Calibrated for the ERV by the manufacturers both before and after the test.
On 8/19/2016 3:15 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote:
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: vortex-l <[email protected] <mailto:[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
