Calibrated by whom? I would not trust any meter that was not inspected by a truly independent party. Anything Rossi touches is suspicious.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
