What happened to the heat once it left Rossi's plant is irrelevant to
the contract. It looks like a desperate effort by IH to discover a
problem after their hired gun failed to do so.
It would be like doing a black box experiment and then saying you don't
believe the measured exit temperature so you are going to measure the
main drain to see how much it warmed.
On 8/19/2016 3:01 PM, David Roberson wrote:
It appearsthat 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] <mailto:[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
