Yes this is correct. If the poutput energy is proven then it is still
possible to doubt the amount of input energy or hidden energy sources.
But I think the output energy can be proven: By heating a big amount of
water or -preferably- by boiling a known amount of water in an /open/
vessel. This technology is well known and if the boiler is open, then
anybody can see that no water overflow occurs. After this it is just a
matter of time. Let it run long enough and reliably measure the diesel
consumption.
The point is this: Only the boiler and the diesel engine must be tested
for this proof, no proprietary and secret parts need investigation. They
could even use a diesel generator supplied by the testers. So a lot of
trained independent people can do this without restrictions and witness
it and under these circumstances no error is possible if there is really
a COP of 6.
Another absolute proof where this:
Stirling engines specially designed for low temperatures to be combined
with a household heater boiler are available nowadays with power in kW
range. These are expensive, but if such a maschine is used, the ecat
could run for days without external supply.
But I think this is not necessary. If he allows the steam boiler to be
investigated, or simply uses an open boiler, then the steam quality
cannot been doubted, because this is visible and it is technology well
known for 100 years to experts.
Then the electrical input must be measured reliably and then no
reasonable doubts can remain.
As long as Rossi insists to keep the details of steam generation secret
he cannot expect that his measurements are acceppted as proof. There is
absolutely no reason to hide these trivial and nonproprietary components.
Peter
Am 03.11.2011 17:34, schrieb David Roberson:
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.
Ask 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
an answer.
Also I have learned in live, the obvious answers are sometimes false and there
are 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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> > An:[email protected] <mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
