsuit is costing I.H. a great deal of money and trouble, so I do not
think they are in cahoots.

> Using the old but perfect advice, 'follow the money', since IH has happily
> used Rossi to take in scores of millions from investors it showcased
> Rossi's year-long demo repeatedly . . .

They were doing the opposite of showcasing it during the year-long test.
They were complaining about it to many people, including me. If they
complained to me and others, I think it is unlikely they were at the same
time bragging about it or showcasing it to potential investors. I say this
because:

It was inevitable the investors would have learned they were complaining,
either during the test, or after the fact. I did not discuss I.H.'s
complaints, but I know for a fact that several other people did. I think it
is inevitable that the investors would have learned that I.H. was unhappy.
I also think it is 100% inevitable that the investors would have learned
(or known all along) that the gadget was not working. Anyone who looked at
the data, the configuration, and the ventilation in the room would reach
that conclusion.

So, if I.H. had misled the investors, the investors would have learned
this, and they would have demanded their money back, or sued I.H.

Perhaps they will demand their money back, but it has been several months
since the lawsuit was filed, and they have not demanded it back yet as far
as I know, so I suppose the investors are satisfied.

For these reasons, I think we can rule out the possibility that I.H. used
the Rossi test to solicit funding.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Russ George

In all of this demented nattering over Rossi and IH no one seems to have 
suggested the obvious, that being that the two parties are in cahoots on all 
this. Using the old but perfect advice, 'follow the money', since IH has 
happily used Rossi to take in scores of millions from investors it showcased 
Rossi's year-long demo repeatedly to they surely have been the ones receiving 
the lion's share of the cash in this saga. Nothing makes for better cover like 
the age old drama of the pot calling the kettle black.  That there is no SEC 
investigation of the affair and money men is revealing and suggests the entire 
thing is fomented by nefarious producers.  

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net] 
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 8:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Jed,
AA  At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a year 
with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until the test is 
over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?

Jed They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and in 
Exhibit 5.  You need to stop making stuff up.

If they knew something was wrong, why didn't they DO something about it?
Exhibit 5 shows the ERV's analysis that indicates the plant was working very 
well.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

> If they knew something was wrong, why didn't they DO something about it?
>

They tried to do something, as you see in the Answer and in Exhibit 5.
Rossi refused to let their expert in the door! See Exhibit 19.

> Exhibit 5 shows the ERV's analysis that indicates the plant was working
> very well.
>

Good grief! "Working very well" on what planet? The flow meter was the
wrong size and only half in the water, so it was giving the wrong answer.
The data for flow rates and pressure were blatantly false. The pressure was
impossible:

"The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and
the piping is DN40. For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required
to overcome the losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require
that the pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly below
atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at extraordinary
velocity. But this was obviously not the situation present at the location."

There was no ventilation equipment except for a broken fan hanging from the
ceiling, so there could not possibly be even 100 kW, never mind 1 MW. The
data showed 1 MW of constant heat production on days when Rossi, in his
blog, reported the machine was half turned off, or fully turned off, and
eyewitnesses confirmed this.

The arrangement with the "hidden" customer was lunatic, and it obvious the
customer was completely fake.

And much else was wrong with it??? If this is your idea of "working well"
what would be a fiasco?

You seem to be disconnected from reality.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


Jed,
AA  At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a year
with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until the
test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?

Jed They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and in
Exhibit 5.  You need to stop making stuff up.

If they knew something was wrong, why didn't they DO something about it?
Exhibit 5 shows the ERV's analysis that indicates the plant was working very 
well.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-20 Thread Jack Cole

Dave wrote:
"Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were
performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt to explain
away the possible excess heat?

There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is
vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence that the
system did not function as expected."

Penon was asked about the pressure and apparently didn't answer according
to IH.  Some may disagree with me, but I would not trust the factory
calibration.  I think you need to calibrate within the configuration of the
plant.  You need to run it without fuel over the full range of temperatures
and flow rates as well as with fuel.  AR has never conducted a proper
calibration and this test is no different.

Also, that meter could handle a large flow rate.  There was no reason to
confuse the issue with steam at all unless it was needed to facilitate a
scam or those temperatures were needed by the mystery customer.  If the
latter, then he can prove his case by presenting the customer.

IH claims the plant didn't work in NC, but suddenly it starts working when
it is fully under AR's control in a different state.  If that is not fishy,
I don't know what is.  To my mind, either IH are lying or it doesn't work.
I think the chances or the former are minuscule.  The flow meter is a small
portion of the range of problems that could have already been answered.

Jack

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:38 PM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
> Firstly, there is no point in speculating until there is sufficient
>> evidence.
>>
>
> Exhibit 5 and the photos of the ceiling are all the evidence anyone needs.
> It is physically impossible to operate a 1 MW reactor in that space. Even
> Rossi acknowledged this in a sense, when he suddenly began claiming there
> is a magic endothermic machine swallowing up the heat.
>
>
>
>> At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a
>> year with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until
>> the test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?
>>
>
> They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and in
> Exhibit 5.
>
> You need to stop making stuff up.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

Firstly, there is no point in speculating until there is sufficient
> evidence.
>

Exhibit 5 and the photos of the ceiling are all the evidence anyone needs.
It is physically impossible to operate a 1 MW reactor in that space. Even
Rossi acknowledged this in a sense, when he suddenly began claiming there
is a magic endothermic machine swallowing up the heat.

> At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a year
> with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until the
> test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?
>

They were complaining long before that, as you saw in their Answer and in
Exhibit 5.

You need to stop making stuff up.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

Firstly, there is no point in speculating until there is sufficient 
evidence.  What I object to on this blog is the tendency for doubters to 
use vitriolic ad hominems.


At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH.  They have had a 
year with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until 
the test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining?   I 
have no reason to think the ERV is an idiot or in Rossi's pay, as the 
facts will come out eventually.


Reviewing Rossi's earlier work again I see several examples where the 
test was done with a single phase and the excess heat more than could be 
accounted for by measurement error.   Yet doubters call for yet another 
a single phase test as if it would settle anything. Pathological 
skeptics would doubt the results if Rossi was in the same country.   
Rossi is right.  Only sales of working commercial reactors will convince 
them and that is what he is striving to do.



On 8/19/2016 6:27 PM, David Roberson wrote:
What would you do in their shoes?  If IH is convinced that the device 
did not produce the calculated heat then surely there must be evidence 
to that fact.  The meters apparently fail to support their claims, so 
where do they look?


I am not convinced either way at this juncture and hope that 
additional evidence will come forth to reveal the truth.  Of course, 
if IH and others are honestly convinced that the system does not 
function as claimed then it is easy to understand the actions that 
they are taking.  It is painful to consider paying $89 million 
additional dollars for a pig in a poke.


But, if these guys are attempting to rob Rossi of his work, then I 
have zero sympathy for them.  That scenario does not ring true to me 
at the moment.


We are going to have to wait until further evidence is available 
before we can become totally convinced.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevant to 
the contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discover a 
problem after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying you 
don't believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going to 
measure the main drain to see how much it warmed.



On 8/19/2016 3:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:

It appearsthat the most likely explanation required to prove the
experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the
output of the ECAT system.   If this is to prevail, it is
necessary for someone to offer a reasonable explanation as to why
no one observed this problem during the test.

Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main
product of the ECAT system?  The question about the pressure being
atmospheric at the output port does not appear to hold water since
this problem can be overcome by having a pump inserted within the
output stream of the customers equipment.   I suspect most of us
would agree that if the pressure was indeed atmospheric at the
steam port, then vapor at 102 C would be relatively dry.

Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they
were performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt
to explain away the possible excess heat?

There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat
is vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or only
evidence that the system did not function as expected.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

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

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to
November 2015 was on
average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in
even thousands. The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.

So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input
water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .

I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.

and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow
statement
"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.


I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5
also says:

In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the
effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your
daily valuation report for that pe

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread David Roberson

Bob, I agree with your assessment.  Rossi works in strange ways that are beyond 
normal comprehension.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.



Having an independent customer use the heat and with the customer knowing how 
much heat is required to keep his product line running, would have been a 
wonderful confirmation that the measurements on the Rossi side of the wall were 
correct.  Certainly that was the spirit of the contract terms for the GPT.  
Making the customer's side secret, and the customer's log of the heat coming 
into his factory a secret, certainly looks bad for Rossi and makes the whole 
contrived test look like a scam.  If I were Rossi (and not running a scam), I 
would want that independent customer's validation that I had delivered the heat 
- it would make the test incontrovertible.  Instead, so far the opposite has 
happened - at least until the customer is subpoenaed to testify in court to the 
heat consumption of his "factory".




On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:25 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:

  
What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevantto 
the contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discovera problem 
after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying youdon't 
believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going tomeasure the main 
drain to see how much it warmed.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread David Roberson

What would you do in their shoes?  If IH is convinced that the device did not 
produce the calculated heat then surely there must be evidence to that fact.  
The meters apparently fail to support their claims, so where do they look?

I am not convinced either way at this juncture and hope that additional 
evidence will come forth to reveal the truth.  Of course, if IH and others are 
honestly convinced that the system does not function as claimed then it is easy 
to understand the actions that they are taking.  It is painful to consider 
paying $89 million additional dollars for a pig in a poke.

But, if these guys are attempting to rob Rossi of his work, then I have zero 
sympathy for them.  That scenario does not ring true to me at the moment.

We are going to have to wait until further evidence is available before we can 
become totally convinced.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevantto 
the contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discovera problem 
after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying youdon't 
believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going tomeasure the main 
drain to see how much it warmed.



On 8/19/2016 3:01 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


It appears that the most likely explanation required to prove  the 
experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water  was the 
output of the ECAT system.   If this is to prevail, it  is necessary 
for someone to offer a reasonable explanation as  to why no one 
observed this problem during the test.
  
  Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the  
main product of the ECAT system?  The question about the  pressure 
being atmospheric at the output port does not appear  to hold water 
since this problem can be overcome by having a  pump inserted within 
the output stream of the customers  equipment.   I suspect most of us 
would agree that if the  pressure was indeed atmospheric at the steam 
port, then vapor  at 102 C would be relatively dry.
  
  Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if  
they were performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an  attempt 
to explain away the possible excess heat?
  
  There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of  
heat is vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or  only 
evidence that the system did not function as expected.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
  To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
  Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
      Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.
  
  

  

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

  

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the  system from 
February to November 2015 was on
  average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h).
  


That may have been the average, but daily  totals can only 
be in even thousands. The smallest  unit on this flow meter 
is 1,000 liters.




  

So what we have here are 10 months of the  ERV's 
averaged input water temp, flow rate,  output 
superheated steam temperature . . .
  


I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.




  

and pressure that seems to be more  realistic than 
Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never  varied".
Well Jed that statement is now "BUSTED".
  





I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however  that 
Exhibit 5 also says:

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

Calibrated for the ERV by the manufacturers both before and after the test.
>

Calibrated my ass.

Rossi don't need no stinkin' calibrations!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


Calibrated for the ERV by the manufacturers both before and after the test.


On 8/19/2016 3:15 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:

Calibrated by whom?
I would not trust any meter that was not inspected by a truly 
independent party.

Anything Rossi touches is suspicious.


On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com 
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:


It appearsthat the most likely explanation required to prove the
experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the
output of the ECAT system.   If this is to prevail, it is
necessary for someone to offer a reasonable explanation as to why
no one observed this problem during the test.

Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main
product of the ECAT system?  The question about the pressure being
atmospheric at the output port does not appear to hold water since
this problem can be overcome by having a pump inserted within the
output stream of the customers equipment.   I suspect most of us
would agree that if the pressure was indeed atmospheric at the
steam port, then vapor at 102 C would be relatively dry.

Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they
were performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt
to explain away the possible excess heat?

There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat
is vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or only
evidence that the system did not function as expected.

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: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
    Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

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

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to
November 2015 was on
average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in
even thousands. The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.

So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input
water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .

I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.

and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow
statement
"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.


I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5
also says:

In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the
effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your
daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each
and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that
plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that
level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let
alone a one-month period.


I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

> You were "mistaken" about a lot of things.
> 1.  The was significant flow shown by the computer controlled pumps.
> Enough for a COP of 13 alone.
>

I know nothing about the pumps, and I said nothing about them. My only
comments were regarding the flow meter. The values it reported were
probably far too high.

> 2. The steam was super heated at 102.8 & atmos. pressure, not just hot
> water as you claimed.
>

I do not see how it could be atmospheric pressure. It had to be forced into
the other room by the pumps. As noted in Exhibit 5:

For steam to flow, a pressure differential is required to overcome the
losses in the pipe. Given the foregoing, this would require that the
pressure on the JMP side of the building was significantly below
atmospheric (vacuum) and that the steam would flow at extraordinary
velocity. But this was obviously not the situation present at the location.

> 3. The flow was not constant for the whole run as you claimed many times.
>

It was reportedly exactly 36,000 kg per day for a month. That is impossible.

> 4. You were wrong that the COP was 1.
>

I do not think you have sufficient evidence for that. I think the ERV data
shows there is no heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread Bob Higgins

Having an independent customer use the heat and with the customer knowing
how much heat is required to keep his product line running, would have been
a wonderful confirmation that the measurements on the Rossi side of the
wall were correct.  Certainly that was the spirit of the contract terms for
the GPT.  Making the customer's side secret, and the customer's log of the
heat coming into his factory a secret, certainly looks bad for Rossi and
makes the whole contrived test look like a scam.  If I were Rossi (and not
running a scam), I would want that independent customer's validation that I
had delivered the heat - it would make the test incontrovertible.  Instead,
so far the opposite has happened - at least until the customer is
subpoenaed to testify in court to the heat consumption of his "factory".

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 1:25 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevant to the
> contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discover a problem
> after their hired gun failed to do so.
> It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying you don't
> believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going to measure the main
> drain to see how much it warmed.
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevant to 
the contract.  It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discover a 
problem after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying you don't 
believe the measured exit temperature  so you are going to measure the 
main drain to see how much it warmed.



On 8/19/2016 3:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It appearsthat the most likely explanation required to prove the 
experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the 
output of the ECAT system.   If this is to prevail, it is necessary 
for someone to offer a reasonable explanation as to why no one 
observed this problem during the test.


Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main 
product of the ECAT system?  The question about the pressure being 
atmospheric at the output port does not appear to hold water since 
this problem can be overcome by having a pump inserted within the 
output stream of the customers equipment.   I suspect most of us would 
agree that if the pressure was indeed atmospheric at the steam port, 
then vapor at 102 C would be relatively dry.


Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were 
performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt to 
explain away the possible excess heat?


There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is 
vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence 
that the system did not function as expected.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

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

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to
November 2015 was on
average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in even 
thousands. The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.


So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input
water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .

I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.

and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement
"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.


I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5 also says:

In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective
flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation
report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without
deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be
virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over
just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.


I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

Calibrated by whom?
I would not trust any meter that was not inspected by a truly independent
party.
Anything Rossi touches is suspicious.


On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:

> It appears that the most likely explanation required to prove the
> experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the output of
> the ECAT system.   If this is to prevail, it is necessary for someone to
> offer a reasonable explanation as to why no one observed this problem
> during the test.
>
> Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main product of
> the ECAT system?  The question about the pressure being atmospheric at the
> output port does not appear to hold water since this problem can be
> overcome by having a pump inserted within the output stream of the
> customers equipment.   I suspect most of us would agree that if the
> pressure was indeed atmospheric at the steam port, then vapor at 102 C
> would be relatively dry.
>
> Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were
> performed with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt to explain
> away the possible excess heat?
>
> There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is
> vented.  That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence that the
> system did not function as expected.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.
>
> a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November
>> 2015 was on
>> average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.
>>
> That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in even
> thousands. The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.
>
> So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input water temp,
>> flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .
>>
> I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.
>
> and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement
>> "It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
>> Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.
>>
>
> I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5 also says:
>
> In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed
> water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that
> period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit
> B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that
> level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a
> one-month period.
>
>
> I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread David Roberson

It appears that the most likely explanation required to prove the experiment 
was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the output of the ECAT 
system.   If this is to prevail, it is necessary for someone to offer a 
reasonable explanation as to why no one observed this problem during the test.

Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main product of the 
ECAT system?  The question about the pressure being atmospheric at the output 
port does not appear to hold water since this problem can be overcome by having 
a pump inserted within the output stream of the customers equipment.   I 
suspect most of us would agree that if the pressure was indeed atmospheric at 
the steam port, then vapor at 102 C would be relatively dry.

Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were performed 
with calibrated meters?  Is this merely an attempt to explain away the possible 
excess heat?

There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is vented.  
That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence that the system did 
not function as expected.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.




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


1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to  November 
2015 was on
  average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h).

That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in even thousands. 
The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.



So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input  water temp, 
flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .

I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.



and  pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
Well Jed that statement is now "BUSTED".




I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5 also says:





In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water 
in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 
36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is 
that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of 
consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.





I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.


Jed,
You were "mistaken" about a lot of things.
1.  The was significant flow shown by the computer controlled pumps.  
Enough for a COP of 13 alone.
2. The steam was super heated at 102.8 & atmos. pressure, not just hot 
water as you claimed.

3. The flow was not constant for the whole run as you claimed many times.
4. You were wrong that the COP was 1.
5. It looks like the E-Cat works.

I know you will try an spin the above, but I'm not interested in taking 
the time to debate every twist.

Wait for the real facts to emerge.

AA

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

> 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November
> 2015 was on
> average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.
>
That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in even
thousands. The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters.

So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input water temp,
> flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . .
>
I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated.

and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement
>
> "It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
> Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.
>

I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5 also says:

In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed
water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that
period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit
B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that
level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a
one-month period.

I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

It seems another fairy tale has been discredited, that Rossi removed IH's
> instrumentation.

He certainly did remove it. I do not know where you got this information
from, but it is wrong.

  It now seems that the ERV  replaced the IH instruments with those agreed
> upon, sealed and photographed them.
>

I.H. did not agree. They said they did not agree in their Motion to
Dismiss. Who are you going to believe regarding I.H. views? What they say,
or what Rossi and the rumor mill says? A statement provided to the court is
authoritative, I think.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

a.ashfield  wrote:

> There is a video recording too.
> Jed and you are wrong about the flowmeter not reading below the rated
> minimum.
>

You mean the manufacturer is wrong. Not me. The manufacturer's face plate
shows the minimum flow rate is higher than what Rossi reported. You are
saying the manufacturer does know their own equipment. I doubt that, but
anyway, you should not ascribe their statements to me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

It seems another fairy tale has been discredited, that Rossi removed 
IH's instrumentation.  It now seems that the ERV  replaced the IH 
instruments with those agreed upon, sealed and photographed them.

Sorry to confuse the issue with the facts again.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

There is a video recording too.
Jed and you are wrong about the flowmeter not reading below the rated
minimum. As has been pointed out before, it is indeed quite linear
below that with a max error of 3% at very low flows, far below what was
used.

It has also been pointed out from photos that the drain leaves the
horizontal pipe ~ half full. Given time and evaporation that might
cause a stain.
Do try to come up with some new fairy tales to support your firm
convictions, although I realize it is not as exciting as speculating on
the origin of a plant photo on JM's business card.

Giovanni

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:44 PM, a.ashfield > wrote:

Engineer48 gives flow rates from the digital controlled pumps on
ECat World here:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/19/analyzing-e-cat-plant-pumps-indicate-cop1-engineer48/

He goes on to comment that some data from the ERV's report is
given by IH in Item 5
*
"WE HAVE ERV DATA*

IH exhibit item 5 states:

According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10
months or for 3 ERV reports),

1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to
November 2015 was on
average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.

2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C
and 102.8º C*, respectively.

3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be
*0 kPaG*

*Surprise, Surprise Jed's claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I
mean does that really surprise anybody?"
*

So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input
water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature and
pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement

"It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".

Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.

(He shows a picture of the actual report below that can't be
reproduced here.)

As I've commented several times already, it is better to wait for
that actual facts before jumping to conclusions on second hand
reports.

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread Daniel Rocha

That's a reading from the pump. Also, the photos show that the information
is wrong about the flowmeter, the type contained in the photos have much
more precision.

2016-08-19 14:22 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :

> How a single photograph taken at a particular point in time proves
> anything in terms of daily data?
> Also Jed point was that the flowmeter could not read any flow that was
> smaller than 36 kg/day as stated in the manual.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.

2016-08-19 Thread Giovanni Santostasi

How a single photograph taken at a particular point in time proves anything
in terms of daily data?
Also Jed point was that the flowmeter could not read any flow that was
smaller than 36 kg/day as stated in the manual.

Giovanni


On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:44 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Engineer48 gives flow rates from the digital controlled pumps on ECat
> World here:
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/08/19/analyzing-e-cat-
> plant-pumps-indicate-cop1-engineer48/
>
> He goes on to comment that some data from the ERV's report is given by IH
> in Item 5
>
> * "WE HAVE ERV DATA*
>
> IH exhibit item 5 states:
>
> According to the data you have reported (averaged data for 10 months or
> for 3 ERV reports),
>
> 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November
> 2015 was on
> average *33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h)*.
>
> 2) the temperature of the water and steam were on average *68.7º C and
> 102.8º C*, respectively.
>
> 3) the steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be *0 kPaG*
>
>
> *Surprise, Surprise Jed's claimed 36,000kg/day is not correct. I mean does
> that really surprise anybody?" *
>
> As for the 0.0 barG steam pressure, the superheater steam can be drawn
> through the piping and into the heat exchanger by a slightly lower
> pressure, maybe -0.2 barG on the outlet of the primary side of the heat
> exchanger.
>
> So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input water temp,
> flow rate, output superheated steam temperature and pressure that seems to
> be more realistic than Jed's flow statement
>
> "It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied".
> Well Jed that statement is now *"BUSTED"*.
>
> (He shows a picture of the actual report below that can't be reproduced
> here.)
>
> As I've commented several times already, it is better to wait for that
> actual facts before jumping to conclusions on second hand reports.
>
>
>

[Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.