I do not know where to begin. There is at least as much speculation in the response as I used to explain what was a likely scenario.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the ECAT any reasonable chance of success. >Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's >3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of >heat from nuclear reactions. >His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam >at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in >fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the >possibility. No water is trapped within the little water trap. Why do you think he has a shut off valve after of the trap location? Do you think it is to stop the high speed vapor from forcing it past the take out when he is measuring water? What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of data. >A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not >to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Prove it. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. >I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a >following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have >merit. In that, he succeeded. Just your opinion. Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...] >You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo >of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel. I guess you know how to make a 1 MW system. Please explain how you would do it. Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power level to the 470 kW output region. >The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat >demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that >was the problem. Not true. Prove this is the reason. All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This was apparently what the customer engineer saw. >He didn't even claim to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. >According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the >temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the >temperature does not >prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the >conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it >works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the >case. Oops. He used good engineering practices to prove to himself that the test was valid. Do you question his knowledge? Do you know better? >If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power >transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? Does the data support the claim? You always insist on data. Why do you now say it is irrelevant? Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. >But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the >water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the >volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and >producing a mist of >entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be >trapped, especially if the valve is closed. Close the lower valve after the collection point to stop steam flow in that path. This is the lowest point so the water will flow freely into it. Do you doubt that this will occur? Why? >And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any >expertise in this event. I guess we are to assume that you know all the facts. Were you there? Did you discuss anything with the gentleman to determine that he might know far more than yourself? After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test was begun and the data that we see was obtained. >It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing >about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving > >90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. The valve following the trap can be closed. Please think about the system. Rossi knows perfectly well how much water is required in order to produce 500 kW of output power in self sustaining mode. >Why is water required to produce heat? I goes you mean how much water is >required to get 100% vaporization to within one per cent or less. Of course, you knew that was my intention. You are kidding I guess about the 1 % figure. Ha Ha. Please explain how that is required if the water level within the ECAT is dropping or rising with power. This is not required to be a constant input water flow - constant output flow system (full ECAT). Water and vapor are both present within the ECAT device. What makes you think otherwise? Do you question this? He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW system puts out approximately 500 kW without drive. >I have no reason to believe he knows that. And approximately isn't good >enough. If he's claiming dry steam, then he'd have to know it to a per cent >or so, which seems unlikely. And the power would have to be stable to a per >cent or so, which is also >unlikely. Look at the answer above to clarify the reason. You are the one assuming that the ECATs are full of water, I say that is not the case. With this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the water collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more water appears. >But with the trap they were using, water would stop appearing at the onset of >boiling, because it would immediately produce a high speed gas containing >entrained mist. Of course, closing the valve would also cause water to stop >being trapped. Absolutely not. Think valve. Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members. >Right, because no one can explain: >(1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% Easy. The water level is adjusting. No requirement of 1% exists. Lets argue this point in a separate posting if you wish. >(2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if >the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. This one is for you to explain. You always complain about the lack of data. If you think about the system long enough, I am confident you will understand why. >Also, when did they do this flow rate adjustment to get the water to stop >being trapped. There is no indication of that in the temperature record. Did >they do it the night before? This is not clear. Please rephrase the question and I will answer. All of the water is vaporized so the power can be determined to be 470 kW. >Only in your dreams. Explain why this is not possible? I am waiting. There is not liquid water being ejected by the ECATs. >There is no evidence for that. There is, the engineer states this. Did you see otherwise or just speculation? The ECATs are capable of self sustaining mode for hours due to the operation of a 3 core device with positive heat feedback beyond what we saw in the 1 core test of October 6. >Again, not supported by the evidence. Plenty of evidence exists. You just need to be able to understand it. So, I am dazzled by the demonstration of a 1 MW cold fusion heat device which is an historic event. >Even if your interpretation were right, which it surely isn't, you were >dazzled by 3 sheets of paper with claims on it from Rossi and his long-time >associate. >You are much too easily dazzled. Maybe I can see through the fog which some cannot. You should open your eyes to the possibilities. I can not wait until you see the truth. The fizzle is only in the mind of those that will not see through the fog of reality. >More believer testimony.The only fog is in your head. It is only a manner of time until you understand the truth. Some of us are already there. Do you honestly think that 470 kW is too low of a power to witness for a cold fusion device? >I honestly don't think there was 470 kW. The evidence (claimed evidence) only >supports 70 kW, and that is not impressive from 107 100kg-devices that were >heated first for 2 hours with 200 kW. I honestly do think there was 470 kW. And the evidence supports it. What does it take to get your attention? >Really isolate an ecat (just one), and use it to heat something really big, >like a pool of water, or to lift some really heavy weight. That would be >better. The proof of heat generation has been done during the October 6 testing. I would also love to see additional testing, but it is not required. >But sending all the heat down a drain or into the sky... not so much. He could have made a more dazzling display. But he chose to do what the customer wanted.
