Unfortunately there's very little we can do. We just wait and hope Dr. Rossi will begin soon the promised tests with universities labs.
2011/11/7 David Roberson <[email protected]> > Of course you are correct with your statement that we only have his word > and the consultants data to operate upon. But, many of the facts > (assumptions) have been reasonably established earlier. The water storage > volume of 30 liters seems appropriate and the calculation of power output > from input flow rate and temperature delta is thermodynamics. Do you think > that the engineer is not Domenico? > > Can you tell me a method for obtaining any information what so ever if > we wish to analyze the test? I consider it a little too timid to give up > without at least an effort. This is not a court of law, we are engineering > a system. > > What do you suggest? Do you think it wise to use the word assumptions for > some of these? I do not care what they are called, I just would like to > have information to use in simulations. Throw away that lawyer hat and put > on one that is more useful. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Selva <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 1:43 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]: October 28 Established ECAT System Facts > > Hi David > how do you consider *facts* these data ? All we have in our hands are > Rossi's claims. > > 2011/11/6 David Roberson <[email protected]> > >> I would like to have access to the known facts associated with the >> latest test of the 1 MW ECAT system. Is it possible for us as a group >> to keep a list of what we know must be true about the test and other facts >> that influence the measured performance? I am including a beginning >> list that should be reviewed for accuracy and appended to by vortex members. >> Thank you. >> 1). The ECATs were preloaded with water prior to beginning the test. >> a). A reasonable estimate of the water held within the 107 ECATs is 107 >> units x 30 liters/unit = 3210 liters. >> b). The water within the 107 ECATs is replaced in approximately 3210 >> liters / 675.6 liters/hour = 4.75 hours. >> 2). There is no pump within the output path between the ECAT’s and the >> large water storage tank. >> a). This configuration absolutely demands that the output vapor must be >> greater than atmospheric pressure. This is necessary to push the water out >> of the dissipaters. >> b). This pressure can be estimated by someone who is skilled in the >> calculation of liquid and vapor flow through pipes and dissipaters. >> 3). The average input water flow rate for the ECAT’s was 675.6 >> liters/hour. >> a). The output flow rate is 675.6 liters/hour / 3600 seconds/hour * 1000 >> grams/liter = 187.667 grams/second. Using this value and information >> from NIST leads to the following conclusion. >> b). 105 C is the average temperature output of the system, >> and 18 C average input. >> c). If only liquid water is ejected by the ECATs, the minimum system >> power output is 187.667 grams/second * (440.27 joules/gram liquid at 105 C >> – 75.544 joules/gram liquid at 18 C) = 68.45 Kilowatts. >> d). If vapor is the only output then the maximum system power output is >> 187.667 grams/second * (2683.4 joules/gram vapor at 105 C – 75.544 >> joules/gram liquid at 18 C) = 489.4 Kilowatts. >> e). The true power output of the system must lie between these two values. >> 4). The customer had an engineer named Domenico Fioravanti and helpers to >> verify operation of the system. >> Dave >> > >
