date:20160808

You appear to be missing the point here.   It amazes me that you seem to 
believe that gas phase LENR is possible but for some reason are certain that 
Rossi does not see any extra heat generation.   I would conclude that gas phase 
LENR is likely not possible what so ever if Rossi's system does not generate 
some excess heat.   The question is how much does he produce?  There is 
evidence of excess heat generation during his earlier demonstrations that I 
consider reasonably sound.

And, his structure makes a great deal of sense to many of us.   Surely you 
realize that the active mixture must be heated in order to initiate the 
reaction.  And, once a reaction takes off, it can be controlled by modulating 
the input drive power.  I fail to understand why you believe that the internal 
heater is not required?  That is not to suggest that an external heat source 
could not be substituted in an alternate configuration.

I am curious about how you would construct a gas phase system that is 
practical?  What would be the three dimensional shape that you would choose, 
the type of heating employed, active material, etc.?  Once you begin the actual 
engineering of the device you will find that Rossi is not totally out in left 
field.

Should I say it again?  I have serious doubts about whether or not Rossi is 
making the 1 MW that he claims in his current system.  And, I want to 
understand how the meters might be hiding the real results if they in fact are 
wrong.  There must be a good explanation in science that we can find if we 
think about the problem and eventually get the data from him.  This new 
knowledge will guide us in the future in case others become confused in a 
similar manner.  I hate guessing if the truth can be determined.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 12:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


You don't seem to get it.

Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.

ROSSI.

ROSSI is not to be believed.  His "experiments" are consequently
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.

This has nothing to do with gas-phase LENR, which has lookedpromising 
ever since it was first tried, in Italy, IIRC, a fewdecades ago.  
Unfortunately Rossi has totally muddied the water withhis Rube Goldberg 
machine which apparently has as its single purposeto provide a (bogus) 
justification for including a heater within thereactor, which makes all of 
his results a little harder to believeright from the get-go.  Wet LENR 
requires a power source to drivethe electrolysis, which hairs up the 
analysis, but it'sunavoidable.  Gas-phase LENR, OTOH, doesn't naturally 
require apower source; Rossi's claims that his machine was "too dangerous" 
tooperate WITHOUT a heater inside rang false to start with andnothing's 
made it sound any better since.

People lie, scammers exist.  Once you've figured out that's whatyou're 
dealing with, you should understand that you have *no* goodinformation on 
anything about his "experiments" and any analysis isunlikely to get you 
anything useful.



On 08/09/2016 12:43 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.   On the other 
hand, I have a much more positive belief that  some form of nickel, 
hydrogen, lithium gas system might  generate additional heat.  As long 
as that possibility exists  within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's 
experiment would be  completely invalid. 
  
  Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I
  will understand why you are taking the position that Rossi  
absolutely can not be believed.  That is OK, everyone is  entitled to 
their beliefs.
  
  If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a  
scientific explanation of how someone might be scamming an  experiment

I don't understand what you mean by that.

He lies about meter readings, about power input, about flow rate,about 
the phase (gas or liquid) of the water in his system.

What's to "learn" or "uncover" here?  How to be a world-class liar? 
Humans have evolved that ability over millions of years; we'remostly pretty 
good at it.

The "physics" of his experiments, if any, is utterly uninteresting
because it is entirely lost in the smoke he blows in order toconceal what 
he's actually doing.  And it's vanishingly unlikelythat the "physics" 
involves anything deeper than V=IR plus a bit ofmisdirection while he 
switches samples in order to fool the rubes.

Gas-phase LENR

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


:-)OK.  I'll stop bugging you about it.


On 08/09/2016 01:32 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am 
not ashamed of this possibility.


2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence >:


t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I think that's interesting. It may even help future scammers and I am not
ashamed of this possibility.

2016-08-09 2:22 GMT-03:00 Stephen A. Lawrence :

> t it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:


*You said:*

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form


*after Daniel said:
*
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, *which had to cool 1MW*.



From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were /assuming/ there 
was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.


Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were 
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not real 
(as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual performance 
matters in the least.  The performance of the human in the system has 
been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are needed.


Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring.  There was /steam/ 
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat -- 
but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not liquid 
water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive amounts of 
heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate.


In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once 
you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its 
performance were lying.  And sorting out the exact details of what the 
system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's 
not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources.  
In fact, it's most likely not even going to lead to a provably correct 
model, just one you think /might/ be correct, because you'll never get 
the physical proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which 
is Rossi.


At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.


On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson wrote:
You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the 
error in the flow rate that Jed is assuming.  That is the scientific 
way to explain his belief without just plain guessing.  For some 
reason you think that I believe that Rossi is actually generating the 
1 MW of heat without any reservations.


Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to 
uncover the truth?  Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is 
reading much greater than it should, especially taking into 
consideration the recent excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?  
If you are a scientist or engineer then you should want an honest 
explanation for the errors in flow rate readings.  Otherwise it would 
be better for you to leave that determination to those of us that have 
the proper training.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive 
doublethink here.


You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ 
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.


If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably 
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that 
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other 
anomalies Jed has mentioned.


It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't 
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.


So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was 
much lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less 
bang-on, and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.  
But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:

OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a
heat pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a
pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as
well as heat exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the
active fluid in vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not
absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the
liquid form.   I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture
in Rossi's case might be vapor, leading to false reading within
the gauge ahead of the pump?

This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in
court

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

You fail to understand.  I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the error in 
the flow rate that Jed is assuming.  That is the scientific way to explain his 
belief without just plain guessing.  For some reason you think that I believe 
that Rossi is actually generating the 1 MW of heat without any reservations.

Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to uncover 
the truth?  Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is reading much 
greater than it should, especially taking into consideration the recent 
excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?  If you are a scientist or engineer 
then you should want an honest explanation for the errors in flow rate 
readings.  Otherwise it would be better for you to leave that determination to 
those of us that have the proper training.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging inmassive 
doublethink here.

You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while assuming
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.

If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably correct,
and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that needs tobe 
explained, save for the constant flow rate and other anomaliesJed has 
mentioned.

It's only if the system wasn't generating a megawatt thatthere's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in thatcase you can't very 
well assume that much heat is being dissipated.

So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat wasmuch 
lower than a megawatt,  or the meter reading was moreor less bang-on, and 
there was a megawatt of heat being dissipatedsomewhere.  But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the  lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed  system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the  flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure  return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the  pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding  mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.   I 
wonder  if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might  
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of  
the pump?
  
  This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Daniel Rocha 
  To: John Milstone 
  Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described  
in court document
  
  

  
I was thinking more of the coolingmechanism, which had to cool 
1MW. The surface area isvery large. In less then 3D (scale of 
the tubes in 1D incomparison to other), turbulence can go from 
smallvortices to high, and when it exits to large tubes it  
  goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the design,  
  a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flowmeter, 
if no system to elimate bubles is developed.


  
2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00David Roberson 
:

I agree, the pump might actually lower  the pressure at 
its input enough to allow the  water to vaporize if the 
flow is restricted  ahead of the gauge.
  
  Dave

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


You don't seem to get it.

Rossi has been shown to be lying and fabricating results.

ROSSI.

ROSSI is not to be believed.  His "experiments" are consequently 
worthless, because the basic assumption of good faith, on which all 
conventional analysis of experiments ultimately rests, is gone.


This has nothing to do with gas-phase LENR, which has looked promising 
ever since it was first tried, in Italy, IIRC, a few decades ago.  
Unfortunately Rossi has totally muddied the water with his Rube Goldberg 
machine which apparently has as its single purpose to provide a (bogus) 
justification for including a heater within the reactor, which makes all 
of his results a little harder to believe right from the get-go.  Wet 
LENR requires a power source to drive the electrolysis, which hairs up 
the analysis, but it's unavoidable.  Gas-phase LENR, OTOH, doesn't 
naturally require a power source; Rossi's claims that his machine was 
"too dangerous" to operate WITHOUT a heater inside rang false to start 
with and nothing's made it sound any better since.


People lie, scammers exist.  Once you've figured out that's what you're 
dealing with, you should understand that you have *no* good information 
on anything about his "experiments" and any analysis is unlikely to get 
you anything useful.



On 08/09/2016 12:43 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As I stated, I have many concerns about his system. On the other hand, 
I have a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, 
lithium gas system might generate additional heat.  As long as that 
possibility exists within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment 
would be completely invalid.


Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I will 
understand why you are taking the position that Rossi absolutely can 
not be believed.  That is OK, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.


If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a scientific 
explanation of how someone might be scamming an experiment


I don't understand what you mean by that.

He lies about meter readings, about power input, about flow rate, about 
the phase (gas or liquid) of the water in his system.


What's to "learn" or "uncover" here?  How to be a world-class liar? 
Humans have evolved that ability over millions of years; we're mostly 
pretty good at it.


The "physics" of his experiments, if any, is utterly uninteresting 
because it is entirely lost in the smoke he blows in order to conceal 
what he's actually doing.  And it's vanishingly unlikely that the 
"physics" involves anything deeper than V=IR plus a bit of misdirection 
while he switches samples in order to fool the rubes.


Gas-phase LENR is worthwhile and deserves to be explore further. Rossi's 
so-called ECAT, on the other hand, isn't, and *any* attempt at guiding 
exploration of gas-phase LENR using Rossi's "results" is wasted effort.




is wasting time for 'everyone' on this list, I will refrain from that 
effort.


You may not remember that I have contributed to the resolution of many 
important issues in the past.  Also, I have constructed thermal system 
models that yield quite interesting results that you can find in the 
list archives if interested.


YOUR VALUE is _not_ in question.  The value of doing anything more with 
ROSSI (and, indeed, Rossi's value) most certainly IS in question.


There is no need to "resolve" this issue.  It's already resolved. The 
only thing to be "resolved" is the deep denial in which a number of 
members of Vortex are still residing.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

As I stated, I have many concerns about his system.  On the other hand, I have 
a much more positive belief that some form of nickel, hydrogen, lithium gas 
system might generate additional heat.  As long as that possibility exists 
within my mind I fail to see how Rossi's experiment would be completely 
invalid. 

Are you convinced that LENR is not a real phenomena?  If so, I will understand 
why you are taking the position that Rossi absolutely can not be believed.  
That is OK, everyone is entitled to their beliefs.

If it becomes clear to me that my attempts to uncover a scientific explanation 
of how someone might be scamming an experiment is wasting time for 'everyone' 
on this list, I will refrain from that effort.

You may not remember that I have contributed to the resolution of many 
important issues in the past.  Also, I have constructed thermal system models 
that yield quite interesting results that you can find in the list archives if 
interested.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document





On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi  is telling the 
truth if he were to present a solid scientific  proof to that fact.  Is 
that not giving him the benefit of the  doubt?  Can anyone be 100% 
confident that he is completely  lying?
  
  As long as there is any question about the facts, 


No.  Wrong criterion.  There will always be some questionsabout the 
facts.

The courts do not require guilt to be proved "beyond a shadow of a
doubt" or "beyond any question" or "beyond any possibility of error"because 
it is almost never possible to prove anything thatdefinitely.

On the other hand, Rossi has been proved to be a liar and ascammer 
beyond a reasonable doubt which is thecriterion jurors are generally asked 
to apply.  The number ofunlikely assumptions which must hold in order for 
him to be anhonest researcher is vastly larger than the number of 
assumptionswhich must hold if he is what he appears to be, which is a 
greedysleazebucket who's stealing money and wasting everybody's time. 
Concluding in the face of the evidence that you must give him  another 
chance is flat-out irrational -- i.e.,  it's anemotional decision, not a 
reasoned one, because there is noreasonable ground for concluding that.

If you want to waste time giving him endless chances to try yetagain 
and maybe this time produce an honest result that shows hisequipment really 
does work, feel free, but you are seriously wastingeverybody else's time by 
doing it here.  At this time it appearsthat there's a larger chance that 
you'll hit Megabucks than thatyou'll wake up and find out Rossi was 
vindicated.  (And that goesdouble if you actually buy a lottery ticket.)

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive 
doublethink here.


You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/ 
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.


If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably 
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that 
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other 
anomalies Jed has mentioned.


It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an 
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't 
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.


So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was much 
lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less bang-on, 
and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.  But not both.


On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat 
pump operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) 
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat 
exchangers.  A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in 
vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the 
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.   I 
wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might 
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of the pump?


This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court 
document


I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. 
The surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 
1D in comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to 
high, and when it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to 
low. Depending on the design, a lot of cavitation may form and 
accumulate in the flow meter, if no system to elimate bubles is developed.


2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson >:


I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input
enough to allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted
ahead of the gauge.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

OK, interesting concept.  I was thinking along the lines of how a heat pump 
operates.  It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) and a strong 
restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat exchangers.  A low pressure 
return pipe carries the active fluid in vapor form to the pump.  If sufficient 
heat is not absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the 
liquid form.   I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's 
case might be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of the 
pump?

This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document



I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. The 
surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 1D in 
comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to high, and when 
it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the 
design, a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flow meter, if no 
system to elimate bubles is developed.



2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson :

I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough to 
allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 11:39 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the 
truth if he were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is 
that not giving him the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% 
confident that he is completely lying?


As long as there is any question about the facts,


No.  Wrong criterion.  There will /always/ be some questions about the 
facts.


The courts do not require guilt to be proved "beyond a shadow of a 
doubt" or "beyond any question" or "beyond any possibility of error" 
because it is almost never possible to prove /anything/ that definitely.


On the other hand, Rossi /has/ been proved to be a liar and a scammer 
/beyond a _reasonable_ doubt/ which is the criterion jurors are 
generally asked to apply.  The number of unlikely assumptions which must 
hold in order for him to be an honest researcher is vastly larger than 
the number of assumptions which must hold if he is what he appears to 
be, which is a greedy sleazebucket who's stealing money and wasting 
everybody's time. Concluding in the face of the evidence that you /must 
give him another chance/ is flat-out irrational -- i.e.,  it's an 
emotional decision, not a reasoned one, because there is no reasonable 
ground for concluding that.


If you want to waste time giving him endless chances to try yet again 
and maybe this time produce an honest result that shows his equipment 
really does work, feel free, but you are seriously wasting everybody 
else's time by doing it here.  At this time it appears that there's a 
larger chance that you'll hit Megabucks than that you'll wake up and 
find out Rossi was vindicated.  (And that goes double if you actually 
buy a lottery ticket.)

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I would hope that you could be convinced that Rossi is telling the truth if he 
were to present a solid scientific proof to that fact.  Is that not giving him 
the benefit of the doubt?  Can anyone be 100% confident that he is completely 
lying?

As long as there is any question about the facts, we should be able to explore 
the complexities of the experiment.  So far, it appears that most of the folks 
with great reservations believe that the water flow rate measurements are where 
he confuses us the most.  I am attempting to follow up on that lead and 
determine whether or not it is based upon scientific fact.   If we can not 
convince ourselves that this is the source of the error, then we are coming up 
short.

I would hope that you, me and the others can actually figure out why the 
experiment is not indicative of reality.  Let's not become pseudo skeptics 
unless the data leads to that conclusion. Also, no one should assume that I 
believe most of what Rossi is saying because I harbor many serious concerns.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document





On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as  you have concluded, 
but I am attempting to give him the  benefit of the doubt.  

You have got to be kidding.

We have been discussing Rossi in this group for the last sixyears.

The first Vortex email I have regarding Rossi is from March, 2010. It's 
from Jed, and it's quite positive.

The road from initial elation with Rossi's fabulous results to the
conclusion that it's all just a fable with nothing to back it up waslong, 
contentious, and littered with a lot of dubious claims (fromRossi) and 
difficult to unearth facts (about what he was reallydoing).

The "benefit of the doubt" ran out long ago for this guy.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

He was contributing in his point of view why this kind of discussion
happens and you just tell him to shut up, just because you think that is
not serious. LOL.

2016-08-09 0:03 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
>
> Do you have anything to contribute? Or do you just accept this particular
> nonsense from Rossi because Rossi Said It?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

LOL. Wow.
>

LOL yourself. Would you care to explain how a flow meter might register
exactly 36,000 kg every day for months, without variation?

Do you have anything to contribute? Or do you just accept this particular
nonsense from Rossi because Rossi Said It?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

LOL. Wow.

2016-08-08 23:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>  suggest you shut up.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Russ George  wrote:

There is no blacker hole than the hole of social media speculation and
> pontification, therein lies universes filled with churlish senseless time
> wasting bullshit…
>

You do realize, I hope, that I am looking at actual data from the
experiment, from Rossi, and also data that I.H. uploaded to the court
system in a lawsuit? That is not "social media speculation." Data submitted
to a court case is more reliable than informal lab notes from Parkhomov or
the MFMP (as estimable as they may be). This is a serious matter. I.H. is
making serious allegations, backed up by teams of experts. More evidence is
waiting in the wings. For example, hard data will show there was no heat
coming from the customer site. So Rossi's claim is a violation of
thermodynamics. That's a scientific issue. Not speculation, pontification
or bullshit.

I am not pontificating; I am pointing out very specific things about the
data, such as the fact that in order to actually record 36,000 kg per day
for months, like clockwork, you would have to have water flowing at a
precise rate to the nearest second -- like a clock. Do you dispute this?
Can you explain these repeated figures of 36,000 kg some other way? Either
Rossi has miraculously good control over the flow -- even managing to
adjust for daylight savings time -- OR this data is fake. Which do you
suppose it is?

If you have no actual scientific content to contribute to this discussion,
for example if you cannot suggest a plausible reason why the flow might
actually be 36,000 kg every day for months, then YOU are the one who
pontificating and bullshitting. You are interrupting a serious discussion.
I suggest you shut up.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

There is no blacker hole than the hole of social media speculation and 
pontification, therein lies universes filled with churlish senseless time 
wasting bullshit…

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Russ George  > wrote:

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims of 
‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, utterly unsubstantiated 
and without any verifiable facts/data . . .

If documents filed with the court are not substantiation and not verifiable, 
what would be? What sort of proof would satisfy you?

What proof have you seen from Rossi?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I wrote:

> Nope. Not possible, I think. That would require the flow to be
> synchronized to the clock such that it clicks *exactly* every 40 minutes,
> to the nearest second, every day for months. If it were a little late on
> the last click, it would show 35,000 that day, pushing the next click into
> the next day. Slightly faster and it would be 37,000. The flow would have
> to be regulated to a fraction of a liter.
>

As someone pointed out at lenr-forum, Rossi would have to adjust the flow
twice a year for daylight savings time. It would be a difficult adjustment.
He would have to turn down the flow exactly enough to retard it on March
13, then on November 6 he would increase the flow.

This reminds me of the hypothesis that the pretend customer went to great
lengths to hide the 1 MW of waste heat, so that no IR camera or other
method could detect it. Why would anyone do that? Why would JM care whether
someone is detecting their waste heat?

Do you know what I think happened? I think they stuffed the number "36,000"
into the flow rate, for every day. They didn't even bother skipping days
when the machine was turned off. Then they stuffed "0.0" into the pressure.
Probably, observers saw that the flow meter was recording one click every
hour or so, so 36,000 kg is plausible. That is not the actual flow, but if
you watch the meter for a few hours you would see something like that.
Observers probably saw that the pressure indicated there was water, not
steam, so they erased the actual pressure numbers and put in 0.0.

That's what I suppose happened.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. The
surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the tubes in 1D in
comparison to other), turbulence can go from small vortices to high, and
when it exits to large tubes it goes from high vortices to low. Depending
on the design, a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flow
meter, if no system to elimate bubles is developed.

2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson :

> I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough
> to allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.
>
> Dave
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 08:27 PM, David Roberson wrote:
I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as you have 
concluded, but I am attempting to give him _*the benefit of the doubt*_. 


You have got to be kidding.

We have been discussing Rossi in this group for the last /_six years_./

The first Vortex email I have regarding Rossi is from March, 2010. It's 
from Jed, and it's quite positive.


The road from initial elation with Rossi's fabulous results to the 
conclusion that it's all just a fable with nothing to back it up was 
long, contentious, and littered with a lot of dubious claims (from 
Rossi) and difficult to unearth facts (about what he was really doing).

/
/The "benefit of the doubt" ran out long ago for this guy.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

David Roberson  wrote:

> And, if he actually did look at the total average flow rate throughout the
> test, it might indeed read 36000 because of the meter increments.  This
> certainly seems convenient, but would be possible.
>

Nope. Not possible, I think. That would require the flow to be synchronized
to the clock such that it clicks *exactly* every 40 minutes, to the nearest
second, every day for months. If it were a little late on the last click,
it would show 35,000 that day, pushing the next click into the next day.
Slightly faster and it would be 37,000. The flow would have to be regulated
to a fraction of a liter.

Pumps and flowing water are never that precise.

It would have to be as precise as a grandfather clock that chimes exactly
156 times every day (1+2+3 . . . 12*2), without being late even one day,
even by a few seconds, for months.

> The other issue concerning the question as to whether or not the water
> completely filled the gauge may depend upon whether or not the pump was
> located ahead of the meter.  A similar problem often occurs in hydraulics
> when a filter is placed ahead of the pump in the suction line.

I do not know enough about the configuration to comment.

- Jed

[Vo]:Congress review in September.

2016-08-08 Thread Frank Znidarsic

Jed,  Given what has happened with Rossi, is there anything to look forward to 
in the up and coming congressional review?  Are there any big revelations?


Frank Znidarsic

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Something similar to this could help with the problems of bubles as well as
explaining the presence of eroding lines.
http://www.canstockphoto.com/serum-1776202.html

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its input enough to 
allow the water to vaporize if the flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: John Milstone 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document



Not necessarily. The water, though is entering relatively cold, it has passed 
through regions of turbulence, so it should be carrying bubbles due cavitation 
of the vortices.



2016-08-08 11:06 GMT-03:00 Bob Higgins :


 That problem could have been totally eliminated if the flow meter were 
oriented vertically.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Not necessarily. The water, though is entering relatively cold, it has
passed through regions of turbulence, so it should be carrying bubbles due
cavitation of the vortices.

2016-08-08 11:06 GMT-03:00 Bob Higgins :

>  That problem could have been totally eliminated if the flow meter were
> oriented vertically.
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I suppose that Rossi may not be telling the truth as you have concluded, but I 
am attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt.   You and I both would 
prefer to see a gauge that is more precise than 1000 kg/day but that does 
appear to be be in line with an approximately 3% error that is specified.  I 
get 1000/36000 * 100=2.777%.  And, if he actually did look at the total average 
flow rate throughout the test, it might indeed read 36000 because of the meter 
increments.  This certainly seems convenient, but would be possible.

The other issue concerning the question as to whether or not the water 
completely filled the gauge may depend upon whether or not the pump was located 
ahead of the meter.  A similar problem often occurs in hydraulics when a filter 
is placed ahead of the pump in the suction line.  In that case it is possible 
to damage the pump by cavitation if the fluid flow is restricted by pressure 
loss within the filter.  So, perhaps in this case Rossi has placed a high 
pressure loss piping component within the system.

If the water flow gauge is placed beyond the restriction, then that portion of 
the piping might be starved of water even if located at the lowest point within 
the system.  The output port of the pump would be full of water while the input 
is starved.  Could this represent what is being observed?   Whether intended or 
not the gauge might loose its accuracy as you are suggesting.
 

 Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




David Roberson  wrote:


Jed, you post Mats Levan's statement as proof for your conclusion that the flow 
rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.  I just read his article and it clearly says 
that this is the average rate of flow for the test period.  How do you draw the 
conclusion from his article that the rate is exactly the same each and every 
day?


He lied. I expect he wanted to give the impression it was an average, because I 
think many people realize that saying it is exactly 36,000 per day is absurd. 
But his data shows exactly that much for every day. As you see from the 
instrument it can only show an even multiple of thousands, which is also 
absurd, for this volume.


Imagine if he had told Lewan "we record exactly exactly 36,000 kg per day." 
People would be suspicious! People here are suspicious. His supporters think I 
made that up, or I am lying.




I also read that the flow meter was placed within the lowest point of the 
system.


I recall he did say that. He lied again! Seriously.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-08 Thread H LV

Lab puppies are so adorable.

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

harry

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> I would say [Penon] is Rossi's lab dog. I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin
>> the blame on Penon and send him to jail, instead of going himself.
>>
>
> I mean "lap dog." My voice input program, having once got that wrong,
> continues to get it wrong. I guess I talk about labs more often than laps.
>
> I am going to guess that by this time many people are sweating and
> wondering where Rossi plans to abandon them. That would include Penon,
> Attorney Johnson, Johnson's kid brother Johnson Matthew, and the imaginary
> Mr. James A. Bass. Such a cast of characters!
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>

> The name plate for the flow meter gives the minimum flow rate for which
> they guarantee extreme accuracy.  It is fairly linear below that.
>

Where did you get that information? Someone who appears to know more about
this meter than I do told me: "the manufacturers recommendations are to
size the meter so expected flowrate is 30%-50% maximum." This is 2% of the
maximum. You should pick an instrument that measures best at mid range of
your expected value. This is, at best, a weird choice of instruments.

> Yes I think Exhibit 5 is wrong in several places.  Rossi will have no
> trouble debunking it.
>

I do not think so.

> I know neither you nor Penon.  I prefer verifiable facts.
>

Then you should never, EVER believe anything Rossi says! Rossi has never
let a fact pass his lips.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed, you post Mats Levan's statement as proof for your conclusion that the
> flow rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.  I just read his article and it
> clearly says that this is the average rate of flow for the test period.
> How do you draw the conclusion from his article that the rate is exactly
> the same each and every day?

He lied. I expect he wanted to give the impression it was an average,
because I think many people realize that saying it is exactly 36,000 per
day is absurd. But his data shows exactly that much for every day. As you
see from the instrument it can only show an even multiple of thousands,
which is also absurd, for this volume.

Imagine if he had told Lewan "we record exactly exactly 36,000 kg per day."
People would be suspicious! People here *are* suspicious. His supporters
think I made that up, or I am lying.

I also read that the flow meter was placed within the lowest point of the
> system.

I recall he did say that. He lied again! Seriously.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Yeah, and the "experts" said that Pons & Fleischmann had nothing too - 
and they were wrong


On 8/8/2016 6:38 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/08/2016 06:25 PM, Che wrote:



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  
wrote:




The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still
gradually digging out from under.

Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm afraid.


I think the issue still remains: *did* Rossi turn Nickel into copper 
-- and produce excess energy -- *at all*. Or not.


The 'con' part is the _least_ part, AFAIC. Maybe his ambition made 
him stoopid. What is the REAL physics going on here, regardless..??


There almost certainly isn't any interesting physics here.  He's been 
proved to lie about his experiments and falsify his data. Consequently 
the only reason to believe there is anything interesting going on 
inside the ecat is blind faith, which has no place here.


IOW, the only reason for thinking there might be something magical 
going on here is "Rossi said so" and that's worthless.


If you want to spend time digging into all his reported results, and 
try to figure out exactly how each one was faked, and who must have 
colluded with him and who was just a patsy and what bits of misleading 
data he had to provide to fool various people, you can certainly do 
so, but the world is so chock-full of frauds that it hardly seems 
worth the effort.


I'm not sympathetic to people who commit fraud.  I've had far too much 
experience with the "alternative medicine" field, which is very 
similar to the "free energy" field, and it has used up my patience for 
such slime.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
The name plate for the flow meter gives the minimum flow rate for which 
they guarantee extreme accuracy.  It is fairly linear below that.  As I 
said, the maximum error would be less than 3% and on the low side, 
contrary to what you wrote.


Yes I think Exhibit 5 is wrong in several places.  Rossi will have no 
trouble debunking it.


You said earlier you had not seen the log book so you can't know the 
flow was reported as constant the whole time.


I note you skipped the pipe size error.

I read that Murray was not allowed in the plant until the end. When was 
he allowed in?


I know neither you nor Penon.  I prefer verifiable facts.



On 8/8/2016 6:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
a.ashfield > 
wrote:


It is quite accurate at the flow rates used should you care to
read the specs (at worst would read 3% low) and Penon had it
calibrated both before and after the test at the flow rate and
temperatures encountered.

Who told you that? It would be out of character.

So to quote the name plate as damning in these circumstances is silly.

The name place shows the minimum capacity! Do you think they put the 
wrong name plate on it? If you can't trust the numbers there, where 
can you trust them? It says quite clearly 1.6 m^3/hour.


Why does IH not show the location of the flow meter?This is
critical to know whether it ran partly filled.

I expect they will, in due time. They left out many details.

Apparently the flow meter can compensate for being partially
filled too.

Not according to the manual. Quoting Exhibit 5:

"The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid 
to function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating 
Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2-003/2013, Operating 
Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]."


Are you suggesting the manual is incorrect? Or are you saying Exhibit 
5 is wrong?


All we have is this unsigned document claiming the flow rate was
constant.

That's not all you have. I also told you Penon's data also shows that. 
If you don't believe me, that's fine, but anyway Exhibit 5 is not the 
only source. I'm a source too. Take it or leave it.


You are relying on someone else to report that and say you have
not seen the complete log.

Let's just say I have seen enough to be sure this flow rate is impossible.

Coming from IH this is not proof.

Coming from me, it is. To me, anyway. Maybe not to you.

Likewise there is no written record of the number of reactors
working and how would Murray know that anyway?

Uh . . . Because he saw the log book? Because he and others were there 
when the machine was operating? And when it was not operating.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Jed, you post Mats Levan's statement as proof for your conclusion that the flow 
rate was exactly 36,000 kg/day.  I just read his article and it clearly says 
that this is the average rate of flow for the test period.  How do you draw the 
conclusion from his article that the rate is exactly the same each and every 
day?  I am not doubting what you say, but I read it differently.  Can you 
elaborate?

I also read that the flow meter was placed within the lowest point of the 
system.  Is this consistent with the conclusion that the water did not fill the 
gauge?   A closed system would seem to suggest that any device such as the 
referred to gauge located at the lowest point would be full of water provided 
that water was not vaporized.   Perhaps someone can suggest a scenario that 
would allow the water to occupy only a portion of the gauge for a system of 
this type.  I assume that the gauge water is at the coolest temperature and not 
vaporized to a significant degree.

I think it is necessary for all of us to ensure that the facts that we are 
stating make scientific sense.  It is not clear to me that this criteria is 
being met.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




Russ George  wrote:



Just show your source and the documented evidence/data, you ask for no less of 
Rossi et al.




I was asked not to reveal this up until now. You can now learn nearly 
everything I know by reading the documents uploaded by I.H. in the trial 
(especially Exhibit 5), and Rossi's interview with Lewan. See:


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view



https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/



For convenience, let me again summarize what the sample data I have seen shows:

Flow 36,000 kg/day exactly. Pressure 0.0 bar exactly. Fluid temperature 102.8°C 
(varying by a few degrees).


That's all there is to it. If you would like to make your own version of 
Penon's data, make a table with days on the y-axis, and fill in 3 columns with 
those numbers, adding a slight variation to the fluid temperature.



Penon listed the flow rate as 36,000 kg/day and then arbitrarily subtracted 10% 
from that, as Rossi told Lewan. I do not know what justification he had for 
doing that.



The water reservoir temperature is shown once at 60°C. That is also the number 
Rossi quoted. Exhibit 5 has a more precise number: 68.7°C.







 No one can have any respect for your anger laden statements as being anything 
other than rants.




The court documents show that my statements are based on facts. Or at least, 
facts claimed by I.H. I think Rossi's statements have been rants. They include 
no technical details or numbers.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 06:25 PM, Che wrote:



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:




The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still
gradually digging out from under.

Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm afraid.


I think the issue still remains: *did* Rossi turn Nickel into copper 
-- and produce excess energy -- *at all*. Or not.


The 'con' part is the _least_ part, AFAIC. Maybe his ambition made him 
stoopid. What is the REAL physics going on here, regardless..??


There almost certainly isn't any interesting physics here.  He's been 
proved to lie about his experiments and falsify his data. Consequently 
the only reason to believe there is anything interesting going on inside 
the ecat is blind faith, which has no place here.


IOW, the only reason for thinking there might be something magical going 
on here is "Rossi said so" and that's worthless.


If you want to spend time digging into all his reported results, and try 
to figure out exactly how each one was faked, and who must have colluded 
with him and who was just a patsy and what bits of misleading data he 
had to provide to fool various people, you can certainly do so, but the 
world is so chock-full of frauds that it hardly seems worth the effort.


I'm not sympathetic to people who commit fraud.  I've had far too much 
experience with the "alternative medicine" field, which is very similar 
to the "free energy" field, and it has used up my patience for such slime.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> It is quite accurate at the flow rates used should you care to read the
> specs (at worst would read 3% low) and Penon had it calibrated both before
> and after the test at the flow rate and temperatures encountered.
>
Who told you that? It would be out of character.


> So to quote the name plate as damning in these circumstances is silly.
>
The name place shows the minimum capacity! Do you think they put the wrong
name plate on it? If you can't trust the numbers there, where can you trust
them? It says quite clearly 1.6 m^3/hour.


> Why does IH not show the location of the flow meter?  This is critical to
> know whether it ran partly filled.
>
I expect they will, in due time. They left out many details.

  Apparently the flow meter can compensate for being partially filled too.
>
Not according to the manual. Quoting Exhibit 5:

"The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to
function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating
Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2-003/2013, Operating
Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]."

Are you suggesting the manual is incorrect? Or are you saying Exhibit 5 is
wrong?

All we have is this unsigned document claiming the flow rate was constant.
>
That's not all you have. I also told you Penon's data also shows that. If
you don't believe me, that's fine, but anyway Exhibit 5 is not the only
source. I'm a source too. Take it or leave it.

  You are relying on someone else to report that and say you have not seen
> the complete log.
>
Let's just say I have seen enough to be sure this flow rate is impossible.

 Coming from IH this is not proof.
>
Coming from me, it is. To me, anyway. Maybe not to you.


> Likewise there is no written record of the number of reactors working and
> how would Murray know that anyway?
>
Uh . . . Because he saw the log book? Because he and others were there when
the machine was operating? And when it was not operating.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-08 Thread Che

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

>
>
> The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still gradually
> digging out from under.
>
> Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm afraid.
>

I think the issue still remains: *did* Rossi turn Nickel into copper -- and
produce excess energy -- *at all*. Or not.

The 'con' part is the _least_ part, AFAIC. Maybe his ambition made him
stoopid. What is the REAL physics going on here, regardless..??

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,

Further to your oft repeated comments on the flow meter and references 
to the unsigned Exhibit 5, I have read this again and it strikes me that 
whoever wrote it is not an engineer.


The flowmeter MWN130-80-NC. Has numbers and letters that indicate 
various things.130 is the max water temperature, 80 refers to the inside 
pipe diameter (mm) and the letters to various adapters.


It is clear that Penon selected the meter to bolt directly onto the feed 
line.It is quite accurate at the flow rates used should you care to read 
the specs (at worst would read 3% low) and Penon had it calibrated both 
before and after the test at the flow rate and temperatures 
encountered.So to quote the name plate as damning in these circumstances 
is silly.


Why does IH not show the location of the flow meter?This is critical to 
know whether it ran partly filled.Apparently the flow meter can 
compensate for being partially filled too.


All we have is this unsigned document claiming the flow rate was 
constant.You are relying on someone else to report that and say you have 
not seen the complete log. Coming from IH this is not proof.


Likewise there is no written record of the number of reactors working 
and how would Murray know that anyway?The writer seems to also assume 
the output of each reactor is constant and can’t be altered.This is also 
wrong.


So the water level in the condensation tank was different on Feb16 & 
17,So what?Why would that alter the ability of the flow meter to measure 
the flow?


Then there are some temperature and pressures given without written 
references and it is stated the steam pipe was DN40.Really?The STEAMpipe 
was only 1.5” nominal bore?A glance at the photos would show the steam 
pipe was larger than that.  (The water pipe was DN80)


A very amateurish piece looking for problems

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 04:52 PM, Che wrote:



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence > wrote:



On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

...

Missed this the first time around.

Peter, you've been spouting boring, sanctimonious, barely coherent
nonsense for weeks now, and you've descended to the point to
accusing Jed of lying, all to preserve your twisted fantasy that
Rossi is the Next Big Thing and not just a worthless con man.

You're going in the bozo bin.


If Vortex-L is simply turning into the Andrea Rossi Show,


The group got Rossi'd a couple years back and we're still gradually 
digging out from under.


Ditto the entire LENR world, I'm afraid.

I hope many people here will spend more time following the boring MFMP 
instead.


So check into it and post something.  Lots of us (who spend our time 
working for the man every night and day) don't have time to keep up with 
much stuff, and that includes the MFMP.


I'd also like to find out what the novel features actually were in the 
flywheel storage device which was mentioned here recently, but haven't 
had time to dig into it.


I'd love to hear if Ed Storms' gas phase experiments of a couple years 
back were replicated -- I dug around a bit on LENR-CANR and on Ed's web 
site and didn't find anything new on it, but it was a very cursory 
once-over.


In short, I'd love to see more about alternative energy /other than/ 
news of the continuing Rossi meltdown but somebody needs to ferret it 
out.  I just don't have time to contribute much beyond some very casual 
analysis at this point.

Re: [Vo]:LENR- beware of hypocrisy and idealism!

2016-08-08 Thread Che

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Peter Gluck  wrote:

> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-08-2016-lenr-
> beware-of-hypocrisy.html
>
> the Rossi-IH war is on the blogosphere- multiple fronts!
>
> peter
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Gluck
> Cluj, Romania
> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
>


Calm down. Take your meds.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-08 Thread Che

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

>
> On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
...


> Missed this the first time around.
>
> Peter, you've been spouting boring, sanctimonious, barely coherent
> nonsense for weeks now, and you've descended to the point to accusing Jed
> of lying, all to preserve your twisted fantasy that Rossi is the Next Big
> Thing and not just a worthless con man.
>
> You're going in the bozo bin.
>

If Vortex-L is simply turning into the Andrea Rossi Show, I hope many
people here will spend more time following the boring MFMP instead.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Russ George  wrote:

I have no interest in participating in a ‘Kangaroo Court’ process with real
> court evidence, that is the proper purview of a real judge and the formal
> legal process.
>

By saying that, you are participating. You are using Donald Trump's
favorite rhetorical technique, praeteritio. See:

http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2015/12/donald_trump_s_preferred_rhetorical_tactic_is_called_praeteritio_is_also.html

"Praeteritio is the act of saying something by saying that you’re not going
to say it."

> However if the secret information you have been referring to is something
> different that is another case, of course the revealed source(s) of your
> secret information will speak to the veracity, intent, and completeness of
> said secrets and any story they may suggest.
>

It is no longer secret. Rossi and I.H. have revealed it. Rossi in his
interview with Lewan, and I.H. in Exhibit 5. You can now judge for yourself
whether I was justified or not.

If you think it is likely the flow rate was 36,000 kg per day exactly, the
pressure 0.0 bar, and the temperature just over 100 deg C, and this really
does indicate steam production of 1 MW (not hot water), then you agree with
Rossi, and you disagree with me. That's all there is to it.

>  No one this side of kindergarten takes a selected subset of secrets from
> secret sources to represent anything other than bullshit.
>

I have not done that. I did not use a subset. On the contrary, Exhibit 5
says more than I knew. It is a superset.

I made no assertions not made by I.H. in Exhibit 5.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I have no interest in participating in a ‘Kangaroo Court’ process with real 
court evidence, that is the proper purview of a real judge and the formal legal 
process. However if the secret information you have been referring to is 
something different that is another case, of course the revealed source(s) of 
your secret information will speak to the veracity, intent, and completeness of 
said secrets and any story they may suggest.  No one this side of kindergarten 
takes a selected subset of secrets from secret sources to represent anything 
other than bullshit. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 1:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

 

Russ George  > wrote:

 

Just show your source and the documented evidence/data, you ask for no less of 
Rossi et al.

 

I was asked not to reveal this up until now. You can now learn nearly 
everything I know by reading the documents uploaded by I.H. in the trial 
(especially Exhibit 5), and Rossi's interview with Lewan. See:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view

 

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

 

For convenience, let me again summarize what the sample data I have seen shows:


Flow 36,000 kg/day exactly. Pressure 0.0 bar exactly. Fluid temperature 102.8°C 
(varying by a few degrees).

 

That's all there is to it. If you would like to make your own version of 
Penon's data, make a table with days on the y-axis, and fill in 3 columns with 
those numbers, adding a slight variation to the fluid temperature.

 

Penon listed the flow rate as 36,000 kg/day and then arbitrarily subtracted 10% 
from that, as Rossi told Lewan. I do not know what justification he had for 
doing that.

 

The water reservoir temperature is shown once at 60°C. That is also the number 
Rossi quoted. Exhibit 5 has a more precise number: 68.7°C.

 

 

No one can have any respect for your anger laden statements as being anything 
other than rants.

 

The court documents show that my statements are based on facts. Or at least, 
facts claimed by I.H. I think Rossi's statements have been rants. They include 
no technical details or numbers.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Russ George  wrote:

Just show your source and the documented evidence/data, you ask for no less
> of Rossi et al.
>

I was asked not to reveal this up until now. You can now learn nearly
everything I know by reading the documents uploaded by I.H. in the trial
(especially Exhibit 5), and Rossi's interview with Lewan. See:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view

https://animpossibleinvention.com/2016/05/16/rossi-makes-offer-on-swedish-factory-building-plus-more-updates/

For convenience, let me again summarize what the sample data I have seen
shows:

Flow 36,000 kg/day exactly. Pressure 0.0 bar exactly. Fluid temperature
102.8°C (varying by a few degrees).

That's all there is to it. If you would like to make your own version of
Penon's data, make a table with days on the y-axis, and fill in 3 columns
with those numbers, adding a slight variation to the fluid temperature.

Penon listed the flow rate as 36,000 kg/day and then arbitrarily subtracted
10% from that, as Rossi told Lewan. I do not know what justification he had
for doing that.

The water reservoir temperature is shown once at 60°C. That is also the
number Rossi quoted. Exhibit 5 has a more precise number: 68.7°C.

No one can have any respect for your anger laden statements as being
> anything other than rants.
>

The court documents show that my statements are based on facts. Or at
least, facts claimed by I.H. I think Rossi's statements have been rants.
They include no technical details or numbers.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Just show your source and the documented evidence/data, you ask for no less of 
Rossi et al. No one can have any respect for your anger laden statements as 
being anything other than rants. 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:56 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Russ George  > wrote:

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims of 
‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, utterly unsubstantiated 
and without any verifiable facts/data . . .

If documents filed with the court are not substantiation and not verifiable, 
what would be? What sort of proof would satisfy you?

What proof have you seen from Rossi?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Russ George  wrote:

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims
> of ‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, utterly
> unsubstantiated and without any verifiable facts/data . . .
>

If documents filed with the court are not substantiation and not
verifiable, what would be? What sort of proof would satisfy you?

What proof have you seen from Rossi?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

There  is no verifiable proof about the flow rates over time.  I doubt
> Penon would be stupid enough to report it constant for a year..
>

That's what he wrote in all of the data I have seen. That's what Exhibit 5
says. Do you have any reason to doubt that? Have you heard differently from
anyone? Have you seen the data?

Penon is a remarkably stupid person, in my opinion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Bob Higgins  wrote:

Well, upon further investigation, I find that this flow meter has "internal
> float level regulation" and is designed for measurement in horizontal or
> vertical orientations.  So, the issue with water level may be moot because
> it appears this flow meter is designed to compensate for water level (not
> sure if it compensates by changing an orifice or what).
>

No, it is not designed to compensate for the water level. Quoting Exhibit 5:

"The flow meter requires that the entire pipe volume be full of liquid to
function properly, as described in the Apator PoWoGaz Operating
Instructions [section 6.6 in document I-EN-2- 003/2013, Operating
Instructions, Flange water meters DN40 - 500]. The visible iron stain
waterline marks on the static vanes indicate that the pipe was not
continuously full of liquid, as required by the manufacturer’s
specifications, but rather had a substantial portion free of liquid. See
Exhibit A. How can the measurements of the flow meter be valid when the
pipe volume was far less than full?"

Perhaps you are looking at the specs for another meter?

> The flow meter is readable to nearest 0.5 liters of accumulated flow.
>

Nope. It reads to the nearest 1,000 liters.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

I haven't seen the spec sheet m self, but this comment backs up what I
> wrote earlier.
>
Where did you get the idea it would read high?  From IH?
>

I have not discussed this with them, except very briefly. I got that idea
from flow meter manuals, guides to flow meters, and my own experience with
flow meters.

- Jed

[Vo]:LENR- beware of hypocrisy and idealism!

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-08-2016-lenr-beware-of-hypocrisy.html

the Rossi-IH war is on the blogosphere- multiple fronts!

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
I haven't seen the spec sheet m self, but this comment backs up what I 
wrote earlier.

Where did you get the idea it would read high?  From IH?

Ged  Obvious 
 



Not a problem. Look at the spec sheet, it was used well within its 
linear range at these temps. It's a good flow meter with great range, 
and the spec sheet even quantitates the error on log scale for if you 
use it out of range. It reports 3% less flow than in actuality if you 
use it at -half- its lower rating point.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Bob,
It is simple to locate a flow meter low enough that it is never just
partly filled. I find it significant that we are not told where it was
located. Also, the stories of stain levels by an electronics expert
don't mean much. Jed suggested a world level stain expert had been hired...

On 8/8/2016 1:17 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
Well, upon further investigation, I find that this flow meter has
"internal float level regulation" and is designed for measurement in
horizontal or vertical orientations. So, the issue with water level
may be moot because it appears this flow meter is designed to
compensate for water level (not sure if it compensates by changing an
orifice or what).

The meter is designed specifically for reading cold and hot liquid
water flow.

The flow meter is readable to nearest 0.5 liters of accumulated flow.

The lowest spec flow rate for this meter appears to be 1.6 m^3 per
hour (1600 l/h) to be within its specified maximum error of 5%.

So, the accuracy doesn't seem to be as bad as you suggest, but it is
fishy that the readings came out to 36000 kg of water every day when
the meter was readable in increments of essentially 0.5 liter (kg).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote:

The flow meter from that URL has nothing to do with heat
measurement - it is a standard turbine type flow meter. It has a
mechanical (gear ratio) calculation of flow from the rotor speed.
What I said still applys - it measures essentially the same water

speed whether the flow tube is half full or totally full.

It should be mounted vertically to insure a full flow tube and
hence accurate mechanical calculation of the flow.

An interesting observation is that this flow meter may actually
subtract any reverse flow from the accumulated total (reverse flow
measurement having been an issue with DGT). Whether it does this
or not would be determined by whether or not there is a mechanical
racheting mechanism in the gear train (probably not).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell
> wrote:

Bob Higgins > wrote:

What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine
propeller axis) should be vertical to insure that the flow
tube (housing the turbine) is fully filled.

I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller)
with an axis coaxial with the flow tube and low blockage
spider supports . . .

Someone told me this is a brochure for this flow meter:

http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_przeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf

It is in Polish, so I can't be sure it is the right one. You
can Google translate the text. The first paragraph, for
example, comes out:

"The heat flow transducer with a horizontal rotor axis,
parallel to the water pipes with a low starting threshold.
Thanks to modern structural solutions - technology It
provides credibility indications and enables the
development of atypical systems in intermediate positions
without affecting its performance metrology. . . ."

Anyway, this shows an exploded view of the instrument, etc.

Perhaps this answers some of your questions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 12:20 PM, Russ George wrote:

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious 
claims of ‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, 
utterly unsubstantiated and without any verifiable facts/data to say 
nothing of the clearly biased bile accompanying it all, is an all-time 
perfect example of the worst of troll behavior.




Russ, you're occasionally frequently pretty seriously sanctimonious, all 
the while spouting opinions without apparent factual basis, and accusing 
unspecified others (who generally do have a factual basis for what they 
say) of being trolls or other unsavoury types who just like to tear down 
honest researchers. Reminds me a lot of Rossi and his "snakes", come to 
think of it.


Some consider you a leading light in Lenr.  Other consider you a bull in 
a china shop.  I suspect the latter may be more accurate.


Into the bozo bin with you.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Well, upon further investigation, I find that this flow meter has "internal
float level regulation" and is designed for measurement in horizontal or
vertical orientations.  So, the issue with water level may be moot because
it appears this flow meter is designed to compensate for water level (not
sure if it compensates by changing an orifice or what).

The meter is designed specifically for reading cold and hot liquid water
flow.

The flow meter is readable to nearest 0.5 liters of accumulated flow.

The lowest spec flow rate for this meter appears to be 1.6 m^3 per hour
(1600 l/h) to be within its specified maximum error of 5%.

So, the accuracy doesn't seem to be as bad as you suggest, but it is fishy
that the readings came out to 36000 kg of water every day when the meter
was readable in increments of essentially 0.5 liter (kg).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> The flow meter from that URL has nothing to do with heat measurement - it
> is a standard turbine type flow meter.  It has a mechanical (gear ratio)
> calculation of flow from the rotor speed.  What I said still applys - it
> measures essentially the same water speed whether the flow tube is half
> full or totally full.
>
> It should be mounted vertically to insure a full flow tube and hence
> accurate mechanical calculation of the flow.
>
> An interesting observation is that this flow meter may actually subtract
> any reverse flow from the accumulated total (reverse flow measurement
> having been an issue with DGT).  Whether it does this or not would be
> determined by whether or not there is a mechanical racheting mechanism in
> the gear train (probably not).
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>>
>> What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis)
>>> should be vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is
>>> fully filled.
>>>
>>> I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis
>>> coaxial with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports  . . .
>>>
>>
>> Someone told me this is a brochure for this flow meter:
>>
>> http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_pr
>> zeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf
>>
>> It is in Polish, so I can't be sure it is the right one. You can Google
>> translate the text. The first paragraph, for example, comes out:
>>
>> "The heat flow transducer with a horizontal rotor axis, parallel to the
>> water pipes with a low starting threshold. Thanks to modern structural
>> solutions - technology It provides credibility indications and enables the
>> development of atypical systems in intermediate positions without affecting
>> its performance metrology. . . ."
>>
>>
>> Anyway, this shows an exploded view of the instrument, etc.
>>
>> Perhaps this answers some of your questions.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

There  is no verifiable proof about the flow rates over time.  I doubt 
Penon would be stupid enough to report it constant for a year..


On 8/8/2016 12:43 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
A large part of the discussion about the flow meter ignores a bigger 
problem.  Whether the meter could possibly have correct measurements 
at that flow rate is irrelevant.  The numbers are fake!  36000 kg/day 
even when the plant is not running.




On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:29 AM a.ashfield > wrote:


Bob,

If the flow meter was mounted at the bottom outlet of the water
tank, that presumably is outside and therefore a couple of feet
lower than the plant, it would always be full


On 8/8/2016 10:06 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Jed,

Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only
possible to have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted
horizontally (a mistake for use of this type of flow meter). 
That problem could have been totally eliminated if the flow meter

were oriented vertically.

An observation (agreeing with yours) is that turbine type flow
measurements are really measurements of the flow speed of the
medium (water).  The flow meter presumes a full pipe in
calculation of the volumetric flow rate.  The turbine blade is
meant to turn with the smallest possible friction so as to create
as to minimize flow resistance.  If the flow meter was mounted
horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the turbine would turn
at the speed of the water (same as if it were full) - since a
full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume
and the pipe partly filled volume.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell
> wrote:

I wrote:

Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told
Lewan. The temperature is just over 100°C and the flow
rate is 36,000 kg per day. The pressure is 0 bar. It is
the same every day, including days when the reactor was
shut down, according to Exhibit 5.

If you assume there was actually some pressure, then
there was only hot water, not steam, where the
temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume there was 20
kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .


Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit
5 shows the water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was
102.8°C, a temperature difference of 34.1°C.

As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is
unlikely because it would mean the reactor room is in a
vacuum. "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."

Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm.
That means the fluid was pressurized and it was probably not
steam. It was probably hot water. Assume it was hot water and
the temperature increased by 34.1°C. Input power was 20,000
J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate of 140
g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter
indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a
factor of ~3.

As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the
pipe was half full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-08 Thread Jack Cole

A large part of the discussion about the flow meter ignores a bigger
problem.  Whether the meter could possibly have correct measurements at
that flow rate is irrelevant.  The numbers are fake!  36000 kg/day even
when the plant is not running.



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:29 AM a.ashfield  wrote:

> Bob,
>
> If the flow meter was mounted at the bottom outlet of the water tank, that
> presumably is outside and therefore a couple of feet lower than the plant,
> it would always be full
>
>
> On 8/8/2016 10:06 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Jed,
>
> Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to
> have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake
> for use of this type of flow meter).  That problem could have been totally
> eliminated if the flow meter were oriented vertically.
>
> An observation (agreeing with yours) is that turbine type flow
> measurements are really measurements of the flow speed of the medium
> (water).  The flow meter presumes a full pipe in calculation of the
> volumetric flow rate.  The turbine blade is meant to turn with the smallest
> possible friction so as to create as to minimize flow resistance.  If the
> flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the
> turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full) -
> since a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
> error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the
> pipe partly filled volume.
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told Lewan. The
>>> temperature is just over 100°C and the flow rate is 36,000 kg per day. The
>>> pressure is 0 bar. It is the same every day, including days when the
>>> reactor was shut down, according to Exhibit 5.
>>>
>>> If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot
>>> water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume
>>> there was 20 kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .
>>>
>>
>> Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 shows the
>> water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was 102.8°C, a temperature
>> difference of 34.1°C.
>>
>> As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is unlikely because it
>> would mean the reactor room is in a vacuum. "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."
>>
>> Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That means the
>> fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It was probably hot
>> water. Assume it was hot water and the temperature increased by 34.1°C.
>> Input power was 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate
>> of 140 g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter
>> indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a factor of ~3.
>>
>> As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the pipe was half
>> full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Bob,

If the flow meter was mounted at the bottom outlet of the water tank, 
that presumably is outside and therefore a couple of feet lower than the 
plant, it would always be full


On 8/8/2016 10:06 AM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Jed,

Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to 
have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a 
mistake for use of this type of flow meter). That problem could have 
been totally eliminated if the flow meter were oriented vertically.


An observation (agreeing with yours) is that turbine type flow 
measurements are really measurements of the flow speed of the medium 
(water).  The flow meter presumes a full pipe in calculation of the 
volumetric flow rate.  The turbine blade is meant to turn with the 
smallest possible friction so as to create as to minimize flow 
resistance.  If the flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe 
was half full, the turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same 
as if it were full) - since a full pipe was presumed in the indication 
of rate, it would be in error by the volumetric difference between the 
pipe full volume and the pipe partly filled volume.


On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:


I wrote:

Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told Lewan. The
temperature is just over 100°C and the flow rate is 36,000 kg
per day. The pressure is 0 bar. It is the same every day,
including days when the reactor was shut down, according to
Exhibit 5.

If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was
only hot water, not steam, where the temperature went from
60°C to 100°C. Assume there was 20 kW of input power. That's
20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .


Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5
shows the water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was 102.8°C, a
temperature difference of 34.1°C.

As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is unlikely
because it would mean the reactor room is in a vacuum. "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."

Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That
means the fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It
was probably hot water. Assume it was hot water and the
temperature increased by 34.1°C. Input power was 20,000 J/s =
4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate of 140 g/s. That's
8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter indicated 36,000
kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a factor of ~3.

As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the pipe was
half full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
What you wrote is perfectly clear.  But there are some things missing 
that cloud the picture.


1.  It seems the pressure drop across the feed pipe is not available.   
Eg. it could have been negative at the receiving end with the steam 
condensing.
2.  I presume that the water level in the reactors was controlled such 
that water could not overflow into the output steam line. Granted the 
steam may have been wet, but it was probably steam.
3.  Too much is made of the minimum rating of the flow meter.  IF it was 
the model you quote it looks like a poor choice.  Even if it were, there 
is no reason to think it would read high - it would probably read low at 
some lower flow rate.



On 8/8/2016 9:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

I wrote:

Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told Lewan. The
temperature is just over 100°C and the flow rate is 36,000 kg per
day. The pressure is 0 bar. It is the same every day, including
days when the reactor was shut down, according to Exhibit 5.

If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was
only hot water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to
100°C. Assume there was 20 kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s =
4,780 cal. . . .


Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 shows 
the water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was 102.8°C, a 
temperature difference of 34.1°C.


As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is unlikely because 
it would mean the reactor room is in a vacuum. "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."


Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That means 
the fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It was 
probably hot water. Assume it was hot water and the temperature 
increased by 34.1°C. Input power was 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 
34.1°C gives a flow rate of 140 g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 
kg/day. The flow meter indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was 
wrong by a factor of ~3.


As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the pipe was 
half full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

This acrimonious discussion of Rossi with the posturing pretentious claims of 
‘insider knowledge’ by one disgruntled camp follower, utterly unsubstantiated 
and without any verifiable facts/data to say nothing of the clearly biased bile 
accompanying it all, is an all-time perfect example of the worst of troll 
behavior. It challenges one to remain a reader of this group… that of course is 
the reward that trolls seek.. to make others uncomfortable. What a pitiful 
meaningless life they clearly lead. Of course the alternative view is even 
worse and that is that this is all paid fomentations and astroturf that is 
meant to mis and disinform, that’s an even sorrier, perhaps more likely, 
verdict on those engaged in the fomentations.

 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 9:03 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

 

From: Jed Rothwell 

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 

What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and running before 
the trial?

Good joke.  Hah hah! What will you say if the sky is suddenly full of ships, 
and it turns out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate 
with is Rossi?  

My thoughts exactly. I too will welcome our new insect overlords.

Gentlemen - As for a more immediate problem – consider the shocking 
counterclaim of IH – the one which begins around page 27 in the online document 
– which cover’s Rossi’s failure to pay applicable US taxes on the $11+ million 
already remunerated by IH? 

Given Rossi’s past convictions for failing to pay income taxes in Italy, this 
clause was added to the original agreement years ago, according to IH, to 
protect themselves. If the failure to pay those taxes is true as IH claims, 
then that detail alone will surely land Rossi in very hot water, no matter how 
little heat his reactor produces… and we’re not talking about a dip in Biscayne 
Bay. 

How could Rossi fail to realize that his tax problem would surface, before 
filing suit against IH? Did he really think they would overlook it? This makes 
one wonder if AR does not have an end-game strategy which has been overlooked. 
Hmmm… a hide-away with no extradition treaty? Cuba?

RE: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-08 Thread Jones Beene

From: Jed Rothwell 

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: 
What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and running before 
the trial?
Good joke.  Hah hah! What will you say if the sky is suddenly full of ships, 
and it turns out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate 
with is Rossi?  

My thoughts exactly. I too will welcome our new insect overlords.


Gentlemen - As for a more immediate problem – consider the shocking 
counterclaim of IH – the one which begins around page 27 in the online document 
– which cover’s Rossi’s failure to pay applicable US taxes on the $11+ million 
already remunerated by IH? 

Given Rossi’s past convictions for failing to pay income taxes in Italy, this 
clause was added to the original agreement years ago, according to IH, to 
protect themselves. If the failure to pay those taxes is true as IH claims, 
then that detail alone will surely land Rossi in very hot water, no matter how 
little heat his reactor produces… and we’re not talking about a dip in Biscayne 
Bay. 

How could Rossi fail to realize that his tax problem would surface, before 
filing suit against IH? Did he really think they would overlook it? This makes 
one wonder if AR does not have an end-game strategy which has been overlooked. 
Hmmm… a hide-away with no extradition treaty? Cuba?

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

An orifice would help keep the flow tube full if the flow meter were
mounted horizontally, but would create undesirable back pressure due to its
flow resistance.  The orifice could be just a gate valve that could be
adjusted partly shut to provide flow resistance as needed to keep the pipe
full at any given flow rate.  However, how would you know that you created
enough flow resistance to fill the pipe?  It would be so much better to
just make the flow meter mounted with a vertical flow axis (flowing up
desirably).

I agree, a flow diagram of the system would be desirable to understand the
potential errors.  However, just a picture showing how the flow meter was
mounted would suffice to know whether the half-full pipe was possible.  If
Rossi mounted the flow meter vertically, then half-full would not be
possible.

This type of flow meter would also not be usable for measuring steam flow
and certainly not for mixed steam and water.  While the gauge may be
responsive to steam, its calibration would have to be completely different
than for water, and its accuracy would be very sensitive to steam quality.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Another question is whether there was a feed water pump that would
> maintain a constant pressure on the flow meter and a full meter no matter
> what the orientation.
>
> I would think such a system would require a constant flow and heat
> transfer coeff. for the heat exchangers to maintain stability.
>
> There may also be an orifice to assure constant flow.
>
> A flow diagram of the system should be in hand before concluding issues
> about flow.
>
> Bob Cook
> --
> *From:* Bob Higgins 
> *Sent:* Monday, August 8, 2016 7:57 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
> document
>
> What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis)
> should be vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is
> fully filled.
>
> I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis
> coaxial with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports for the rotor
> shaft.  Then there is an electrical or mechanical coupling of the rotor
> rotation to measure the flow speed usually out the side of the flow tube.
>
> If the flow tube were mounted horizontally and the pipe was half full, to
> first order it would indicate twice the flow as actual.  Second order
> effects have to take into account the turning resistance of the turbine,
> which is usually very low.  Again, the turbine is measuring the speed of
> the flowing medium whether it is full or not (to first order).
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to
>>> have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake
>>> for use of this type of flow meter).
>>>
>>
>> Umm . . . I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean the pipe should be
>> vertical? I don't know what you mean by having the flow meter vertical.
>> Like, sideways? It is a rotor smack in the middle of the pipe . . . so I
>> don't get what you mean.
>>
>> The pipe was horizontal and the flow meter face plate is up. As far as I
>> know.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If the flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full,
>>> the turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full)
>>> - since a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
>>> error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the
>>> pipe partly filled volume.
>>>
>>
>> I believe the error can be complicated. It is not like: "the pipe is half
>> full so the actual flow rate is half of what is indicated." A partially
>> full pipe can produce a huge error. That is my impression reading about
>> flow meters and using them myself, but I have no specific information on
>> the extent of the error in Rossi's setup. (I think I.H. does have this
>> information.) As you saw, I estimated it has to be at least 3. That seems
>> plausible to me.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

The flow meter from that URL has nothing to do with heat measurement - it
is a standard turbine type flow meter.  It has a mechanical (gear ratio)
calculation of flow from the rotor speed.  What I said still applys - it
measures essentially the same water speed whether the flow tube is half
full or totally full.

It should be mounted vertically to insure a full flow tube and hence
accurate mechanical calculation of the flow.

An interesting observation is that this flow meter may actually subtract
any reverse flow from the accumulated total (reverse flow measurement
having been an issue with DGT).  Whether it does this or not would be
determined by whether or not there is a mechanical racheting mechanism in
the gear train (probably not).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
> What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis)
>> should be vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is
>> fully filled.
>>
>> I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis
>> coaxial with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports  . . .
>>
>
> Someone told me this is a brochure for this flow meter:
>
> http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_
> przeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf
>
> It is in Polish, so I can't be sure it is the right one. You can Google
> translate the text. The first paragraph, for example, comes out:
>
> "The heat flow transducer with a horizontal rotor axis, parallel to the
> water pipes with a low starting threshold. Thanks to modern structural
> solutions - technology It provides credibility indications and enables the
> development of atypical systems in intermediate positions without affecting
> its performance metrology. . . ."
>
>
> Anyway, this shows an exploded view of the instrument, etc.
>
> Perhaps this answers some of your questions.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I wrote:

> I would say [Penon] is Rossi's lab dog. I suspect Rossi is hoping to pin
> the blame on Penon and send him to jail, instead of going himself.
>

I mean "lap dog." My voice input program, having once got that wrong,
continues to get it wrong. I guess I talk about labs more often than laps.

I am going to guess that by this time many people are sweating and
wondering where Rossi plans to abandon them. That would include Penon,
Attorney Johnson, Johnson's kid brother Johnson Matthew, and the imaginary
Mr. James A. Bass. Such a cast of characters!

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

2016-08-08 Thread Bob Cook

Another question is whether there was a feed water pump that would maintain a 
constant pressure on the flow meter and a full meter no matter what the 
orientation.


I would think such a system would require a constant flow and heat transfer 
coeff. for the heat exchangers to maintain stability.


There may also be an orifice to assure constant flow.


A flow diagram of the system should be in hand before concluding issues about 
flow.


Bob Cook


From: Bob Higgins 
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 7:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis) should be 
vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is fully filled.

I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis coaxial 
with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports for the rotor shaft.  Then 
there is an electrical or mechanical coupling of the rotor rotation to measure 
the flow speed usually out the side of the flow tube.

If the flow tube were mounted horizontally and the pipe was half full, to first 
order it would indicate twice the flow as actual.  Second order effects have to 
take into account the turning resistance of the turbine, which is usually very 
low.  Again, the turbine is measuring the speed of the flowing medium whether 
it is full or not (to first order).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
Bob Higgins > wrote:

Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to have a 
pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake for use of 
this type of flow meter).

Umm . . . I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean the pipe should be 
vertical? I don't know what you mean by having the flow meter vertical. Like, 
sideways? It is a rotor smack in the middle of the pipe . . . so I don't get 
what you mean.

The pipe was horizontal and the flow meter face plate is up. As far as I know.


If the flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the 
turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full) - since 
a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in error by the 
volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the pipe partly filled 
volume.

I believe the error can be complicated. It is not like: "the pipe is half full 
so the actual flow rate is half of what is indicated." A partially full pipe 
can produce a huge error. That is my impression reading about flow meters and 
using them myself, but I have no specific information on the extent of the 
error in Rossi's setup. (I think I.H. does have this information.) As you saw, 
I estimated it has to be at least 3. That seems plausible to me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:There is nothing more I can present to convince Peter Gluck

Peter Gluck  wrote:

> why do you come with cheap tricks and do not give a simple straight
> honest answer? As July 6- 23, 2015 for example. Why do myou mix in other
> things?
>

I did not reveal the details before because I agreed not to. I told you
that. Now you have the data from Rossi and in Exhibit 5. You know as much
about the flow meter problems as I do.

> you could easily guess that I have already seen the exhibits, no 5
> included.
>

So you don't believe Exhibit 5?

> the data could not be the "same" for the whole year, I bet.
>

Well, Exhibit 5 says it is the same. Take it or leave it:

"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?"

I find it implausible. Since you agree with Rossi, I guess you think it is
plausible. We will have to agree to disagree.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Bob Higgins  wrote:

What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis) should
> be vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is fully
> filled.
>
> I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis
> coaxial with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports  . . .
>

Someone told me this is a brochure for this flow meter:

http://www.apator.com/uploads/files/Produkty/Przetworniki_przeplywu_do_cieplomierzy/MWN130-NC_MP130-NC/karta-mwn-nc130.pdf

It is in Polish, so I can't be sure it is the right one. You can Google
translate the text. The first paragraph, for example, comes out:

"The heat flow transducer with a horizontal rotor axis, parallel to the
water pipes with a low starting threshold. Thanks to modern structural
solutions - technology It provides credibility indications and enables the
development of atypical systems in intermediate positions without affecting
its performance metrology. . . ."

Anyway, this shows an exploded view of the instrument, etc.

Perhaps this answers some of your questions.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Peter Gluck  wrote:

do you believe he has the ERV extract indeed?
>

You have no reason to doubt it! Actually, everyone now has that extract,
from what Rossi told Lewan, and from Exhibit 5.

If you don't believe Rossi or Exhibit 5, I have no means to convince you. I
have no other proof left up my sleeve.

> Then why he does not gives any dta about what he has?
>

I did give it to you! Repeatedly, right here. I just repeated it, courtesy
Exhibit 5:

Flow 36,000 kg/day exactly. Pressure 0.0 bar exactly. Water reservoir
68.7°C and the fluid 102.8°C (varying only a little).

That's all there is. Repeat that for every day and you have the whole data
set. Even for days when the reactor was turned off, according to Exhibit 5.
It is the most stable performance in the history of calorimetry. You might
call this a super deluxe version of heat after death, where the data shows
the reactor is hot even though everyone saw it was cold. In pieces, even.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

What I meant is that the flow axis (also the turbine propeller axis) should
be vertical to insure that the flow tube (housing the turbine) is fully
filled.

I believe such turbines have a rotor (like a propeller) with an axis
coaxial with the flow tube and low blockage spider supports for the rotor
shaft.  Then there is an electrical or mechanical coupling of the rotor
rotation to measure the flow speed usually out the side of the flow tube.

If the flow tube were mounted horizontally and the pipe was half full, to
first order it would indicate twice the flow as actual.  Second order
effects have to take into account the turning resistance of the turbine,
which is usually very low.  Again, the turbine is measuring the speed of
the flowing medium whether it is full or not (to first order).

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>
>> Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to
>> have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake
>> for use of this type of flow meter).
>>
>
> Umm . . . I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean the pipe should be
> vertical? I don't know what you mean by having the flow meter vertical.
> Like, sideways? It is a rotor smack in the middle of the pipe . . . so I
> don't get what you mean.
>
> The pipe was horizontal and the flow meter face plate is up. As far as I
> know.
>
>
>
>> If the flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full,
>> the turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full)
>> - since a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
>> error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the
>> pipe partly filled volume.
>>
>
> I believe the error can be complicated. It is not like: "the pipe is half
> full so the actual flow rate is half of what is indicated." A partially
> full pipe can produce a huge error. That is my impression reading about
> flow meters and using them myself, but I have no specific information on
> the extent of the error in Rossi's setup. (I think I.H. does have this
> information.) As you saw, I estimated it has to be at least 3. That seems
> plausible to me.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> On 08/08/2016 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot
> water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C.
>
>
> I feel like this is where I came in.
>
> Years ago, in early ecat tests, Rossi had a *fixed* flow rate of water
> going in, and claimed 100% dry steam coming out, but the temperature of the
> effluent was nailed hard to boiling: 100C (or perhaps a degree or two
> higher, presumably due to some overpressure in the system).  This, despite
> the fact that the temperature rose with a fairly steep slope until it hit
> 100C, and despite the fact that claimed power output went from just enough
> to heat the input flow to 100C to enough to entirely vaporize it in
> essentially zero time (which entailed a rather large power jump) . . .
>

I think you are right. The 1 MW test appears to be a continuation of the
faulty method you describe. As I said, I cannot rule out a mixture of steam
and water, meaning the flow meter error is somewhat larger than 3. That
would be closer to your scenario.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:There is nothing more I can present to convince Peter Gluck

why do you come with cheap tricks and do not give a simple straight
honest answer? As July 6- 23, 2015 for example. Why do myou mix in other
things?

you could easily guess that I have already seen the exhibits, no 5 included.

the data could not be the "same" for the whole year, I bet.

peter



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
>> Days; weeks?
>>
>
> Exhibit 5 says the data is the same for all days and weeks, so you only
> need a week or so to draw conclusions. Actually, one day is enough. The
> flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg, the pressure is 0.0 bar and the temperature
> is ~102°C every day, including days when the reactor was turned off. It is
> remarkably stable performance!
>
>
>
>> How would you convince us that you have them indeed?
>>
>
> I cannot think of any way to convince you. Evidently, you do not believe
> Exhibit 5 or me. You will have to ask Rossi for the data.
>
>
>
>> I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being
>> those who know to cheat with an instrument I cannot belive anything you
>> say without proofs.
>>
>
> You now have proof that Defkalion and Rossi both cheated using flowmeters,
> using different methods. See the Gamberale report and Exhibit 5:
>
> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E
>
> You also have the guide to flowmeters which describes the problems these
> people deliberately induced to get the wrong answers.
>
> http://omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html
>
> If you do not believe this proof there is nothing more I can give you.
>
>
> Your statement was structurally dishonest.
>>
>
> You mean Exhibit 5 is dishonest. Not me.
>
> You might consider the possibility that Rossi's data is dishonest, since
> it shows enormous anomalous heat when the reactor was turned off.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Bob Higgins  wrote:

> Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to
> have a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake
> for use of this type of flow meter).
>

Umm . . . I don't follow what you mean. Do you mean the pipe should be
vertical? I don't know what you mean by having the flow meter vertical.
Like, sideways? It is a rotor smack in the middle of the pipe . . . so I
don't get what you mean.

The pipe was horizontal and the flow meter face plate is up. As far as I
know.

> If the flow meter was mounted horizontally, and the pipe was half full,
> the turbine would turn at the speed of the water (same as if it were full)
> - since a full pipe was presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in
> error by the volumetric difference between the pipe full volume and the
> pipe partly filled volume.
>

I believe the error can be complicated. It is not like: "the pipe is half
full so the actual flow rate is half of what is indicated." A partially
full pipe can produce a huge error. That is my impression reading about
flow meters and using them myself, but I have no specific information on
the extent of the error in Rossi's setup. (I think I.H. does have this
information.) As you saw, I estimated it has to be at least 3. That seems
plausible to me.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only 
hot water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C.


I feel like this is where I came in.

Years ago, in early ecat tests, Rossi had a *fixed* flow rate of water 
going in, and claimed 100% dry steam coming out, but the temperature of 
the effluent was nailed hard to boiling: 100C (or perhaps a degree or 
two higher, presumably due to some overpressure in the system).  This, 
despite the fact that the temperature rose with a fairly steep slope 
until it hit 100C, and despite the fact that claimed power output went 
from just enough to heat the input flow to 100C to enough to entirely 
vaporize it in essentially zero time (which entailed a rather large 
power jump), and despite the fact that there was /no/ feedback mechanism 
in place to assure that the power produced was /exactly/ enough to 
vaporize the *fixed* flow rate of water he was pumping into the system 
-- with nothing left over.


The arbitrary, fixed input flow rate meant that the power needed to do 
this was also a fixed amount, determined by the flow rate.  Steam has a 
low enough specific heat that any _excess_ of energy would have shown up 
as superheated steam; that (clearly) never happened.  And any _deficit_ 
would have meant it couldn't vaporize all the input water, but that 
(supposedly) never happened either -- despite the apparent lack of 
feedback in the system.


The only sensible explanation was that there /was/ a feedback mechanism 
present, and unless Rossi was riding the gain on the electrical input to 
provide enough energy to the heater to exactly vaporize the water, the 
only mechanism in place to keep the effluent temperature at boiling and 
no higher was if the effluent was actually a mixture of steam and water, 
and in that case the power produced was certainly lower than claimed.


As I recall the mechanism used to prove the steam was dry was hotly 
contested, claimed by some to be completely invalid for that 
application.  And no explanation was provided at all for how the power 
could have been /exactly/ sufficient to evaporate all the input water 
exactly as fast as it came in; that issue wasn't even hand-waved.  The 
problem of explaining the amazing coincidence between power produced and 
power needed to vaporize the input flow was simply ignored.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

do you believe he has the ERV extract indeed?
Then why he does not gives any dta about what he has?
As regarding insults I will not go down to your level.
peter

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

>
>
> On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
>
> Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
> Days; weeks? How do you got them?
> How would you convince us that you have them indeed?
> I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being
> those who know to cheat with an instrument I cannot belive anything you
> say without proofs. *Your statement was structurally dishonest.*
>
>
> Missed this the first time around.
>
> Peter, you've been spouting boring, sanctimonious, barely coherent
> nonsense for weeks now, and you've descended to the point to accusing Jed
> of lying, all to preserve your twisted fantasy that Rossi is the Next Big
> Thing and not just a worthless con man.
>
> You're going in the bozo bin.
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I wrote:

> Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That means the
> fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It was probably hot
> water.
>

Actually, a more realistic estimate would be that it is a mixture of hot
water and steam. So the flow meter error would be at least 3 and perhaps
more. Perhaps 6?

I realize this is a crude estimate. I believe that I.H. has better numbers
based on measuring the flow rate by other means. I have not seen these
numbers. I hope they are published eventually.

My point is that you do not need a gigantic error in the flow meter for
there to be no excess heat. The meter itself does not have to be wrong by a
factor of fifty to produce an apparent COP of 50 where the actual COP is
~1. A combination of errors from the flowmeter, temperature and pressure
readings is more likely. I think a flow meter error somewhere between 3 and
6 is not out of the question, especially given the Defkalion results.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
Days; weeks? How do you got them?
*How would you convince us that you have them indeed*?


That's obnoxious.  You're outright accusing Jed of lying here.  I've 
been hanging around here for a long time, I've had my run-ins with Jed, 
I've seen him be wrong, but I've /never/ seen him lie about anything.

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Jed,

Do you know the orientation of the flow meter?  It is only possible to have
a pipe half full if the flow meter is mounted horizontally (a mistake for
use of this type of flow meter).  That problem could have been totally
eliminated if the flow meter were oriented vertically.

An observation (agreeing with yours) is that turbine type flow measurements
are really measurements of the flow speed of the medium (water).  The flow
meter presumes a full pipe in calculation of the volumetric flow rate.  The
turbine blade is meant to turn with the smallest possible friction so as to
create as to minimize flow resistance.  If the flow meter was mounted
horizontally, and the pipe was half full, the turbine would turn at the
speed of the water (same as if it were full) - since a full pipe was
presumed in the indication of rate, it would be in error by the volumetric
difference between the pipe full volume and the pipe partly filled volume.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told Lewan. The
>> temperature is just over 100°C and the flow rate is 36,000 kg per day. The
>> pressure is 0 bar. It is the same every day, including days when the
>> reactor was shut down, according to Exhibit 5.
>>
>> If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot
>> water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume
>> there was 20 kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .
>>
>
> Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 shows the
> water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was 102.8°C, a temperature
> difference of 34.1°C.
>
> As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is unlikely because it
> would mean the reactor room is in a vacuum. "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."
>
> Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That means the
> fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It was probably hot
> water. Assume it was hot water and the temperature increased by 34.1°C.
> Input power was 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate
> of 140 g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter
> indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a factor of ~3.
>
> As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the pipe was half
> full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document




On 08/08/2016 07:43 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:

Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
Days; weeks? How do you got them?
How would you convince us that you have them indeed?
I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being
those who know to cheat with an instrument I cannot belive anything 
you say without proofs. *Your statement was structurally dishonest.*


Missed this the first time around.

Peter, you've been spouting boring, sanctimonious, barely coherent 
nonsense for weeks now, and you've descended to the point to accusing 
Jed of lying, all to preserve your twisted fantasy that Rossi is the 
Next Big Thing and not just a worthless con man.


You're going in the bozo bin.

[Vo]:There is nothing more I can present to convince Peter Gluck

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Jed, how much of Rossi's data do you have?
> Days; weeks?
>

Exhibit 5 says the data is the same for all days and weeks, so you only
need a week or so to draw conclusions. Actually, one day is enough. The
flow rate is exactly 36,000 kg, the pressure is 0.0 bar and the temperature
is ~102°C every day, including days when the reactor was turned off. It is
remarkably stable performance!

> How would you convince us that you have them indeed?
>

I cannot think of any way to convince you. Evidently, you do not believe
Exhibit 5 or me. You will have to ask Rossi for the data.

> I confess that after what you have told about knowledgeable people being
> those who know to cheat with an instrument I cannot belive anything you
> say without proofs.
>

You now have proof that Defkalion and Rossi both cheated using flowmeters,
using different methods. See the Gamberale report and Exhibit 5:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6qvuFUMAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E

You also have the guide to flowmeters which describes the problems these
people deliberately induced to get the wrong answers.

http://omega.com/prodinfo/flowmeters.html

If you do not believe this proof there is nothing more I can give you.

Your statement was structurally dishonest.
>

You mean Exhibit 5 is dishonest. Not me.

You might consider the possibility that Rossi's data is dishonest, since it
shows enormous anomalous heat when the reactor was turned off.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 7, 2016 at 12:42 PM, a.ashfield 
> wrote:
>
>> What will you say if Rossi has a commercial 1 MW plant up and running
>> before the trial?
>
>
> Good joke.  Hah hah!
>
> What will you sat if the the sky is suddenly full of ships, and it turns
> out it's an alien invasion, and the only one they'll negotiate with is
> Rossi?  You'll *all* be talking out of the other sides of your mouths, when
> that happens!
>

My thoughts exactly. I too will welcome our new insect overlords.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

I wrote:

> Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at what Rossi told Lewan. The temperature
> is just over 100°C and the flow rate is 36,000 kg per day. The pressure is
> 0 bar. It is the same every day, including days when the reactor was shut
> down, according to Exhibit 5.
>
> If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot
> water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume
> there was 20 kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. . . .
>

Let me revise this using the numbers from Exhibit 5. Exhibit 5 shows the
water reservoir was 68.7°C and the fluid was 102.8°C, a temperature
difference of 34.1°C.

As described in Exhibit 5, the pressure of 0.0 bar is unlikely because it
would mean the reactor room is in a vacuum. "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."

Let me assume the pressure was a little higher than 1 atm. That means the
fluid was pressurized and it was probably not steam. It was probably hot
water. Assume it was hot water and the temperature increased by 34.1°C.
Input power was 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by 34.1°C gives a flow rate
of 140 g/s. That's 8.41 kg/minute or 12,111 kg/day. The flow meter
indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a factor of ~3.

As I said, that is not a surprising error, given that the pipe was half
full and it was the wrong kind of flow meter.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document

a.ashfield  wrote:

> Who provided you with Rossi's log book and data that you say you have?
>

By "log book" I mean the ERV data. It is same thing. Rossi collects data
manually as far as I know. People who visited him saw only log books. The
flow meter and other instruments are not electronic as far as I know.

I will not say who provided samples to me. However, if you look at the
information that has been revealed, you will know what the logbooks say.
You will know nearly as much as I do. Look at Exhibit 5, and also look at
what Rossi told Lewan. The temperature is just over 100°C and the flow rate
is 36,000 kg per day. The pressure is 0 bar. It is the same every day,
including days when the reactor was shut down, according to Exhibit 5.

If you assume there was actually some pressure, then there was only hot
water, not steam, where the temperature went from 60°C to 100°C. Assume
there was 20 kW of input power. That's 20,000 J/s = 4,780 cal. Divide by
40°C gives a flow rate of 119 g/s. That's 7.16 kg/minute or 10,325 kg/day.
The flowmeter indicated 36,000 kg/day, so I estimate it was wrong by a
factor of ~3. That is not surprising considering the pipe was only half
full, and it was the wrong kind of flowmeter.

> According to the contract all that is needed is Dr. Penon's report.
>

Yes. It shows the data I just gave you: flow rate 36,000, pressure 0.0 bar,
temperature just over 100°C.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document


Jed,
Who provided you with Rossi's log book and data that you say you have?

" why didn't he present his side of the story in the lawsuit? "

According to the contract all that is needed is Dr. Penon's report.



On 8/7/2016 10:55 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I'm really curious to know why IH is providing you with so much
data about their internal workings.


Much of what I report comes from people outside of I.H. who visited 
Rossi. Some of it comes from Rossi. He is pissed off that I know it.



The only reason I can think of is that they are using you to
spread their side of the story.


Mainly I am telling you Rossi's side of the story! That is what is 
ironic. His log books and his data reveal that he is lying. Many 
people saw that. 36,000 kg flow per day? Exactly?!? Give me a break! 
Do you believe that? How naive are you? His own operator log books 
show the machine was turned off on some dates, or half turned off, yet 
the data log books for those same dates show 1 MW of constant heat. 
That's impossible!


Obviously one party is lying.  There is no proof yet which one and
I take the position of waiting for facts.


There is tons of proof. Rossi's own statements about the customer site 
being super-secret closed off is pure bosh. The notion that you could 
have 1 MW in that space with no ventilation and no detection of the 
heat is impossible. The numbers he gave Lewan in the interview are 
ridiculous. His claims are full of holes. The fact that he never 
responded to the questions in Exhibit 5 show that he is an outrageous 
liar. The fact that he has never given out any data should tell you 
all you need to know.


If you ask him about the statements in Exhibit 5, he will deny them 
all, but I know them all to be true, and I have that confirmed from 
sources outside of I.H., mainly from Rossi himself.


  You apparently have already decided Rossi is guilty, without
hearing his side of the story.


I have his data! I know more about his side of the story than you do, 
by a wide margin. And by the way, why didn't he present his side of 
the story in the lawsuit? Why is there not a single technical 
assertion in that? Why has he not revealed any numbers or data in his 
blog? Don't tell he is prohibited. That's absurd.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document