Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See below.

2017-02-01 Thread Jed Rothwell 
Brian Ahern  wrote:


> The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1
> day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec
>

Note:

1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is what
Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this spreadsheet, in the
"reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 32,400 kg instead of 36,000
kg.

2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the
gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The manual
for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is half full, so
the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say how far off they
are, but they cannot be right.

3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be exactly the
same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the nearest 1000 kg,
which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it would record something like
35,000 kg one day, 34,000 the next, and 36,000 the next even if the flow
was extremely consistent.



> The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature  rise of34.8
> degrees C.
>
> Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C
>
> The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:
>
> Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat capacity of
> water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)
>
> 425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second
> =  62,191watts
>

The authors claim that the water was vaporized, so they used the heat of
vaporization. It could not have been vaporized, because there was some back
pressure from the equipment. At these temperatures, even a little pressure
will prevent vaporization.



> However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows where that
> came from?
>

Probably the adjustments I just described account for it, but the data is
fake and the instruments and configuration are preposterous, so it means
nothing.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See below.

2017-02-01 Thread Russ George 
Yikes!!!

 

From: Brian Ahern [mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 11:44 AM
To: Jed Rothwell; Vortex
Cc: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett; doug marker; Dr.
Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko Lietz; jeff
aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter Mobberley;
Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski; Sunwon Park;
Valerio Ciampoli; vlad
Subject: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It is very
exciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. See
below.

 

The data sheet is a testament to the engineer's competence and pride. He
mixes metric units with English units, such as kg/day for a flow rate
instead of grams/second. This shows a lack of training that is not expected
from a senior engineer. We can bring some competence to this data.

Lets examine one day. I choose April 1 for obvious reasons.  Power input =
10.29 Kilowatts

The next column is in units of kWHr/day  . This is mixing units, but
dividing247000  by 24 hours gets us back t 10.29 kW input.

 

The water flow rate is 36000kG/day  or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG  x 1 day/84,600
sec/day = 425.5 G/sec 

The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 =  a temperature  rise
of34.8 degrees C.

Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C

The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:

Flow rate (G/sec )   x   Temp. rise (degrees C)   xheat capacity of
water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)

425.5g/sec  x  34.8C  x  4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second =
62,191watts 

 

The COP is 62.191/10.29 = 6.04That is outstanding! It is far from a
megawatt output, but it would be worth billions if it could be reproduced.
Rossi does not need higher COPs.

However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows where that
came from?

 

 

  _  

From: Jed Rothwell  >
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 2:36 PM
To: Vortex
Cc: Arik El Boher; Bo Hoistadt; Brian Ahern; Dagmar Kuhn; David Daggett;
doug marker; Dr. Braun Tibor; eCatNews; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian; Gary; Haiko
Lietz; jeff aries; Mark Tsirlin; Nicolaie N. Vlad; Peter Bjorkbom; Peter
Mobberley; Pierre Clauzon; Roberto Germano; Roy Virgilio; Steve Katinski;
Sunwon Park; Valerio Ciampoli; vlad
Subject: Re: [Vo]:asking for short opinion papers 

 

Peter Gluck  > wrote:

 

I would publish with great pleasure your opinion

papers re the ERV Daily Valuation Report of the 1MW 1 year test.

 

You did not describe what data you mean. It is here, in document 128-01 -
Exhibit 1.pdf :

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BzKtdce19-wyb1RxOTF6c2NtZkk

 

This data is complete bullshit. It describes physically impossible
phenomena, such as a factory in a perfect vacuum with a pressure 0.0 bar,
and water that is exactly the same temperature to the nearest tenth-degree
every day for weeks. The instruments used to collect this data were
completely wrong for the task, and the configuration made it impossible to
use any instruments properly. The major problems were described in Exhibit 5
at the above website:

 

124-06 - Exhibit 5.pdf

 

This data proves beyond question that the 1-year test was fraud. It was
inept fraud, which anyone with a half a brain can see at a glance. People
such as Peter Gluck are incapable of seeing it because they are mesmerized
by Rossi, and deluded by wishful thinking.

 

- Jed