Thanks Jack, I will look into this explanation and attempt to determine whether or not it makes sense.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jack Cole <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too! Here is the previous post. Again, not certain about whether it was the configuration used. ---------------------------------------- Thanks to Brad for finding the comment from GoatGuy on Next Big Future. I have had a chance to examine and think through the arguments. I'm not an engineer, so maybe someone else can do a better analysis. It seems like this explanation would work only if the plumbing connected to the water tanks in certain ways (e.g., outlets connecting to the central reservoir near the top). If they connected on the bottom of the tanks, there would be mixing and prevention of air pockets. Jack F T V s ‒ GoatGuy2 Newcomer 13 hours ago Hah! I got it… finally! (I see how the 'trick' is very likely being performed, and why IH decided on a different testing procedure from the 'contract approved' one.) Its cute, subtle, and would result in an entirely misleading result. FIRST, you need to open the ( http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/R_123621412_3.pdf ) pdf file. Look at Figure 1. In the center of the “reactor shelter”, is a box labeled “water reservoir”, which has 2 inlets and 2 outlets. Inlet 1, top = tap water from municipal line Inlet 2, bot = return from steam condensers Outlet 1, top = water to first half of E-cats and then to water tank 1 Outlet 2, bot = water to second half of E-cats and then to water tank 2 All that would be needed would be for the steam-condensor loop to have a BUNCH of air in the line for this to be a really misleading COP > 1 system. Sensors that measure gas flow cannot discriminate 100% steam from 50:50 steam from 0% hot air. Likewise, with a bit of flim-flam, most of the heat emitted could be combined back into the circulating loop (of which there are 2: (water tank 1) → (input to ECat₁) → (combine with reservoir tank water) → (back into ECat₁) → (back to water tank 1) … repeated for the bottom half. In this system most of the input power can heat the effluent stream, if needed. The amount of 'real steam' in the big old misdirection-device (the "condensers", which are huge, non-quantitative, impressive and so on), which thru air-in-the-lines becomes 'the ruse' looks great. Metrology is done. It all seems great because no one is alert to the intent-to-deviate from the patent diagram. The receiving tanks get both new tap water and a bunch of recirculated water, reheated. The bogosity of the experiment isn't easily revealed. No attempt is made to mass-heat a bunch of water (like a small swimming pool's worth) a finite amount. The whole thing runs at whatever rate it runs (which is carefully excluded from the PDF). The only measure left is the misdirected one. It is ingenious. And if I were 'there', I'd too be calling for different testing. Namely… substituting a liquid-liquid heat exchanger for the great big air blower. To heat the small swimming pool. Which REALLY becomes quantitative, fast. To at least 2 sig-figs. More than enough to expose the rat. Or to confirm the golden goose. Which (by my surmise) confirms why Rossi's so up tight about the testing. Which he shouldn't be if it is aiming toward MASS calorimetry. Which of course he's never done. Nor will he. Because it exposes rats. GoatGuy On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:52 PM Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: Dave, There was a schematic that GoatGuy referenced some time ago. His speculation of how it could be faked included air in the system registering on the flow meter. I'm not certain the schematic was the ultimate configuration that was used. I'll try to find it in the archives. Jack On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:36 PM David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: Jed, I do not see any obvious reason why the flow meter can not be lower than the reservoir. Do you have some form of schematic that supports what you are describing? Dave -----Original Message----- From: a.ashfield <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too! Jed, Your answer is too pathetic for words. Placed so it was half full??? Show a diagram of the piping so an engineer can judge it. I note you still won't admit you were wrong on something else even after I posted proof . On 8/10/2016 3:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: And what exactly is the truth, where was the flowmeter placed? It was placed such that it was half full. That is what the rust marks shows, and what careful testing shows. Obviously it cannot be lower than the destination (the reservoir). Can you tell or is it under NDA? I just told you. I.H. told you. You don't believe us. You believe Rossi instead. He gave you no more proof than I did, but you believe him, unconditionally. So I see no reason to give you any more information. You will reject it and demand more, and more, and more. I expect I.H. will publish more in response to the lawsuit. You can wait until then. But, since you do not believe what they already published, there is no point to waiting. You have already made up your mind that Rossi is always right, no matter what he says, not matter how impossible it is. - Jed
