Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:


> How accurate is the "0 bar" number believed to be?   (I should probably
> know this already from earlier discussion, but I don't; sorry.)
>

It is shown as "0.0 bar" in Rossi's data. In Exhibit 5, Murray assumed this
was supposed to be barG (1 atm).

I have heard rumors that the actual numbers shown on the gauge were higher.

That's all I have heard.


If it really was 0.0 bar or barG, it seems a little odd that they would
record only 1 decimal digit of precision. I would make it at least 3
digits: 0.026 (or whatever). Maybe the instrument only shows 1 digit? The
flow meter only shows the nearest 1,000 liters, meaning in only clicks over
36 times a day. That's a nutty choice for an instrument. It should measure
thousands of units per day.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

Dzve--

Good pressure sensors are usually designed to avoid flow velocity effects on 
the determination of a static pressure.  In other words they account for your 
concern.

Bob

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: David Roberson
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

It is not simple to figure out how to explain the temperature reading 102.8 C 
while the pressure shows atmospheric and at the same time find the steam wet.  
That is the only way to explain how the observers were faked out so readily.

I suspect that there is a way to make this happen and I have been revealing the 
trick within my postings.  Please realize that when anyone claims that the data 
is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect.  
Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the 
demonstration.  It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data 
to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met.

Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that 
case.  My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the 
correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet.  If my understand of 
Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C 
at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is 
approximately 0 bar at the output port.

All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe 
location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the 
pressure gauge.  That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power.  The other 
missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water 
by a second problem.  This flow issue has less support at the moment.

Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, 
and 0 bar were accurate?  How could you conclude the steam was wet under that 
condition?   That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he could 
fake it.

The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no evidence 
it was.

They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no evidence 
that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power could have 
been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked at how many gauges, 
the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- 
it doesn't have to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather 
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous 
difference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam line.  That would have been 
diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either steam or water, of 
course).

On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You have put together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow access to the 
customer site being one that bothers me the most.  Why not go to that little 
effort in order to receive $89 million?  I can not understand that type of 
logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were viewing 
the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am 
attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to how this can happen 
right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a similar scam and 
get $100 million!! [;-)]   Naw, that is not something that I would ever 
consider seriously.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson > wrote:

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half 
without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of 
correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual 
devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.

Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half the 
reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See Exhibit 5. 
I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that 
part of his data. We should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Wondering about some things while I'm making dinner.

How accurate is the "0 bar" number believed to be?   (I should probably 
know this already from earlier discussion, but I don't; sorry.)


"0" by itself carries no precision information; it's got no significant 
digits.


If I'm not mistaken, if it's actually 0 +/- 0.1, as would be implied by 
the statement "0.0 bar", then a pressure at the high end of that would 
push the boiling point up by enough so that 102.8 would no longer be 
assuredly dry.  (But that's based on a quick Google search for water 
vapor pressure tables, and could be wrong.)


The other interesting question here is, 0 bar above /what?/ What was 
atmospheric pressure on site -- was that measured?  The temperature is 
absolute but the pressure isn't (unless this was done on the surface of 
the Moon and 0 bar really meant, /zero bar/), and the baseline 
atmospheric pressure may have a significant impact.




On 08/24/2016 08:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You couldhave a pressure reading of below atmospheric at the output of 
Rossi's system if you were to place a pump in the return line carrying 
the hot liquid back to his device.  Some claim that this is the actual 
configuration.  I am assuming that that is true for my calculations 
since otherwise what you state must be correct and the output would 
have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 bar.


I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his 
results.  Of course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would 
be exactly 0.0 bar.  That must be a case of his rounding of the 
numbers to emphasize the dryness of the steam.  When this case goes to 
trial his actual numbers might still suggest dry steam without a 
Bernoulli trick or two.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation



On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam
readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that /can't/ be accurate.  
The volume of steam was quite large; consequently, the flow rate in 
the /steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow 
requires a pressure differential.  Unless the pressure on the 
"customer site" was below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where 
the steam entered the line /must/have been above atmospheric 
pressure.  So, the 0 bar number must be wrong.


How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field 
when it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't 
take a huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple 
degrees.  Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is 
slightly over atmospheric, matter what was claimed.  As I said 
earlier, this has been the issue since the beginning, four or five 
years ago:  The steam temperature is always kept low enough so that, 
with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's 
"totally dry" may be false.


Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must 
have been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam 
would not flow without a differential), then there must be an 
explanation for the error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.





-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing
how he could fake it.

The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's
no evidence it was.

They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's
no evidence that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the
power could have been just about anything.  No matter how many
people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be
the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have
to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an
enormous difference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*.  That
would have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly
with either steam or water, of course).

On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:

You haveput together a good arguement. His refusal to allow
access to the customer site being one that bothers me the
most.  Why not go to that little effort in order to receive
$89 million?  I can not understand that type of logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many
people were 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

You could have a pressure reading of below atmospheric at the output of Rossi's 
system if you were to place a pump in the return line carrying the hot liquid 
back to his device.  Some claim that this is the actual configuration.  I am 
assuming that that is true for my calculations since otherwise what you state 
must be correct and the output would have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 
bar.

I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his results.  Of 
course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would be exactly 0.0 bar.  
That must be a case of his rounding of the numbers to emphasize the dryness of 
the steam.  When this case goes to trial his actual numbers might still suggest 
dry steam without a Bernoulli trick or two.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


  
Just consider what you would believe if shown that  the steam 
readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that can't beaccurate.  The 
volume of steam was quite large; consequently, theflow rate in the steam 
pipe must have been very fast, andto drive that flow requires a pressure 
differential.  Unless thepressure on the "customer site" was below 
atmospheric, the pressureat the point where the steam entered the line 
musthave beenabove atmospheric pressure.  So, the 0 bar number must be 
wrong.

How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my fieldwhen 
it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn'ttake a huge 
overpressure to raise the boiling point by a coupledegrees.  Throughout 
I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure isslightly over atmospheric, 
matter what was claimed.  As I saidearlier, this has been the issue since 
the beginning, four or fiveyears ago:  The steam temperature is always kept 
low enough so that,with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the 
claim thatit's "totally dry" may be false.

Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently musthave 
been, else the system would not have worked at all, as thesteam would not 
flow without a differential), then there must be anexplanation for the 
error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.



 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  

 I'm having trouble understanding  the problem you're having seeing 
how he could fake it.
  
  The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and 
 there's no evidence it was.
  
  They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and
  there's no evidence that it did.
  
  If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet,
  the power could have been just about anything.  No matter  
how many people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion  is going 
to be the same.  Run some numbers assuming wet  steam -- it doesn't 
have to be very wet to be carrying  most of the mass as liquid 
rather than gas, since the  liquid phase is so compact, and that 
makes an enormous  difference to the output power.
  
  What more do you need?
  
  BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam
line.  That would have been diagnostic (had it been  chosen to work 
correctly with either steam or water, of  course).
  
  
On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
You have put together agood arguement.  His refusal to 
allow access to thecustomer site being one that bothers me 
the most. Why not go to that little effort in order to 
receive$89 million?  I can not understand that type of  
  logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that  
  so many people were viewing the gauges during the
period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am
attempting to understand and to find an explanationas to 
how this can happen right under their noses.

I 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:


Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 
102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?


But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that /can't/ be accurate.  
The volume of steam was quite large; consequently, the flow rate in the 
/steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow requires a 
pressure differential.  Unless the pressure on the "customer site" was 
below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where the steam entered the 
line /must/have been above atmospheric pressure.  So, the 0 bar number 
must be wrong.


How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field when 
it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't take a 
huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple degrees.  
Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is slightly over 
atmospheric, matter what was claimed.  As I said earlier, this has been 
the issue since the beginning, four or five years ago:  The steam 
temperature is always kept low enough so that, with very slightly 
elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's "totally dry" may be 
false.


Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must have 
been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam would 
not flow without a differential), then there must be an explanation for 
the error.  Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.






-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how 
he could fake it.


The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no 
evidence it was.


They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no 
evidence that it did.


If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same.  Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the 
output power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*.  That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:

You haveput together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow
access to the customer site being one that bothers me the most.
Why not go to that little effort in order to receive $89 million? 
I can not understand that type of logic.


Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people
were viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a
problem.  That is what I am attempting to understand and to find
an explanation as to how this can happen right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a
similar scam and get $100 million!! ;-)  Naw, that is not
something that I would ever consider seriously.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson > wrote:

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely
fall in half without the external loop.  Even with it, there
is only a certain amount of correction that is possible which
would be seen with all of the individual devices running at
full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is enough
reserve to fill in that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some
days, half the reactors produced more power than all of them did
on other days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I
suppose you are saying we should ignore that part of his data. We
should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might be true.

I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I
said, there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time
trying to make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the
logic in a Harry Potter book.

Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site,
and so on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence
strongly indicates that none of it is true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

It is not simple to figure out how to explain the temperature reading 102.8 C 
while the pressure shows atmospheric and at the same time find the steam wet.  
That is the only way to explain how the observers were faked out so readily. 

I suspect that there is a way to make this happen and I have been revealing the 
trick within my postings.  Please realize that when anyone claims that the data 
is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect.  
Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the 
demonstration.  It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data 
to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met.

Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that 
case.  My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the 
correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet.  If my understand of 
Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C 
at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is 
approximately 0 bar at the output port.

All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe 
location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the 
pressure gauge.  That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power.  The other 
missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water 
by a second problem.  This flow issue has less support at the moment.

Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, 
and 0 bar were accurate?  How could you conclude the steam was wet under that 
condition?   That is a trap I do not want to fall into.

Dave


 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeinghow he 
could fake it.

The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no
evidence it was.

They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there'sno 
evidence that it did.

If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many peoplelooked at 
how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some numbers 
assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be verywet to be carrying most of 
the mass as liquid rather than gas, sincethe liquid phase is so compact, 
and that makes an enormousdifference to the output power.

What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the steam line. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to workcorrectly with either steam 
or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


You have put together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow  access 
to the customer site being one that bothers me the  most.  Why not go 
to that little effort in order to receive  $89 million?  I can not 
understand that type of logic.
  
  Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many  
people were viewing the gauges during the period and not  finding a 
problem.  That is what I am attempting to understand  and to find an 
explanation as to how this can happen right  under their noses.
  
  I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a  
similar scam and get $100 million!!   Naw, that is not  something that 
I would ever consider seriously.
  
  Dave

 


 


 


-Original  Message-
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l 
  Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
  
  

  

  
David Roberson wrote:
  
 
  
  


If half the reactors aretaken out the power would 
definitely fall inhalf without the external loop.  
Even withit, there is only a certain amount of  
  correction that is possible which would be
seen with all of the individual devices
running at full drive input power.  It isnot likely 
that there is enough reserve tofill in that large 
of a gap.
  
  
   

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he
> could fake it.
>
> The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no
> evidence it was.
>
> They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no
> evidence that it did.
>

Yes. I estimated that if the fluid was entirely water, that plus a flow
meter reading three times too high would reduce the COP to 1. The flow
meter pipe was reportedly about half full of water, and the flow meter was
the wrong kind, so an error on this scale is plausible.

I do not mean I am sure this is what happened. Some other combination of
errors might explain it. Perhaps it was a mixture of steam and water, and
perhaps the flow meter was off by a factor of 6. Or, perhaps there were
problems with the thermometers. I think there may have been.

I think in any scenario, wet steam is likely to be the biggest contribution
to the error.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he 
could fake it.


The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no 
evidence it was.


They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no 
evidence that it did.


If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power 
could have been just about anything.  No matter how many people looked 
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some 
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be 
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid 
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the output 
power.


What more do you need?

BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*. That would 
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either 
steam or water, of course).


On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You haveput together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow access to 
the customer site being one that bothers me the most.  Why not go to 
that little effort in order to receive $89 million?  I can not 
understand that type of logic.


Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were 
viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That 
is what I am attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to 
how this can happen right under their noses.


I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a similar 
scam and get $100 million!! ;-)  Naw, that is not something that I 
would ever consider seriously.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson > wrote:

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall
in half without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a
certain amount of correction that is possible which would be seen
with all of the individual devices running at full drive input
power.  It is not likely that there is enough reserve to fill in
that large of a gap.


Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, 
half the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other 
days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are 
saying we should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he was 
lying about that, but the rest might be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, 
there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to 
make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry 
Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the 
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so 
on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly 
indicates that none of it is true.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were
> viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.


I believe they did find problems. They complained to various people,
including me. They did not reveal many specifics, but they were upset.

In Exhibit 19, you see that Rossi refused to allow Murray to visit in July
2015. This is also very disturbing. And it shows that I.H. was worried
about the test and wanted to send another expert.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

You have put together a good arguement.  His refusal to allow access to the 
customer site being one that bothers me the most.  Why not go to that little 
effort in order to receive $89 million?  I can not understand that type of 
logic.

Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were viewing 
the gauges during the period and not finding a problem.  That is what I am 
attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to how this can happen 
right under their noses.

I think I am close to finding a way.  Maybe I can pull off a similar scam and 
get $100 million!!   Naw, that is not something that I would ever consider 
seriously.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson  wrote:
 


If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half 
without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of 
correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual 
devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.




Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half the 
reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See Exhibit 5. 
I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that 
part of his data. We should assume he was lying about that, but the rest might 
be true.


I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, there is 
not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to make sense of 
fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry Potter book.


Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the customer, 
Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so on, all seem 
fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly indicates that none of 
it is true.



- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half
> without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of
> correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual
> devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is
> enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.
>

Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days, half
the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other days. See
Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are saying we
should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he was lying about
that, but the rest might be true.

I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said, there
is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to make sense
of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry Potter book.

Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the customer,
Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so on, all seem
fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly indicates that none
of it is true.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Bob Cook]

AA--


The moisture carry-over depends upon the mixing of the liquid phase (small 
droplets) with the super heated steam phase.  The mixing depends upon the 
friction of the conduit down stream of the point in the reactor where the steam 
is heated, baffles or other devices that catch and remove the liquid phase the 
velocity of the mixture and the pressure drop along the steam pipe to the 
customer's facility.


The condenser at the end of the steam line creates a negative pressure to drive 
the flow of steam.  Common dynamics and control (D programs are used to design 
the feedback to provide inherient stability in the system.


If as I suspect, reactor control depends upon magnetic resonances within the 
reactor, I may take only one reactor to maintain power within a small band of 
total reactors output.  The reactors may even exhibit a negative temperature 
coeff. and thereby establish a steady power output inherient to the reactor 
design, given a steam demand fixed by condenser pressure/temperature.


Bob Cook


From: a.ashfield 
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 4:55 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

No.  At 102.8C and atmospheric pressure the stem would be dry without a water 
separator.


On 8/23/2016 11:48 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Bob,

I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be ensured 
that there is a moisture separator in the proper location.  Have you seen any 
evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally dry then Rossi's system is 
probably working much as he states.

My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific evidence 
to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the ECAT system is 
dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is not clear that the fluid 
flow rate is low enough to null that opinion without further proof.

I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the quality of 
steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct conflict to what I.H. 
states with respect to the temperature and pressure values.  I am hoping there 
is a method which connects their different beliefs in a scientific and 
reasonable manner.  Let's hope that neither is directly falsifying the data.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Dave--

The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the liquid phase 
and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 bar at a temperature 
above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) 
phase.  The gas is phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a dynamic 
flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture separator in the system to 
assure no carry-over.

Bob

From: David Roberson >
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the pressure of 
the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to obtain my 
data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 99.9743 
C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have accidentally 
written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not being 
measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a bit, but the 
amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not appear to impact the 
answers to a significant degree.  In one of Rossi's earlier experiments the 
temperature within his ECAT was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as 
the calculated power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached 
the maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a result 
of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi absolute) 
was the value required to keep the liquid water in saturation with the vapor.  
Rossi is using a feedback system to control the heating of his modules and that 
requires him to operate each at a few degrees above the output 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

I have gone to reasonable lengths in earlier posts to explain why having drive 
power available could actually be a positive factor in a thermal feedback 
design.  It is not obvious by any means, but one can achieve relatively high 
gains of output to input power when output power is partially fed back to the 
input.  I will spare you the explanation at this time, but you really do need 
some form of input power control in order to prevent thermal runaway.

And yes, I have gone to lengths discussing how active coolant control could 
achieve about the same and some additionally useful goals.  You will not get an 
arguement from me about how valuable that technique can be.

I understand your frustration with Rossi and what he states.  If he is found to 
be lying to us and have no significant excess power I for one will be quite 
pissed!

My current plan is to attempt to come up with a scientifically valid scenario 
that explains how this particular demonstration could be faked while under the 
observation of several experts.  This type of trick should require the meters 
to read in a manner that does not draw excessive attention.   I believe I am 
close to finding a way to do it. 

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 4:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.   The feedback will 
even compensate for natural variation in heat  generation quite well.  If 
some internal heat is being generated  by Rossi's device that varies with 
time, the feedback can be  designed to keep the net thermal output constant.
  
  I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of  
feedback.  A well designed system is generally more stable than an  
uncontrolled one.


For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and hehas 
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the powerin order to 
match the water flow rate.

He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power issupposed 
to control the reaction.

He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run anecat 
with the heater shut off.  He just said it was, and that thatis why he must 
always have an electric heater going inside thethings when they're running. 
  The only way it could be "dangerous"to operate them without a heater is 
if cranking up the heat would  somehow shut down the reaction -- otherwise, 
just exactly whatdo you do if it starts to run away?  Turning off the 
heater isn'tgoing to help at that point -- among other things, the thermal  
  energy produced by the reaction is supposedly far, far larger thanthe 
electrical energy of the heater!  The electric heater just makesit hot, 
which the reaction itself is already doing; to kill thereaction you need a 
way to make it cold.  Turning up thecooling water flow rate would make a 
whole lot more sense as a wayto SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed -- 
but that, of course,wouldn't provide an excuse to keep the electric heater 
goingthroughout the entire test.

"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently assumed,in order 
to explain the unexplainable.  Rossi doesn't even hand-waveit away, AFAIK.  
He just ignores the fact that he's claimingsomething ridiculous when he 
produces "dry steam" at the boilingpoint with a fixed input flow rate and 
no feedback mechanism.

This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedbackmechanism, 
and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to theheaters.  (Except that 
he was caught apparently cranking up thepower to the electric heater at one 
point during one test, but thatwas something he denied, not something he 
said was necessary tomatch flow rate to output power.)

And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".



And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam at boiling? 
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a wholelot 
more useful for just about any application you care to name.  Itseems like 
he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune thepower level of the 
system to match the water flow rate in order toguarantee the steam is "low 
grade", which seems entirely pointless... except that it makes it possible 
to pass off hot water as steam.




  
  For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can  
compensate for it.  Do not let the use of negative feedback  concern you.  
That is a non issue.
  
  Dave

 


 
 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 J.R. Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day? 
Are you saying one reactor always gets hotter when another cools, so overall 
they balance?

If you attempt to enclose the complete structure of 24? devices with a single 
feedback loop then it will be pretty difficult to handle.  That is not the way 
I would approach this problem.

I would construct a system around each of the reactors separately.  In the 
scenario I am outlining I would have a temperature sensor that measures the 
temperature within a single reactor shell.  This measurement would then be 
compared to a fixed and predetermined level.  For instance 130 C.  Since the 
water flow rate is assumed constant into the device, its internal temperature 
will reach the comparison temperature and then the feedback loop will reduce 
the drive in a linear or other manner.  When properly designed, the system will 
settle at the desired temperature at which point the power fed into the heating 
mechanism will exactly balance the power being lost as the hot water leaves the 
enclosure into the piping.  When the liquid water exits the enclosure it 
partially flashes into vapor, but mostly remains water.

If this technique is applied to all of the devices(24?) then the total sum of 
them all is a constant power being delivered to the customer.   Now, if the 
customer needs the overall power to be controlled and constant an exterior loop 
could be applied.  A temperature or pressure sensor would be required to feed 
information back to the controller where it is compared to a desired power 
setting.  The error should be properly filtered and used to input the changing 
requirement to all of the 24? units in parallel.  Delays would be very 
difficult to handle in this case, but I suspect it can be achieved with proper 
design.

I also suspect that the data seen thus far is not accurate.  Attempting to 
answer your other questions is going to be difficult without taking that issue 
into account.  I will give it my best.

If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall in half 
without the external loop.  Even with it, there is only a certain amount of 
correction that is possible which would be seen with all of the individual 
devices running at full drive input power.  It is not likely that there is 
enough reserve to fill in that large of a gap.

I agree with all of your numbered points except it is unclear that there is no 
feedback of any type.  For this exercise I am assuming that hot water is the 
actual phase that exits each ECAT.  A small fraction of that water will flash 
into vapor provided the internal temperature is significantly above the stream 
supplied to the customer.  My calculations are that the volume of vapor to hot 
water is about 87 to one when the internal ECAT temperature is around 130 C.  
Can this amount of vapor hide that much water?  I really do not know the answer 
to that question.

Dave 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson  wrote:


Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.  The feedback will even 
compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well.


Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day? Are 
you saying one reactor always gets hotter when another cools, so overall they 
balance?


Especially, why wouldn't this cause the power to fall by half when half the 
reactors are turned off? It does not, according to Rossi. The power remains 
almost the same. It is actually higher on some days, as Murray pointed out.


Actually, I assume that is because the data is fake. Penon just stuffed some 
numbers into the table. But if we take it seriously, that seems to indicate:


1. There is no control mechanism.


2. There is a peculiar mechanism that allows reactors to double their output 
when half the reactors are turned off.


3. It is hot water under pressure, not steam. Then again, even hot water should 
be cooler when half the power is off.


Honestly, I do not think this data is real, and it is probably not worth 
spending a lot of time analyzing.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 03:31 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback. The feedback 
will even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite 
well.  If some internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that 
varies with time, the feedback can be designed to keep the net thermal 
output constant.


I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of 
feedback.  A well designed system is generally more stable than an 
uncontrolled one.


For the last five years Rossi has been doing similar demos, and he has 
never, ever mentioned the use of feedback to control the power in order 
to match the water flow rate.


He also never, ever explained exactly how the heater power is supposed 
to control the reaction.


He also never, ever explained how it can be "dangerous" to run an ecat 
with the heater shut off.  He just said it was, and that /that/ is why 
he must always have an electric heater going inside the things when 
they're running.   The only way it could be "dangerous" to operate them 
without a heater is if /cranking up the heat would somehow shut down the 
reaction/ -- otherwise, just exactly what do you do if it starts to run 
away?  Turning off the heater isn't going to help at that point -- among 
other things, the thermal energy produced by the reaction is supposedly 
far, far larger than the electrical energy of the heater!  The electric 
heater just makes it hot, which the reaction itself is already doing; to 
kill the reaction you need a way to make it /cold/.  Turning up the 
cooling water flow rate would make a whole lot more sense as a way to 
SCRAM the reaction, if it's ever needed -- but that, of course, wouldn't 
provide an excuse to keep the electric heater going throughout the 
entire test.


"Feedback" is something his supporters have frequently _assumed_, in 
order to explain the unexplainable.  Rossi doesn't even hand-wave it 
away, AFAIK.  He just ignores the fact that he's claiming something 
ridiculous when he produces "dry steam" at the boiling point with a 
fixed input flow rate and no feedback mechanism.


This year-long test was apparently roughly the same as his earliest 
tests, which were done entirely without any automatic feedback 
mechanism, and a fixed (manually set) power level applied to the 
heaters.  (Except that he was caught apparently cranking up the power to 
the electric heater at one point during one test, but that was something 
he denied, not something he said was necessary to match flow rate to 
output power.)


And that is why I, at least, am concerned about "feedback".



And BTW who the heck wants 1 atmosphere of steam /at boiling/? 
Superheating it at least a few tens of degrees would make it a whole lot 
more useful for just about any application you care to name.  It seems 
like he must have gone to an awful lot of trouble to tune the power 
level of the system to match the water flow rate in order to guarantee 
the steam is "low grade", which seems entirely pointless ... except that 
it makes it possible to pass off hot water as steam.






For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can 
compensate for it.  Do not let the use of negative feedback concern 
you.  That is a non issue.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

David Roberson > wrote:

It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by
sensing the un boiled water temperature within each ECAT component
and adjusting the individual heating drive elements.


As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable and 
unvarying. That seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.


The power is not perfectly stable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.  The feedback will
> even compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well.


Why wouldn't this cause significant variation in output from day to day?
Are you saying one reactor always gets hotter when another cools, so
overall they balance?

Especially, why wouldn't this cause the power to fall by half when half the
reactors are turned off? It does not, according to Rossi. The power remains
almost the same. It is actually higher on some days, as Murray pointed out.

Actually, I assume that is because the data is fake. Penon just stuffed
some numbers into the table. But if we take it seriously, that seems to
indicate:

1. There is no control mechanism.

2. There is a peculiar mechanism that allows reactors to double their
output when half the reactors are turned off.

3. It is hot water under pressure, not steam. Then again, even hot water
should be cooler when half the power is off.

Honestly, I do not think this data is real, and it is probably not worth
spending a lot of time analyzing.

- Jed

[Vo]:one LENR comment

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-24-2016-lenr-one-comment.html

I hope we will get more info tomorrow.

peter

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

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Actually that is not a problem when you use feedback.  The feedback will even 
compensate for natural variation in heat generation quite well.  If some 
internal heat is being generated by Rossi's device that varies with time, the 
feedback can be designed to keep the net thermal output constant.

I do not understand why you guys are concerned about the use of feedback.  A 
well designed system is generally more stable than an uncontrolled one.

For example, if the AC line voltage varies, the feedback can compensate for it. 
 Do not let the use of negative feedback concern you.  That is a non issue.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation




David Roberson  wrote:

 

It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un 
boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the 
individual heating drive elements.



As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable and unvarying. That 
seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.


The power is not perfectly stable.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:


> It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the
> un boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the
> individual heating drive elements.
>

As Stephen Lawrence pointed out, the output power is stable and unvarying.
That seems to rule out adjusting the heating drive elements.

The power is not perfectly stable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 Your first point supports the idea that the control would need to exist within 
each of the sources at an elevated temperature.  I assume 130 C.  Water leaving 
all of the units at such a controlled temperature would deliver a constant 
power if the water flow rate were constant.  This is not to say a power 
delivery rate is 1 MW is required.

I don't understand what you refer to as no feedback control by terms.  It would 
not be required by my scenario, but why not allowed?

I also assume that the liquid level within each unit is not actively regulated. 
 The coolant just needs to have a sufficient flow rate to fill up the ECATs at 
a modest pressure.

It appears that Rossi could have regulated the output power by sensing the un 
boiled water temperature within each ECAT component and adjusting the 
individual heating drive elements.  This is not required in my scenario but not 
disallowed.

My scenario is that the steam supplied to the customer is very wet indeed.  If 
dry, then much more power would be delivered to the customer than many believe.

Your last statement is pretty much what I have been attempting to simulate in 
support of the idea that 1 MW is not being supplied.  You should read over my 
previous posts and I suspect you will find much in common with my thoughts.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then it was  impossible 
to control the power level via feedback from the output  temperature.  Any 
such feedback control would have caused thepower output to vary down from 
the nominal 1 MW.

So, there was no feedback control of the power level, bydefinition 
of the terms of the test.

  And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, bytestimony 
of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate.
  
In short, there was no possible active matching of power  level to flow 
rate.
  
The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient toexactly 
vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore,coincidence.  (Either that, 
or the steam was not dry.)

Am I missing something?  When stated this way, this sounds like a
no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of thesetup.  If 
this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and itsoutput temp was always 
within a few degrees of boiling, then it hadto be a fake.

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

 I think we are basically on the same page in this discussion.  The main 
difference is that I suspect that the amount of heat being generated within 
each Rossi device is not sufficient to boil all of the water that is entering 
into it.  Under that assumption I can not determine how it would be possible 
for the water to remain below total fill after days or months of operation.  
That liquid water would not pour out in liquid form if heated to for example to 
130 C by the internal heating mechanism provided a pressure restriction device 
is in place.  This type of device was quite in evidence during a couple of 
Rossi's last demonstrations.

No matter what form the water leaves the package in, it takes heat energy away 
from the reactor somewhat proportional to the exiting temperature.  In other 
words, he can increase the rate of water flowing through his devices which will 
lead to a lower temperature appearing inside assuming constant heat addition.  
Likewise, if that liquid in not boiling, a thermal control loop can easily 
maintain a desired set point.  If allowed to boil, the temperature is much more 
difficult to control accurately.

To operate a control loop one needs to have a temperature that resides above 
the system output temperature by at least a small amount.  If this is not done 
then the internal heater would never need to be engaged if sufficient 
temperature is available backwards through that outer port which arises from 
some of the other devices.  We saw evidence that Rossi's earlier ECATs 
contained temperatures of up to 135 C which would certainly be sufficient to 
control.  And, of course the device would need to contain the pressure 
associated with that temperature.

Now, my present hypothesis is that the liquid residing within each reactor 
component is not boiling at all, or at least to a significant degree.  The 
vapor only appears in the output as a result of the flashing of the hot liquid 
water into wet steam at that output pipe.  This scenario appears to be entirely 
possible as long as the water temperature is controlled at for example 130 C.

I showed calculations in an earlier series of posts that the vapor under that 
condition would have a volume of almost 100 times the associated liquid.  That 
ratio tends to suggest that the water would be carried along for the ride 
toward the customer device.  Is this what is happening?  I do not know but it 
has a ring of truth to it if the customer is not getting the 1 MW as reported.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Stephen you are assuming a design that is far  different than Rossi's 
previous devices.  For most of the recent  demonstrations Rossi had his 
thermal generation components  contained within a large thinned mass.  The 
incoming water  essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure and came 
into  contact with the inner section at a multitude of locations where  
it extracted heat through the fins.


But the shape really doesn't matter.  It's just thermodynamics.  Aslong 
as it's a flow-through boiler the same conclusions must apply-- the water 
comes in , flows along , turns to steam at , flowsalong  as steam, and exits the reactor.  
Whetherit's a big box, a tea-kettle shaped vessel, or a collection of pipes 
   or a thin, wide sheet, there still must be a continuous flow fromthe 
input to the output.

And there will be a line of demarcation between water and steam,with, 
one may expect, higher temperatures on the steam side.

If (flow_rate * heat-of-vaporization  +  flow_rate *
heat-to-raise-to-boiling) is not exactly matched to thepower generated, 
either the effluent will be water (or water mixedwith steam), or it will be 
superheated steam, but in either case, aslong as the power level and flow 
rate are constant, the outputtemperature would be expected to be fixed, and 
the "boiler" willcontain at least some liquid water.


  
  You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling. 


Sorry!  I see that now, I think.


 I just wanted to express the thought that only a  small volume of water 
would remain in liquid form within the  unit.  Since it is assumed that 
more heat is generated than needed  to boil all of the water entering, it 
becomes apparent that the  temperature of the ECAT must rise and not remain 
at the boiling  point.  This increase in temperature can be detected and 
therefore  a thermal loop can control it.


Yes.  But no such loop has ever been described.  From the beginning
there has been talk of how that could be done  but it didn'tcome from 
Rossi, only 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence  wrote:

So, there was no feedback control of the power level,
> *by definition of the terms of the test.*
>

Yes, and the data shows this as well. Power is pretty much the same day
after day. (It was even the same on days when Rossi said the reactor was
half turned off or fully off, which is suspicious.)



> And there was no feedback control of the flow rate,
>
> *by testimony of Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate. *In
> short,
> *there was no possible active matching of power level to flow rate.*
>

That was my conclusion, too.



> The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly
> vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence.  (Either
> that, or the steam was *not dry*.)
>

Plus I think the pressure was higher than 0.0 barG.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

And BTW if the beast put out a continuous 1 MW, then /it was impossible 
to control the power level via feedback from the output temperature/.  
Any such feedback control would have caused the power output to vary 
down from the nominal 1 MW.


So, there was no feedback control of the power level, _/by definition of 
the terms of the test.


/_And there was no feedback control of the flow rate, _/by testimony of 
Rossi's figures, which show constant flow rate/.


_In short, /there was no possible active matching of power level to flow 
rate.


/The fact that the power produced was exactly sufficient to exactly 
vaporize 100% of the input water was, therefore, coincidence.  (Either 
that, or the steam was /not dry/.)


Am I missing something?  When stated this way, this sounds like a 
no-brainer, even without reference to any of the details of the setup.  
If this thing was supposed to produce dry steam, and its output temp was 
always within a few degrees of boiling, then it had to be a fake.



On 08/24/2016 01:08 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's 
previous devices.  For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had 
his thermal generation components contained within a large thinned 
mass.  The incoming water essentially fell into a big boxy outer 
structure and came into contact with the inner section at a multitude 
of locations where it extracted heat through the fins.


But the shape really doesn't matter.  It's just thermodynamics. As 
long as it's a flow-through boiler the same conclusions must apply -- 
the water comes in , flows along , turns to 
steam at , flows along  as steam, 
and exits the reactor.  Whether it's a big box, a tea-kettle shaped 
vessel, or a collection of pipes or a thin, wide sheet, there still 
must be a continuous flow from the input to the output.


And there will be a line of demarcation between water and steam, with, 
one may expect, higher temperatures on the steam side.


If (flow_rate * heat-of-vaporization  +  flow_rate * 
heat-to-raise-to-boiling) is not /exactly/ matched to the power 
generated, either the effluent will be water (or water mixed with 
steam), or it will be superheated steam, but in either case, as long 
as the power level and flow rate are constant, the output temperature 
would be expected to be fixed, and the "boiler" will contain at least 
some liquid water.




You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling.


Sorry!  I see that now, I think.

I just wanted to express the thought that only a small volume of 
water would remain in liquid form within the unit.  Since it is 
assumed that more heat is generated than needed to boil all of the 
water entering, it becomes apparent that the temperature of the ECAT 
must rise and not remain at the boiling point.  This increase in 
temperature can be detected and _*therefore a thermal loop can 
control it*_.


Yes.  But no such loop has ever been described.  From the beginning 
there has been talk of how that could be done  but it didn't come 
from Rossi, only from those trying to explain the amazing coincidence 
of the "dry steam" effluent never rising much above boiling.


And AFAIK _*no*_ reason has ever been put forward to explain /why/ 
you'd want to keep the "dry steam" at the boiling point, rather than 
letting it go up to, say, 120 C, which would totally eliminate any 
question of whether it was "really steam" or just slightly pressurized 
water.  If the temp had been 120C back in 2011 we wouldn't be having 
this discussion today. (But to push the temperature that high, the 
Rossi reactors would have had to actually work as claimed.)




Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on 
its way to the outside port.  And, indeed this is exactly the 
scenario that could be used to generate dry steam if properly employed.


Yes.  Exactly.  But it would be very unlikely for it to stay within a 
few degrees of boiling, which is the whole point.


Not once has Rossi demonstrated "dry steam" production with the steam 
temperature sufficiently hotter than boiling to rule out the 
possibility that the "steam" was mostly (by mass) liquid water.




So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in 
error I must assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within 
each of the 24 or ? devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form 
which flashes into a liquid, vapor combination.  If the complete 
filling of the ECAT portions by water does not take place then Jed's 
position is undermined pretty much as you are describing.


Sorry, I didn't follow the bit about Jed's position being undermined 
if the devices are not full of water.


To produce wet steam you need droplets of water exiting the device, 
but that doesn't really require that the device be entirely filled 
with water.  Tea kettles are treacherous models for analysing the ecat 
(since they're 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 12:29 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's 
previous devices.  For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had his 
thermal generation components contained within a large thinned mass.  
The incoming water essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure 
and came into contact with the inner section at a multitude of 
locations where it extracted heat through the fins.


But the shape really doesn't matter.  It's just thermodynamics.  As long 
as it's a flow-through boiler the same conclusions must apply -- the 
water comes in , flows along , turns to steam at 
, flows along  as steam, and exits the 
reactor.  Whether it's a big box, a tea-kettle shaped vessel, or a 
collection of pipes or a thin, wide sheet, there still must be a 
continuous flow from the input to the output.


And there will be a line of demarcation between water and steam, with, 
one may expect, higher temperatures on the steam side.


If (flow_rate * heat-of-vaporization  +  flow_rate * 
heat-to-raise-to-boiling) is not /exactly/ matched to the power 
generated, either the effluent will be water (or water mixed with 
steam), or it will be superheated steam, but in either case, as long as 
the power level and flow rate are constant, the output temperature would 
be expected to be fixed, and the "boiler" will contain at least some 
liquid water.




You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling.


Sorry!  I see that now, I think.

I just wanted to express the thought that only a small volume of water 
would remain in liquid form within the unit.  Since it is assumed that 
more heat is generated than needed to boil all of the water entering, 
it becomes apparent that the temperature of the ECAT must rise and not 
remain at the boiling point.  This increase in temperature can be 
detected and _*therefore a thermal loop can control it*_.


Yes.  But no such loop has ever been described.  From the beginning 
there has been talk of how that could be done  but it didn't come 
from Rossi, only from those trying to explain the amazing coincidence of 
the "dry steam" effluent never rising much above boiling.


And AFAIK _*no*_ reason has ever been put forward to explain /why/ you'd 
want to keep the "dry steam" at the boiling point, rather than letting 
it go up to, say, 120 C, which would totally eliminate any question of 
whether it was "really steam" or just slightly pressurized water.  If 
the temp had been 120C back in 2011 we wouldn't be having this 
discussion today.  (But to push the temperature that high, the Rossi 
reactors would have had to actually work as claimed.)




Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on 
its way to the outside port.  And, indeed this is exactly the scenario 
that could be used to generate dry steam if properly employed.


Yes.  Exactly.  But it would be very unlikely for it to stay within a 
few degrees of boiling, which is the whole point.


Not once has Rossi demonstrated "dry steam" production with the steam 
temperature sufficiently hotter than boiling to rule out the possibility 
that the "steam" was mostly (by mass) liquid water.




So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in 
error I must assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within 
each of the 24 or ? devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form 
which flashes into a liquid, vapor combination.  If the complete 
filling of the ECAT portions by water does not take place then Jed's 
position is undermined pretty much as you are describing.


Sorry, I didn't follow the bit about Jed's position being undermined if 
the devices are not full of water.


To produce wet steam you need droplets of water exiting the device, but 
that doesn't really require that the device be entirely filled with 
water.  Tea kettles are treacherous models for analysing the ecat (since 
they're fill-once-and-boil rather than flow-through) but a tea kettle is 
still informative in this case:  A half full kettle can still produce 
wet steam.  It all depends on the arrangement of the heating element and 
how much contact it has with the steam/water mixture after it leaves the 
surface of the liquid water.


Ultimately, the geometry of the boiler doesn't matter.  The issue is 
/_how_ is the temperature prevented from rising significantly above 
boiling?/  If we're assuming the things actually work as claimed and 
trying to understand them in those terms, then speculation about how it 
/could have been done/ is irrelevant -- how does Rossi claim it was 
done?  AFAIK he ignores the issue and provides no explanation.


And, there is the related and equally important question, _/why/_/is the 
temperature prevented from rising significantly above boiling?/  One 
possible answer to this is all too obvious, and unless you can think of 
an alternative, I'll go with, "/It's kept just above boiling to 
obfuscate the question of whether it's actually 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

Stephen you are assuming a design that is far different than Rossi's previous 
devices.  For most of the recent demonstrations Rossi had his thermal 
generation components contained within a large thinned mass.  The incoming 
water essentially fell into a big boxy outer structure and came into contact 
with the inner section at a multitude of locations where it extracted heat 
through the fins.

You misunderstood my point about immediate boiling.  I just wanted to express 
the thought that only a small volume of water would remain in liquid form 
within the unit.  Since it is assumed that more heat is generated than needed 
to boil all of the water entering, it becomes apparent that the temperature of 
the ECAT must rise and not remain at the boiling point.  This increase in 
temperature can be detected and therefore a thermal loop can control it.

Also, the vapor can be super heated by the additional hot surface on its way to 
the outside port.  And, indeed this is exactly the scenario that could be used 
to generate dry steam if properly employed.

So, in my attempt to understand how the gauges might be reading in error I must 
assume that the liquid is not being boiled off within each of the 24 or ? 
devices, but instead leaves in the liquid form which flashes into a liquid, 
vapor combination.  If the complete filling of the ECAT portions by water does 
not take place then Jed's position is undermined pretty much as you are 
describing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:58 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation





On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson  wrote:


That is not entirely true because it requires a  perfect balance of heat 
generation and water input flow.  For  example, if 1% extra liquid water is 
continually added to the ECAT  heating chamber it will  eventually overflow 
and begin to flow out  of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid 
water leading to  wet steam.  This would take place at a constant 
temperature which  would make thermal control difficult.
  
  On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber  
then eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized  immediately upon 
entry.

No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry".  Assuming thedesign 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set upwith, you've got a 
reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlikethe arrangement on an 
internal combustion engine.  (Or it could beset up as an old fashioned 
steam locomotive boiler, with multiplepipes running through the reactor 
chamber, but it's the sameidea either way -- the water flows through a 
heated aqueductof some sort, from one end to the other, growing hotter as 
ittravels; it does not just sit in a "chamber" until it boilsaway.)

It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses thewater 
jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (andsome particular 
location in the duct work) so that itinitially becomes a mixture of steam 
and water droplets, and thencontinue to be heated, as steam, as it 
traverses the remainder ofthe jacket.  The parts of the chamber being 
cooled by steam may behotter than the parts where there's liquid water in 
the jacket butsince the reactor chamber itself is above boiling anyway, the 
   difference may not be all that significant.

In fact, this is exactly the scenario which  must be taking place if 
the effluent is dry steam, asclaimed.  After the water hits boiling, in 
order to betotally dry, the steam must be superheated to some extent as it  
  continues to traverse the heated conduit.

There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, sothe 
effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just risearbitrarily. 
  It just shouldn't be exactly at boiling,which implies an exact match 
between power provided and powerconsumed by vaporizing the water, despite 
the lack of either activepower level control or flow rate control.


  It  might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under  
this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in  temperature 
without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature  feedback would be asked 
to take over control of the process.
  
  Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was  obvious 
due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps  in the system.  
Do you now believe that level control is not being  used in the system?  I 
am not totally convinced that feedback  water level control is not part of 
the main plan once everything  settles down in production.  That control 
technique would go a  long way 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 08/24/2016 11:19 AM, David Roberson wrote:
That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of 
heat generation and water input flow.  For example, if 1% extra liquid 
water is continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will  
eventually overflow and begin to flow out of the port as a combination 
of vapor and liquid water leading to wet steam.  This would take place 
at a constant temperature which would make thermal control difficult.


On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then 
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon 
entry.


No, it will not vaporize "immediately upon entry".  Assuming the design 
is anything like what I believe earlier ecats were set up with, you've 
got a reactor chamber and a water jacket, not unlike the arrangement on 
an internal combustion engine.  (Or it could be set up as an old 
fashioned steam locomotive boiler, with multiple pipes running _through_ 
the reactor chamber, but it's the same idea either way -- the water 
_flows_ through a heated aqueduct of some sort, from one end to the 
other, growing hotter as it travels; it does /not/ just sit in a 
"chamber" until it boils away.)


It will flow in as water, be heated to boiling as it traverses the water 
jacket (or pipe, if you prefer), vaporize at some point (and some 
/particular location/ in the duct work) so that it initially becomes a 
mixture of steam and water droplets, and then continue to be heated, as 
steam, as it traverses the remainder of the jacket.  The parts of the 
chamber being cooled by steam may be hotter than the parts where there's 
liquid water in the jacket but since the reactor chamber itself is above 
boiling anyway, the difference may not be all that significant.


*In fact, this is **/exactly/**the scenario which must be taking place 
**/if the effluent is dry steam, as claimed./*  After the water hits 
boiling, in order to be totally dry, the steam must be superheated to 
some extent as it continues to traverse the _heated_ conduit.


There's a fixed amount of power coming from the reactor chamber, so the 
effluent temperature should also be fixed -- it won't just rise 
arbitrarily.   It just shouldn't be /exactly at boiling/, which implies 
an exact match between power provided and power consumed by vaporizing 
the water, despite the lack of either active power level control or flow 
rate control.


It might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under 
this condition since the chamber would likely begin to rise in 
temperature without adequate coolant.  Here, the temperature feedback 
would be asked to take over control of the process.


Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious 
due to having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the 
system.  Do you now believe that level control is not being used in 
the system?  I am not totally convinced that feedback water level 
control is not part of the main plan once everything settles down in 
production.  That control technique would go a long way toward 
ensuring dry steam is always generated.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor 
shortly after being formed



On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:

As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of
power is being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is
mistaken that the steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to
believe the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is
so small compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would
expect the temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be
driven well above boiling -- not just barely over it.

This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature
barely above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees
above.  Either there's feedback nailing the power output to the
level needed to /just exactly/ vaporize the water (with
essentially no heat left over to superheat the steam), or there is
feedback nailing the water flow rate to the be just fast enough to
consume all the heat from the system in vaporizing the water, or
there is a miraculous coincidence between the heat produced and
the water flow rate.

We /know/ there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because
that was rock 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

AA, even an ERV can be mistaken which everyone needs to realize.  If Rossi is 
indeed supplying 1 MW to his customer then he needs to be compensated.  On the 
other hand, a significant amount of evidence is being presented that this may 
not be true.

I have been developing a possible scenario which hopefully might explain how 
the measurements are incorrect.  Recently I referred to Bernoulli's principle 
as perhaps getting into the act to muck up the meter readings.  I now believe I 
may have found out how to apply that principle in order to achieve that goal.

My present understanding of Bernoulli's principle would suggest the following 
connection if I wanted to cheat the measurement results.  It is necessary to 
place the temperature gauge at a location that is at the most extreme position 
located away from the main single pipe heading toward the customer.  For 
example, if 6 ECATS are feeding into one of the parallel collection pipes I 
would put the thermometer at the output of the first in the series.  Steam from 
that location would have to travel furthest before it reaches the main feed 
pipe and thus vapor leaving that nearby ECAT would be moving at the slowest 
velocity relative to the main final pipe stream.

This location is ideal because the steam(wet or dry) is moving at the slowest 
velocity there.  As the flow moves down the collection pipe it encounters more 
ECAT sources which force it to speed up.  The pressure and temperature of the 
fluid drops as it gains velocity by flowing through a restriction.  In this 
case the restriction is generated by the additional sources adding to the total 
flow through a fixed pipe diameter.

Bernoulli's principle is a conservation of energy relationship.  In this case 
as the fluid moves faster it gain kinetic energy which must be extracted from 
the internal energy of the fluid.  That is why the pressure and temperature 
falls as more equal sources are added to the stream.

The bottom line is that it is necessary for both the pressure and the 
temperature gauges to be located at the same point if an accurate state reading 
is to be obtained.  When we eventually recieve a diagram showing the spatial 
arrangement of the gauges it is important that both temperature and pressure 
gauges are co located if we are to believe that the steam is dry.   If we 
notice that the temperature gauge is removed from the pressure gauge then it is 
time to focus on the Bernoulli effect.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 11:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Possibly the answers were too "secret" like the piping layout.



On 8/24/2016 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:


  

  
a.ashfield wrote:
  


  
 The ERV is wellenough qualified that he is less likely to be 
confusedthan say Murray.
  





That cannot be true. Murray asked critical questions in  Exhibit 5. 
The ERV could not even answer them. He did not  even try. Murray 
showed that the test is bunk, and the ERV  said nothing because 
cannot think of any more excuses or  evasions.




 

  
 He is the onlyindependent judge there.





He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data  is a crude 
fraud, and his claims are absurd and  impossible. That is why I.H. 
is suing him -- as they  should.




- Jed



  

  


  

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[David Roberson]

That is not entirely true because it requires a perfect balance of heat 
generation and water input flow.  For example, if 1% extra liquid water is 
continually added to the ECAT heating chamber it will  eventually overflow and 
begin to flow out of the port as a combination of vapor and liquid water 
leading to wet steam.  This would take place at a constant temperature which 
would make thermal control difficult.

On the other hand, if 1% less liquid water flows into the chamber then 
eventually all of the coolant will become vaporized immediately upon entry.  It 
might be possible to adjust the power generation downwards under this condition 
since the chamber would likely begin to rise in temperature without adequate 
coolant.  Here, the temperature feedback would be asked to take over control of 
the process.

Earlier you made a big point that feedback level control was obvious due to 
having so many fine, controllable, accurate pumps in the system.  Do you now 
believe that level control is not being used in the system?  I am not totally 
convinced that feedback water level control is not part of the main plan once 
everything settles down in production.  That control technique would go a long 
way toward ensuring dry steam is always generated.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:04 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor
shortly after being formed



On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A.  Lawrence wrote:



  
  
On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, DavidRoberson wrote:
  
  
As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry thenplenty of power is 
being supplied to the customer.  If the ERVis mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.

If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry. 
  
  
  Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the  
temperature of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to  believe 
the effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is  so small 
compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would  expect the 
temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be  driven well above 
boiling -- not just barely over it.
  
  This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the  
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature  barely 
above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees  above.  Either 
there's feedback nailing the power output to the  level needed to just 
exactly vaporize the water (with  essentially no heat left over to 
superheat the steam), or there is  feedback nailing the water flow rate to 
the be just fast enough to  consume all the heat from the system in 
vaporizing the water, or  there is a miraculous coincidence between the 
heat produced and  the water flow rate.
  
  We know there's no feedback controlling the flow rate,  because that 
was rock steady.
  
  No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the  
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing  about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to  believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the  reaction (if there is a 
reaction) can be controlled with the  precision needed to keep the output 
temperature so close to  boiling -- and we also have no reason to believe 
anyone would even  want to do that.
  
  So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that  
the "feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling  is 
provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently  the steam 
must be very wet.
  
  
  
  
 Butthat is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
   this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, thereis no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states istrue.  He may be 
confused by the location of gauges, etc.

AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and
not under automatic control according to his picture.  If true,that 
would eliminate the feedback level control that wasdiscussed earlier.  
It is my opinion that some form of automaticlevel control is required 
in order to produce a stable systemthat prevents liquid filling or 
dying out of the CATS.  This isan important factor that both of the 
parties should address.

Dave
  
 
  
  
-OriginalMessage-
From: a.ashfield 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

Possibly the answers were too "secret" like the piping layout.


On 8/24/2016 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be
confused than say Murray.


That cannot be true. Murray asked critical questions in Exhibit 5. The 
ERV could not even answer them. He did not even try. Murray showed 
that the test is bunk, and the ERV said nothing because cannot think 
of any more excuses or evasions.


He is the only independent judge there.


He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data is a crude 
fraud, and his claims are absurd and impossible. That is why I.H. is 
suing him -- as they should.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be confused than
> say Murray.
>

That cannot be true. Murray asked critical questions in Exhibit 5. The ERV
could not even answer them. He did not even try. Murray showed that the
test is bunk, and the ERV said nothing because cannot think of any more
excuses or evasions.



> He is the only independent judge there.
>

He is not independent. He is Rossi's puppet. His data is a crude fraud, and
his claims are absurd and impossible. That is why I.H. is suing him -- as
they should.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

You don't need "active feedback."   The steam escapes the reactor 
shortly after being formed



On 8/24/2016 12:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:



On 08/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As I have stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is 
being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is mistaken that the 
steam is dry then I.H. is likely correct.


If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is 
atmospheric while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry.


Unless there's some active feedback mechanism keeping the temperature 
of the effluent between 100 and 103 C, it's hard to believe the 
effluent is dry steam.  The heat capacity of steam is so small 
compared with the latent heat of vaporization one would expect the 
temperature of (dry) steam in the closed system to be driven well 
above boiling -- not just barely over it.


This has been the problem with Rossi's steam demos since the 
beginning:  There is no feedback mechanism to keep the temperature 
barely above boiling, yet it never goes more than a couple degrees 
above.  Either there's feedback nailing the power output to the level 
needed to /just exactly/ vaporize the water (with essentially no heat 
left over to superheat the steam), or there is feedback nailing the 
water flow rate to the be just fast enough to consume all the heat 
from the system in vaporizing the water, or there is a miraculous 
coincidence between the heat produced and the water flow rate.


We /know/ there's no feedback controlling the flow rate, because that 
was rock steady.


No mention has ever been made of any feedback mechanism fixing the 
reaction rate to the steam temperature, so short of fantasizing about 
something Rossi never said he did, we have no reason to believe such a 
thing exists.  In fact we don't even know that the reaction (if there 
is a reaction) can be controlled with the precision needed to keep the 
output temperature so close to boiling -- and we also have no reason 
to believe anyone would even /want/ to do that.


So, the only conclusion that makes sense in this situation is that the 
"feedback" keeping the temperature almost exactly at boiling is 
provided by water mixed with the steam, and that consequently the 
steam must be very wet.




But that is the root of the problem; both parties do not agree that 
this is true.  Only one can be right in this case.  Also, there is no 
law of nature that ensures that what the ERV states is true.  He may 
be confused by the location of gauges, etc.


AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not 
under automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that 
would eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed 
earlier.  It is my opinion that some form of automatic level control 
is required in order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid 
filling or dying out of the CATS.  This is an important factor that 
both of the parties should address.


Dave

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is 
dry steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


Dave--

The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the
liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions
are 1 bar at a temperature above the 99.9743 there is no liquid
phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is
phase is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over
in a dynamic flowing system.  Normally there would be a moisture
separator in the system to assure no carry-over.

Bob

*From:* David Roberson 
*Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought
the pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not
15.75 abs.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
to obtain my data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere
not being measured 

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

The ERV is well enough qualified that he is less likely to be confused 
than say Murray.
He is the only independent judge there.  That is the whole purpose of 
having an ERV.



On 8/24/2016 12:03 AM, David Roberson wrote:
As Ihave stated, if the steam is truly dry then plenty of power is 
being supplied to the customer.  If the ERV is mistaken that the steam 
is dry then I.H. is likely correct.


If everyone accepts that the true pressure of the steam is atmospheric 
while the temperature is 102.8 C then it is dry. But that is the root 
of the problem; both parties do not agree that this is true.  Only one 
can be right in this case.  Also, there is no law of nature that 
ensures that what the ERV states is true.  He may be confused by the 
location of gauges, etc.


AA, Engineer48 claims that the pumps are all manually set and not 
under automatic control according to his picture.  If true, that would 
eliminate the feedback level control that was discussed earlier.  It 
is my opinion that some form of automatic level control is required in 
order to produce a stable system that prevents liquid filling or dying 
out of the CATS.  This is an important factor that both of the parties 
should address.


Dave

-Original Message-
From: a.ashfield 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

Apparently the ERV measured 102.8 C @ atmospheric pressure.  That is 
dry steam.

That implies the customer used steam at a negative pressure.

On 8/23/2016 8:50 PM, Bob Cook wrote:


Dave--

The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the
liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions
are  1 bar at a temperature above the 99.9743 there is no liquid
phase in equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase.  The gas is phase
is at 102 degrees and is said to be super heated.

The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in
a dynamic flowing system. Normally there would be a moisture
separator in the system to assure no carry-over.

Bob

*From:* David Roberson 
*Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the
pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.

I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html
to obtain my data points.

According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a
temperature of 99.9743 C degrees.
At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.

Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings
a bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose
did not appear to impact the answers to a significant degree.  In
one of Rossi's earlier experiments the temperature within his ECAT
was measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as the calculated
power being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached
the maximum. At the time I concluded that this must have occurred
as a result of the filling of his device by liquid water.

I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of
the temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure
(39.2 psi absolute) was the value required to keep the liquid
water in saturation with the vapor.  Rossi is using a feedback
system to control the heating of his modules and that requires him
to operate each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102
C?) as a minimum. There is no guarantee that he regulates them at
130 C as I assumed, but that temperature was consistent with
having a ratio of vapor volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.

Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger
ratio of flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream. 
Likewise, the ratio would drop if a lower temperature is assumed.

  The 130 C appeared to be near to his earlier design, and I had
to choose something.  Do you have a suggestion for a better
temperature or pressure to assume?

Dave

Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation

[a.ashfield]

No.  At 102.8C and atmospheric pressure the stem would be dry without a 
water separator.



On 8/23/2016 11:48 PM, David Roberson wrote:

Bob,

I would agree with your assessment that the steam is dry if we can be 
ensured that there is a moisture separator in the proper location.  
Have you seen any evidence that this is true?  If the steam is totally 
dry then Rossi's system is probably working much as he states.


My approach is to determine whether or not there is sound scientific 
evidence to support Jed's claims.  If the steam being supplied by the 
ECAT system is dry, then plenty of power is being delivered.  It is 
not clear that the fluid flow rate is low enough to null that opinion 
without further proof.


I understand the relationship between temperature, pressure and the 
quality of steam.   Unfortunately, what Rossi states is in direct 
conflict to what I.H. states with respect to the temperature and 
pressure values.  I am hoping there is a method which connects their 
different beliefs in a scientific and reasonable manner.  Let's hope 
that neither is directly falsifying the data.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 8:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation


Dave--

The steam table indicates a condition of equilibrium between the 
liquid phase and the gaseous phase of water.  If the conditions are  1 
bar at a temperature above the 99.9743 there is no liquid phase in 
equilibrium with the steam (gas) phase. The gas is phase is at 102 
degrees and is said to be super heated.


The steam tables tell you nothing about liquid phase carry-over in a 
dynamic flowing system. Normally there would be a moisture separator 
in the system to assure no carry-over.


Bob

*From:* David Roberson >
*Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 9:27:19 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
Dave--

Where did the pressure of 15.75 psi abs come from?  I  thought the 
pressure of the 102C dry steam (assumed) was 1 atmos.--not 15.75 abs.


I  think your assumed conditions above 1 atmos. were never measured.

Bob Cook

Bob, I used a steam table calculator located at 
http://www.tlv.com/global/TI/calculator/steam-table-pressure.html to 
obtain my data points.


According to that source, 14.6954 psi abs is 0 bar at a temperature of 
99.9743 C degrees.

At 102 C degrees the pressure is shown as 15.7902 psi absolute.
Also, at 15.75 psi abs you should be at 101.928 C.  I must have 
accidentally written the last digit in error for some reason.


Does this answer your first question?

You are correct about the assumed pressures above 1 atmosphere not 
being measured directly.  I admit that I rounded off the readings a 
bit, but the amount of error resulting from the values I chose did not 
appear to impact the answers to a significant degree.  In one of 
Rossi's earlier experiments the temperature within his ECAT was 
measured to reach a high of about 135 C just as the calculated power 
being measured at the output of his heat exchanger reached the 
maximum.  At the time I concluded that this must have occurred as a 
result of the filling of his device by liquid water.


I chose 130 C for my latest calculations mainly as an estimate of the 
temperature within the ECAT modules.  The higher pressure (39.2 psi 
absolute) was the value required to keep the liquid water in 
saturation with the vapor.  Rossi is using a feedback system to 
control the heating of his modules and that requires him to operate 
each at a few degrees above the output temperature(102 C?) as a 
minimum.  There is no guarantee that he regulates them at 130 C as I 
assumed, but that temperature was consistent with having a ratio of 
vapor volume to liquid volume of nearly 100 to 1.


Of course I could have raised the ECAT temperature to get a larger 
ratio of flash vapor to liquid water at the output stream.  Likewise, 
the ratio would drop if a lower temperature is assumed.   The 130 C 
appeared to be near to his earlier design, and I had to choose 
something.  Do you have a suggestion for a better temperature or 
pressure to assume?


Dave