It is not simple to figure out how to explain the temperature reading 102.8 C while the pressure shows atmospheric and at the same time find the steam wet. That is the only way to explain how the observers were faked out so readily.
I suspect that there is a way to make this happen and I have been revealing the trick within my postings. Please realize that when anyone claims that the data is just flat out faked that they might find that this thought is incorrect. Rossi states that the ERV had the instruments calibrated before and after the demonstration. It is not too far of a stretch for him to actually present data to the court which actually shows the above conditions being met. Most experts would come to the conclusion that the steam must be dry in that case. My concept is to find a way for these instruments to be reading the correct numbers while the steam is actually very wet. If my understand of Bernoulli's principle is correct then it might well be possible to read 102.8 C at a convenient location on the system piping while reading pressure that is approximately 0 bar at the output port. All Rossi would need to do is to convince the ERV that his temperature probe location was reasonable when it is not located at exactly the same point as the pressure gauge. That will get them to accept 275 kWatts of power. The other missing link might well be due to the fluid flow meter being starved of water by a second problem. This flow issue has less support at the moment. Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate? How could you conclude the steam was wet under that condition? That is a trap I do not want to fall into. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation 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 have put 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]> 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
