"The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's no
evidence it was."
No evidence? How about 102.8C @ atmospheric pressure, according to the
gauges?
"They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's no
evidence that it did."
No evidence? A sealed, factory calibrated meter doesn't count? You
prefer the the guesses of someone that wasn't even there when the plant
was running?.
AA
On 8/24/2016 7:44 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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
