I'm not convinced the meter readings were totally faked, or even
necessarily faked at all.
All I'm truly convinced of is that the *demo* was faked, one way or
another. First, there's the missing heat; second, there's the angry IH,
which would no doubt be tickled pink to buy the process for 89M$ if it
actually worked; and third, there's the fact that I've followed Rossi
off and on for six years and for the last four or five years (not sure
the exact date without digging in old email -- it was an AHA moment)
I've been convinced he's a fraud.
But none of this militates against either the assertion that he probably
was getting *some* excess heat, at least some of the time, since he's
using a legit combination of reactants, nor does it militate against the
notion that you might have to pre-heat a gas phase reaction to make it work.
And your attempt to determine exactly where this demo jumped the tracks,
and what exactly was *really* going on, does indeed seem reasonable to
me now.
Unfortunately I've totally got to sign off. Up late running tests and I
ran into a bug and it's all gotta get fixed tonight and I'm on EDT so
it's almost 3 AM here. Oy.
On 08/09/2016 02:27 AM, David Roberson wrote:
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
