What would you do in their shoes? If IH is convinced that the device did not
produce the calculated heat then surely there must be evidence to that fact.
The meters apparently fail to support their claims, so where do they look?
I am not convinced either way at this juncture and hope that additional
evidence will come forth to reveal the truth. Of course, if IH and others are
honestly convinced that the system does not function as claimed then it is easy
to understand the actions that they are taking. It is painful to consider
paying $89 million additional dollars for a pig in a poke.
But, if these guys are attempting to rob Rossi of his work, then I have zero
sympathy for them. That scenario does not ring true to me at the moment.
We are going to have to wait until further evidence is available before we can
become totally convinced.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.
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 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 <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Aug 19, 2016 2:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Jed's flowmeter comments chanllenged.
a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> 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
