I understand your reasoning now. You thought I assumed 1 MW which is obviously not the case.
But, are you convinced that the meter readings were totally faked? According to most of the information I have seen that may not be the case. Rossi and IH have both implied that they had their own agents on site during much of the testing. It seems unlikely that the IH guys would just stand by and fail to verify that the meter readings were correct while they were present. It seems much more likely to me that everyone present would take notes of the water flow rate readings, any temperature measurements or other indications that were available. If true then I suggest that some process must be taking place to modify the readings and void their accuracies. Temperature measurements are difficult to fake in most cases without detection. The water flow rate would appear to be the most likely measurement to be in error. Jed has suggested that the input flow rate appears to be off by a factor of 3 or so and that is an excellent assumption to begin with. The true rate may be more or less, but I have a suspicion that the meter actually reads in line with what has been reported by Rossi. So, the goal is to figure out a scientific reason why the reading does not match the actual flow rate. That is where this discussion began. Bob Higgins has found information concerning the water flow rate meter which suggests that it remains reasonably accurate when not completely full of fluid. This is also true with respect to accuracy when reading less than the minimum flow rate specification. I would like to determine how a meter of this type can be so fooled. That is my quest. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 1:22 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document In your discussion with Daniel, the exchange went something like this: You said: OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a heat pump operates. It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor) and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat exchangers. A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in vapor form to the pump. If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form.... after Daniel said: I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool 1MW. From this, I (naturally?) concluded that you guys were assuming there was 1 MW of heat involved, and all else followed from that. Aside from that, frankly, I don't care how the meter numbers were bolixed -- if the values which were hand-recorded were clearly not real (as they were!) then I don't see how the meter's actual performance matters in the least. The performance of the human in the system has been proved unreliable and no additional failure modes are needed. Furthermore, the meter itself may be a red herring. There was steam in the system which was supposedly carrying massive amounts of heat -- but we don't have proof that the steam was actually steam and not liquid water, and if it wasn't actually vaporized, then the massive amounts of heat simply weren't there, no matter what the flow rate. In short, there were multiple points where the system breaks down once you have acknowledged that the humans setting it up and recording its performance were lying. And sorting out the exact details of what the system was really doing just doesn't seem all that interesting -- it's not going to lead to new science, new physics, or new energy sources. In fact, it's most likely not even going to lead to a provably correct model, just one you think might be correct, because you'll never get the physical proof you need to from the one who could provide it, which is Rossi. At best it will lead to a better understanding of how one scammer operated. On 08/09/2016 01:00 AM, David Roberson wrote: You fail to understand. I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the error in the flow rate that Jed is assuming. That is the scientific way to explain his belief without just plain guessing. For some reason you think that I believe that Rossi is actually generating the 1 MW of heat without any reservations. Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to uncover the truth? Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is reading much greater than it should, especially taking into consideration the recent excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others? If you are a scientist or engineer then you should want an honest explanation for the errors in flow rate readings. Otherwise it would be better for you to leave that determination to those of us that have the proper training. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[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
