Not just a customer, but a valid, legit, independent customer, not a Rossi's agent.
Giovanni On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount of > steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was allowed > to visit) could be instantly validated if there was indeed a real customer > using the steam. > > > If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real > manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed > steam was being supplied. > > > This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge if > Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a real > customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty simple, > no? > > > Was there a customer using the steam or not? > > > Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of > fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or > by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is > intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her > or his legal injury. > > > > Brian Ahern wrote: > > Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the water > was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase. The > metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will always > measure higher values than measuring it as a single liquid phase at the > input. > > Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output > temperature is below 100C. Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C is a > surfire way to get inflated flow measurements. > > Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it anyway > because it is so easy the provide inflated values. > > I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible. Use > the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters operate in a > two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow rates due to the > increased compressibility. > > Once again he selected the most ambiguous method . > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* bobcook39...@gmail.com <bobcook39...@gmail.com> > <bobcook39...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM > *To:* Jed Rothwell; Vortex > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It > is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. > Seebelow. > > > The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the change > of the phase of water to steam at about 100 C. This is about 540 calories > per gram and should add to the heating of the liquid phase over about 30 C. > > > > > This amounts to 540 /30 or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or > calories whatever units you want-- IMHO. > > > > > > Bob Cook > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM > *To: *Vortex <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It > is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with. > Seebelow. > > > > Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: > > > > The water flow rate is 36000kG/day or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG x 1 > day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec > > > > Note: > > > > 1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is what > Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this spreadsheet, in the > "reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use 32,400 kg instead of 36,000 > kg. > > > > 2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the > gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The manual > for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is half full, so > the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say how far off they > are, but they cannot be right. > > > > 3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be exactly the > same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the nearest 1000 kg, > which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it would record something like > 35,000 kg one day, 34,000 the next, and 36,000 the next even if the flow > was extremely consistent. > > > > > > The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 = a temperature rise of34.8 > degrees C. > > Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C > > The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is: > > Flow rate (G/sec ) x Temp. rise (degrees C) x heat capacity of > water (4.2 joules/G/degree C) > > 425.5g/sec x 34.8C x 4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of Joules/second > = 62,191watts > > > > The authors claim that the water was vaporized, so they used the heat of > vaporization. It could not have been vaporized, because there was some back > pressure from the equipment. At these temperatures, even a little pressure > will prevent vaporization. > > > > > > However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows where that > came from? > > > > Probably the adjustments I just described account for it, but the data is > fake and the instruments and configuration are preposterous, so it means > nothing. > > > > - Jed > > > > > > >
