Jed,
If the Ecats never worked, why would Rossi stop some to repair them?
On 8/9/2016 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Bob Higgins <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit?
I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer
this question.
If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to
be taken off line, I would design in bypass valves.
I suppose this would allow the flow rate to remain about the same. But
not so precisely the same that it would be exactly 36,000 kg that day.
However, in that situation the temperature would be lower and the heat
output would be lower. The data shows 1 MW being produced when the log
book shows half the units were off line. In some cases the data shows
1 MW when the entire reactor was turned off.
I do not think it would be a good idea to leave the same flow rate
when half the units are off-line. I suppose this would cool the
remaining units too much.
Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever
shut off?
Eyewitness observers told me they were off. They said the entire
reactor was disassembled at times, yet the data shows the flow rate
was 36,000 kg and heat output was 1 MW on these days. I find that
improbable. Highly improbable.
Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow
could remain constant.
Ah, but the temperature would vary, so heat output would be reduced.
Yet it was within a few degrees every day. Apparently, when half the
units were turned off the remaining units magically put out twice as
much heat. If you believe the data.
Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the
specification. It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range
of 1E6 m^3, but also claims an indication of down to 0.5 liter.
It measures to the nearest metric ton. 1,000 L to be exact. (It is
volumetric and it only works with liquids, I believe.)
However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant
flow is the water output temperature to be reduced during reactor
shutdown or bypass. Do you have that corresponding temperature data?
The temperature was supposedly about the same, every day.
I do not actually believe any of this data. It is bogus. Some of the
numbers were confirmed by witnesses, but clearly they came from
instruments that were not working correctly, such as the flow meter in
a half-empty pipe. This is Grade-A, in your face, ham-handed,
half-assed _bullshit_. It is fraud. The most outrageous fraud I have
ever seen. This is obvious for the reasons given in Exhibit 5, and for
many other reasons not yet revealed, such as the fact that there was
no measurable heat in the customer site. In my opinion, there is not
slightest chance this machine produced excess heat.
- Jed
