The process is not manageable in this way, it is completely chaotic. At the demo Mats Lewan has helped at the testing of the flowmeter.
The Gamberale report was accepted immediately by you and many of our colleagues- do you think it cn be really used such a trick to obtain consistent results as in the demo? I a sure you know the reason for which DGT has uninvited you. However we can discuss this a long time...let's wait to see waht happens with the Hyperion, this is what really counts, OK? peter On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Because you refered to me as some last faithful of Defkalion, if you have >> discovered the Defkalion flowmeter trick( define it exactly please!) can >> you explain how can be obtained results as in the demos of July 22 and 23 >> by >> manipulating two valves? Can you reoeat the trick and in which limits of >> precision and extension can you adjust the flow? >> > > This is described in detail here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf > > The limits are described in the report. When you set the valves in a > certain way, you can reduce the flow down to zero while you make the flow > rate look high, by having the same same water slosh back and forth > triggering the flowmeter with each slosh. You have to adjust the valves in > a way the flow meter installation manual warns against, and you have to use > a mixture of water and steam this flowmeter was not designed to measure. > > I do not think you can adjust precision. The result is bound to be > chaotic, as the flowmeter "regurgitates" the sloshing water. This chaotic > response can be seen in the report Fig. 2. Gamberale clearly describes how > he triggered the problem deliberately: > > "The test was performed by replicating as closely as possible the thermal > variations observed during the tests carried out by the DGT technicians > (see for example Figure 4). The goal of the test was to verify the behavior > of the flowmeter during the strong boiling of the water inside the coil > that surrounds the reactor. We verified that, by suitably selecting the > adjustment of the valves upstream and downstream of the flowmeter, the > production of steam at low flow regime produces turbulence and induces a > regurgitation of the inlet water able to temporarily reverse the direction > of flow within the flowmeter itself. > > Below is a description of the sequential processes that lead to an > erroneous measurement of the flow of water passing through the cooling coil > of the reactor: > > 1 - At very reduced water flow the water remains in the coil for a time > sufficient to reach the boiling inside the coil > 2 - The volume increase resulting by the production of steam produces a > pressure increase which tends to push the fluid upstream . . ." > > Whether this was done by Dekalion by accident or on purpose I cannot say. > Gamberale suspects it was on purpose. I can say two things: > > 1. If it was not dishonest it was incompetent. The problem should have > been revealed by testing the flowmeter, by dumping the water into a bucket > over a measured time. Any flowmeter manual tells you to do this. Defkalion > refused to do this for months. Gamberale finally did it, and the problem > was instantly revealed. > > 2. Defkalion originally invited me to visit. I told them I would bring > instruments and do this test. They seemed to get cold feet. I told them I > would not go if I could not do this test. They then uninvited me, three > times, and eventually cancelled the trip. Then they spread rumors about me > that I am engaged in some kind of unnamed nefarious business, which they > said was the reason they cancelled. I suspect they uninvited me because I > insisted on measuring the temperatures and flow rates myself, with my own > instruments, and they knew damn well these numbers were bogus. > > I had the same experience with Patterson, who relented, and with Rossi, > who said "no measurements!" and uninvited me immediately, the day we first > discussed it. He invited Krivit instead. Krivit no only made no > measurements, he made practically no observation, and he did not even write > down or report Rossi's measurements. Then he attacked Rossi. Rossi would > have come out better if he had invited me and let me do things my way. > > Patterson, Rossi and Defkalion are the only ones I have dealt with who > acted that way. The other researchers I have visited or discussed the > research in detail with have been fully cooperative. They give me more > information than I ask for. More than I can understand. > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
