I think GoatGuy must have been on some hallucinogen to come up with
that. I don't believe it has any relationship with the 1 MW plant.
From what Engineer48 has written the plant used positive displacement
pumps that were computer controlled to keep the water level right in the
reactors.
Even Murray has not suggested there was an overflow that fed back into
the reservoir.
On 8/10/2016 4:56 PM, Jack Cole wrote:
Here is the previous post. Again, not certain about whether it was
the configuration used.
----------------------------------------
Thanks to Brad for finding the comment fromGoatGuyon 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
*
o
+ F
+ T
+ V
+ s
*
Avatar
‒
GoatGuy2Newcomer
13 hours ago
<http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/rossi-1-megawatt-energy-catalyzer-is.html#sot_dee0c685b1afb34eb40f694d4a5fea575cec70b0>
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: vortex-l <[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
