It appears that the most likely explanation required to prove the experiment was faulty was to assume that mainly hot water was the output of the ECAT system. If this is to prevail, it is necessary for someone to offer a reasonable explanation as to why no one observed this problem during the test.
Has anyone seen convincing evidence that steam was not the main product of the ECAT system? The question about the pressure being atmospheric at the output port does not appear to hold water since this problem can be overcome by having a pump inserted within the output stream of the customers equipment. I suspect most of us would agree that if the pressure was indeed atmospheric at the steam port, then vapor at 102 C would be relatively dry. Why question the steam temperature and pressure readings if they were performed with calibrated meters? Is this merely an attempt to explain away the possible excess heat? There remains a valid concern about where all of the 1 MW of heat is vented. That at the moment, seems to be the main or only evidence that the system did not function as expected. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged. a.ashfield <[email protected]> wrote: 1) the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on average 33,558 kg/day (1,398 kg/h). That may have been the average, but daily totals can only be in even thousands. The smallest unit on this flow meter is 1,000 liters. So what we have here are 10 months of the ERV's averaged input water temp, flow rate, output superheated steam temperature . . . I doubt that 102 deg C is superheated. and pressure that seems to be more realistic than Jed's flow statement "It was 36,000kg/day every day and it never varied". Well Jed that statement is now "BUSTED". I was unaware of the earlier data. Note however that Exhibit 5 also says: In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period. I thought that was for the entire test. My mistake. - Jed
