Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked. You say you have "all the data." It seems very unlikely that IH has all Rossi's data and so how would you get it? AA On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: I have every reason to doubt it. Saying that you have the piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water. Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further messages from you. Done and done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
a.ashfield wrote: I have every reason to doubt it. Saying that you have the piping drawing > but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water. > Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further messages from you. Done and done. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Jed, I have every reason to doubt it. Saying that you have the piping drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water. If it was indeed so damaging to Rossi IH would have published it already. As far as I can tell IH haven't even claimed the 1 MW didn't work, only that they could not replicate it. (Show me the exact quotation if they have.) AA On 2/17/2017 5:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) . . . You have no reason to doubt it. You are accusing me of lying here. I don't take kindly to that. please post the much requested layout of the piping. I will not post it. I have told you many times: I will not post anything not revealed by Rossi or I.H. I will say it is a gravity return. You can see that from the reservoir, which cannot be airtight. If you do not believe me, I suggest you ask Rossi. You will get nothing more from me, so if you are not satisfied, I suggest you ignore my messages. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
a.ashfield wrote: > If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) . . . > You have no reason to doubt it. You are accusing me of lying here. I don't take kindly to that. > please post the much requested layout of the piping. > I will not post it. I have told you many times: I will not post anything not revealed by Rossi or I.H. I will say it is a gravity return. You can see that from the reservoir, which cannot be airtight. If you do not believe me, I suggest you ask Rossi. You will get nothing more from me, so if you are not satisfied, I suggest you ignore my messages. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Peter Gluck wrote: > you have no idea what other people think. > This has nothing to do with what people think. This is about plumbing. > The pipe you are showing there has nothing to do with the plant. > It is a gravity return pipe with a flow far smaller than its maximum capacity. The maximum capacity of Rossi's pipe is 140 gpm. Rossi claims it is carrying 6 gpm. That is much smaller than 140, so we can be 100% sure it is not full. It is mostly empty. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Jed, If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) please post the much requested layout of the piping. AA On 2/17/2017 2:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: I rather liked Rossi's comment. Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs before the full information is released in court is about as useful as discussing the sex of angels. That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information on this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are inescapable -- The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36 times per day is absurd. The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data. The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when _Rossi himself reported the reactor was turned off_. Would you like to explain that miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know that's impossible? The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed. The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe. The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity of a 3" pipe is 140 gpm: http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than the pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the flow meter cannot possibly work. A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this: http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston-sewer-line-cleaning.jpg Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used pipes and pumps will know this is how it looks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Jed, you have no idea what other people think. The pipe you are showing there has nothing to do with the plant. I was working with pipes in plants when you were stll in the kindergarten, you say too many inept things loud. I remember when you told the first time - getting no other explnation for the moronity with the hal full pipes than that the flowmeter was in the grqvity retiurn pipe- but I bet you have no digram and I bet the flowmeter is not on that pipe. You are just defending a long ago lost position and impossible idea. You do ot respect the rules of professionality and it is very difficult to discuss with you. I will discuss again when you show the diagram, OK? I fear you are really believing what you say, lying is more sane. peter On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > a.ashfield wrote: > > >> I rather liked Rossi's comment. Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs >> before the full information is released in court is about as useful as >> discussing the sex of angels. >> > > That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information on > this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are inescapable -- > > The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36 > times per day is absurd. > > The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data. > > The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when *Rossi > himself reported the reactor was turned off*. Would you like to explain > that miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know that's > impossible? > > The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed. > > The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe. > > The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity of a > 3" pipe is 140 gpm: > > http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes > > Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically > impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than the > pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the flow meter > cannot possibly work. > > A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this: > > http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston- > sewer-line-cleaning.jpg > > Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used pipes > and pumps will know this is how it looks. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
a.ashfield wrote: > I rather liked Rossi's comment. Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs > before the full information is released in court is about as useful as > discussing the sex of angels. > That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information on this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are inescapable -- The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36 times per day is absurd. The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data. The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when *Rossi himself reported the reactor was turned off*. Would you like to explain that miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know that's impossible? The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed. The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe. The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity of a 3" pipe is 140 gpm: http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than the pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the flow meter cannot possibly work. A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this: http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston-sewer-line-cleaning.jpg Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used pipes and pumps will know this is how it looks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Jed, I rather liked Rossi's comment. Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs before the full information is released in court is about as useful as discussing the sex of angels. AA On 2/17/2017 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Gluck mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com>> wrote: Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X) Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose. The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine. No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric power than the power company supplied. That is not "perfectly plausible"; it is outrageous nonsense. The main differences to the Doral plant case: a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return pipe, according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy of that schematic, since you do not believe me. b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow. That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long the water runs. You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way. Completely wrong. Now there are two cases possible in principle: A. Normal professional setup: RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who looked at it saw that immediately. B. Setup according to Jed The setup is according to Rossi, not me. FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system. There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because: 1. The pipe was half empty. 2. It was the wrong kind of meter. 3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water. Various other reasons such as -- 4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat source. Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult. This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen. BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper. Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca? You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer the issues raised by Gamberale? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Peter Gluck wrote: Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument > to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X) Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose. > The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- > scending pipe is simple and fine. > No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric power than the power company supplied. That is not "perfectly plausible"; it is outrageous nonsense. > The main differences to the Doral plant case: > a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that > ascending pipe > That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return pipe, according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy of that schematic, since you do not believe me. > b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a > professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters > are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and > effective flow. > That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long the water runs. > You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous > in a way. > Completely wrong. > Now there are two cases possible in principle: > A. Normal professional setup: > RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors > possible > No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who looked at it saw that immediately. > B. Setup according to Jed > The setup is according to Rossi, not me. > FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter > works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however > not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system. > There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because: 1. The pipe was half empty. 2. It was the wrong kind of meter. 3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water. Various other reasons such as -- 4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat source. > Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult. > This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen. > BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper. > Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca? > You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer the issues raised by Gamberale? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the trial and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you, Jed. have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X) The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending pipe is simple and fine. The main differences to the Doral plant case: a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that ascending pipe b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and effective flow. You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous in a way. However the Gioanola instructions are fine and have to be respected strictly being the same as those for the flowmeter used in the Plant. Now there are two cases possible in principle: A. Normal professional setup: RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible B. Setup according to Jed FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system. Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult. BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper. Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca? peter On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Here is an article and some videos showing how a flow meter can installed > incorrectly: > > https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/how-to-overestimate-water-flux-by- > wrongly-positioning-an-instrument/ > > Figure 4 shows how to correct the problem. As far as I know, Rossi had > these same problems, and he did not install the kind of plumbing shown in > Fig. 4 that would fix them. > > The instructions for the meter are here: > > https://gsvit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/istruzioni-per-la- > corretta-installazione-contatori-unico-e-multiplo.pdf > > Concluding sentence: > > N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si > raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad > eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione). > > Google translate: > > N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is > recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for > short periods due to maintenance). > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument
Here is an article and some videos showing how a flow meter can installed incorrectly: https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/how-to-overestimate-water-flux-by-wrongly-positioning-an-instrument/ Figure 4 shows how to correct the problem. As far as I know, Rossi had these same problems, and he did not install the kind of plumbing shown in Fig. 4 that would fix them. The instructions for the meter are here: https://gsvit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/istruzioni-per-la-corretta-installazione-contatori-unico-e-multiplo.pdf Concluding sentence: N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione). Google translate: N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for short periods due to maintenance). - Jed