So far I have to agree with ashfeild until a complete diagram is available to
critic. Goat Guy(GG) and everyone else would love to have a look at the
customers heat sink, but apparently that is not going to happen anytime soon.
I do not agree with GG that the condenser is not a reasonable way to extract
the heat from the incoming steam. He suggests a water to water exchanger which
is just an alternate method of doing the same task.
In actuality, it is more likely that Rossi's customer would use a liquid to
liquid system unless his process requires hot air. Of course, it has not been
proven that Rossi's customer actually uses 1 MW of heat according to IH among
others. I leave that determination to the courts.
Since GG assumes cheating, he needs to prove that some of the tricks that he
suggests are actually present. Until that is shown, he can not be taken too
seriously in my opinion.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 5:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:angry and sad LENR comment but info too!
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 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 <jcol...@gmail.com> 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
<dlrober...@aol.com> 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 <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
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 <peter.gl...@gmail.com> 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
