I think I know the reason why there is always a question in such a demonstration. No one has ever performed an experiment that has completely eliminated any optional explanation for the results obtained. Those who accept the limited proof are convinced that the experiment was successful, while those who think it is a scam will always have a way to accuse the perpetrator. I feel that this is a law of human nature.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: peter.heckert <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 4:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Dont ask me. sk Rossi, ask Levi, ask Focardi, ask Passi or any other from this team. There is a very obvious answer, but it is impossible to prove, so I cannot give n answer. lso I have learned in live, the obvious answers are sometimes false and there re other surprising explanations. Peter Hi Peter, In every test there's been something missing. Why? Colin On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes this is true. > It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without > much consideration. > > Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was > finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up > in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. > > Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a > secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the > sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to > have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention > would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades > come and stop the experiment. ;-) > > Peter > > > ----- Original Nachricht ---- > Von: Colin Hercus <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 > Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations > > > Hi Peter, > > > > It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat > > dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. > > > > Colin > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. > > > There is an important consideration that might have been missed by > many: > > > > > > If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume > air > > > pressure at the other end of the pipe. > > > In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. > > > > > > If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 > bar. > > > We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. > > > So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the > > > temperature was measured, could be true. > > > Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could > > work > > > in this case. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > >
