Firstly, there is no point in speculating until there is sufficient
evidence. What I object to on this blog is the tendency for doubters to
use vitriolic ad hominems.
At this point I don't have a lot of sympathy for IH. They have had a
year with access to the plant to figure this out and yet they wait until
the test is over and Rossi takes them to court to start complaining? I
have no reason to think the ERV is an idiot or in Rossi's pay, as the
facts will come out eventually.
Reviewing Rossi's earlier work again I see several examples where the
test was done with a single phase and the excess heat more than could be
accounted for by measurement error. Yet doubters call for yet another
a single phase test as if it would settle anything. Pathological
skeptics would doubt the results if Rossi was in the same country.
Rossi is right. Only sales of working commercial reactors will convince
them and that is what he is striving to do.
On 8/19/2016 6:27 PM, David Roberson wrote:
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 <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
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 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
