David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
But I do not think that the difference would amount to hardly any difference in
calculations. Mats stated clearly that the flow was steady. No bubbles, same
height, everything I would have hoped to have him state.
>The flow varied over time. It might have varied during that 6 minutes. There
>were definitely bubbles seen going though the pipe. There might have been some
>then, undetected. There might have been changed in backpressure due to rising
>or falling >enthalpy.
>One measurement for 6 minutes when the power was at a low ebb is better than
>nothing, but it cannot be precise with this system and it does not tell us
>much. It does not tell us the flow rate when the power was nominally ~8 kW
>instead of ~3 kW.
You answer is clearly indicated by the temperature readings at T2. This was
very constant. Shall we discuss the same error showing up during Mats second
measurement which was shorter in duration? Explain how one core would be
capable of producing this amount of power? The holes in the argument are big
enough to drive a truck through. Why did Rossi place the output thermocouple
so close to the hot input port? Do you really believe that the output power
was increasing during the self sustaining mode? I could go on forever but why
waste more time arguing the obvious?
He did a very thorough job in this and I accept his data.
>I would not call this thorough. It was the best he could do under the
>circumstances, but one measurement is not thorough.
He made two measurements, both show a problem with the thermocouple placement.
>A precision flowmeter should give a reasonable approximation of instantaneous
>performance. Not as good as the cooling water loop.
One was not available.
>Yes, I know.
We agree on one thing at least. ;-)
Mats was extremely careful to hold the hose at the same level as it was when it
entered the sink drain.
>I know, but he could not see the condition of the hose and bubbles all the way
>back or inside the heat exchanger.
He looked at the hose and saw no bubbles. Also, no bubbles were seen at the
output of the pipe as the water smoothly exited. No magic here.
>I am pretty sure he must have had significant errors, based on my experience
>with pond pumps, and based on the complexity of this system. If you disagree I
>suggest you try messing around with pumps . . . and try modeling a system with
>a mixture >of steam and water in it. That's a nightmare.
This is merely supposition. How much proof do you need to accept an obvious
fact?
>What obvious fact? That the flow rate was ~320 g over 6 minutes? Sure, we know
>that. What about the rest of the time? How quickly did it fluctuate? What
>would it be if he had measured it again immediately after the first
>measurement? What was >the margin of error for this measurement? How much did
>it change in the 12 minutes before he recorded the cooling loop measurement?
>This is not merely supposition. I have had significant experience using pumps,
>flowmeters and thermocouples, in ponds and calorimeters. I have made many,
>many stupid mistakes with them, which -- if it does not make me an expert --
>is at least the >beginning of wisdom.
The temperature measurements for the thermocouples was very sparse. How do you
know the power did not go to very low values in between measurements by the
same reasoning? Why should readings at both sides of Mats measurement be
fairly consistent? This is not the case when a variable is highly changing in
general. Also, the average power is what we want, instantaneous readings are
of less importance. I would accept a good average reading any day over a noisy
single point measurement.
Again, I trust Mats as a careful technician that took as many variables into
account as anyone could have. There is no reason to distrust his technique.
You should ask yourself the same error questions regarding the thermocouples as
they are in large error.
>I do not see what difference that would make. You measure the flow in the pipe
>leading into the reactor, just above the pump.
This point was made to make it clear that knowing the input flow rate is not
enough. What if the quality of the vapor is not 100%? What if the water level
is changing inside the ECAT? I would be very surprised if there is no vapor
trapped above the water inside the ECAT. And there is no reason to suspect
that the water level does not change with time.
>Those issues would not be clarified by measuring the flow downstream from the
>heat exchanger. You still would not know how much of the water went through
>the system as liquid, and how much condensed back into water.
Do you want for me to assume that less power was delivered to the load? Any
output that is not pure vapor will result in less. We are already being too
generous by assuming the vapor is of 100 % quality.
Do you really think that Rossi would allow us to have accurate data? Has he
ever done this? It is laughable to think he would do so.
>He would if he thought he could make a great of money by doing so. Assuming
>that customer is real, and Fioravanti is who he claims to be, those people got
>the most accurate data anyone can get from a megawatt scale reactor. They got
>the best >assurance that this is real technology that can be provided.
That is a big stretch. It took quite a bit of analysis to uncover many of the
tricks that Rossi has hidden within this test. I assume that the customers
would encounter the same difficulty. Please explain how one core is capable of
this large amount of assumed power output in the self sustaining mode? This is
not likely. Rossi continues to prevent accurate measurements of his system
period. Are we speaking of different Rossi's?
>Rossi does nothing except for profit. That is not unusual. He does take it to
>extremes. Most business owners do things to improve their image, or as PR,
>which is an indirect method of increasing profit. Rossi sees no need to do
>these things. At >least, that is what he tells me.
What would be a better way to convince the potential customers that you have a
great product than to cook the books in that direction? He has not changed at
all during the months that I have observed his behavior. What do you see
different about him now versus a few months ago?
My position stands as I have stated. The thermocouple measurements are mostly
rubbish. A couple can be almost trusted, but most are clearly not close to
correct.
I had to point out the error when the original document was posted that claimed
such extreme accuracy. That post was not correct. We need to base our
decisions on real numbers and not imaginary ones.
In an earlier post a few days ago you asked me to prove my point about the fact
that the thermocouples read inaccurately. I stayed quiet until it was
important to set the record straight. That has been completed now. It is
clear that you do not understand my argument. It is crystal clear to me
because possibly I have spent more time reviewing the graph of T2 versus time.
We are wasting time continuing on this line of discussion as we will never
agree on the measurements. At least I can go away with a clear conscience.
>- Jed
