In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this:
*You said:*
OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a heat
pump operates. It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor)
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat
exchangers. A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in
vapor form to the pump. If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form....
*after Daniel said:
*
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, *which had to cool 1MW*.
From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were /assuming/ there
was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that.
Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were
bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not real
(as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual performance
matters in the least. The performance of the human in the system has
been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are needed.
Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring. There was /steam/
in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat --
but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not liquid
water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive amounts of
heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate.
In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once
you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its
performance were lying. And sorting out the exact details of what the
system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's
not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources.
In fact, it's most likely not even going to lead to a provably correct
model, just one you think /might/ be correct, because you'll never get
the physical proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which
is Rossi.
At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated.
On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson wrote:
You fail to understand. I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the
error in the flow rate that Jed is assuming. That is the scientific
way to explain his belief without just plain guessing. For some
reason you think that I believe that Rossi is actually generating the
1 MW of heat without any reservations.
Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to
uncover the truth? Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is
reading much greater than it should, especially taking into
consideration the recent excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others?
If you are a scientist or engineer then you should want an honest
explanation for the errors in flow rate readings. Otherwise it would
be better for you to leave that determination to those of us that have
the proper training.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court
document
If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive
doublethink here.
You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while /assuming/
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.
If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably
/correct/, and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that
needs to be explained, save for the constant flow rate and other
anomalies Jed has mentioned.
It's only if the system /wasn't/ generating a megawatt that there's an
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't
very well assume that much heat is being dissipated.
So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was
much lower than a megawatt, /or/ the meter reading was more or less
bang-on, and there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere.
But not both.
On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a
heat pump operates. It consists of a closed system with a
pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as
well as heat exchangers. A low pressure return pipe carries the
active fluid in vapor form to the pump. If sufficient heat is not
absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the
liquid form. I wonder if a significant portion of that mixture
in Rossi's case might be vapor, leading to false reading within
the gauge ahead of the pump?
This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>
To: John Milstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in
court document
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool
1MW. The surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of the
tubes in 1D in comparison to other), turbulence can go from small
vortices to high, and when it exits to large tubes it goes from
high vortices to low. Depending on the design, a lot of cavitation
may form and accumulate in the flow meter, if no system to elimate
bubles is developed.
2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson <[email protected]>:
I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at its
input enough to allow the water to vaporize if the flow is
restricted ahead of the gauge.
Dave
