I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing how he
could fake it.
The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no
evidence it was.
They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no
evidence that it did.
If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the power
could have been just about anything. No matter how many people looked
at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be the same. Run some
numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have to be very wet to be
carrying most of the mass as liquid rather than gas, since the liquid
phase is so compact, and that makes an enormous difference to the output
power.
What more do you need?
BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*. That would
have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly with either
steam or water, of course).
On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You haveput together a good arguement. His refusal to allow access to
the customer site being one that bothers me the most. Why not go to
that little effort in order to receive $89 million? I can not
understand that type of logic.
Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many people were
viewing the gauges during the period and not finding a problem. That
is what I am attempting to understand and to find an explanation as to
how this can happen right under their noses.
I think I am close to finding a way. Maybe I can pull off a similar
scam and get $100 million!! ;-) Naw, that is not something that I
would ever consider seriously.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
David Roberson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If half the reactors are taken out the power would definitely fall
in half without the external loop. Even with it, there is only a
certain amount of correction that is possible which would be seen
with all of the individual devices running at full drive input
power. It is not likely that there is enough reserve to fill in
that large of a gap.
Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some days,
half the reactors produced more power than all of them did on other
days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems impossible. I suppose you are
saying we should ignore that part of his data. We should assume he was
lying about that, but the rest might be true.
I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I said,
there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of time trying to
make sense of fiction. It is like trying to parse the logic in a Harry
Potter book.
Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer site, and so
on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the evidence strongly
indicates that none of it is true.
- Jed
