Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... And yes, a clear hose would be a very simple way to eliminate that concern... No disagreements there! I think the reason Levi and other don't puch that issue is because they've seen the unit in operation without the hose on and know that liquid water is not coming out. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? No one is that stupid or gullible... I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. I at least feel its a reasonable possibility, and am trying, on a daily basis, to determine how likely this is what it seems to be... that to me is more rational than someone who only notices and points out what is questionable, and not the supportive evidence. It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have "irrefutable" evidence, your only conclusion is "it doesn't work". I look at it as a continuum... and at any point in time, my confidence level can vary according to any new details or analysis I come across. Your analyses are helpful at times, but it is very obvious that you just don't want to even consider that this MIGHT be working.... that's certainly your perogative.
-Mark _____ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to "movie professor" and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. I get that. But the behavior during start up can be used to give information about the device. Like, for example, it indicates that the device has thermal mass, and in this case, it indicates that there is nothing in the chimney preventing liquid water from getting out. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Good, then what would prevent water from going through the chimney during steady state. Second: You wrote: "We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling." You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I guess I misunderstood you when you said "The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water." What did you mean by that then? The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. Please indulge my obviously inferior intelligence and limited experience. But your explanation just doesn't make sense to me.
