I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence supports them. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through without vaporization position. I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that are left unanswered. The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. What would keep water from flowing downward into the trap?
I would like for someone to explain the large pulse of temperature at the thermocouple if water is the active medium. This is just one of many problems with the water only model. Again, all of the evidence supports my current hypothesis. There is a question raised about my suggesting that the customer engineer is lying. That is totally bogus as he had no way of knowing whether or not the output flow rate matched the input flow rate but assumed it did. There is a big difference between lying and not knowing. The skeptics are convinced that he fabricated the data which I do not believe. I do wish the skeptics would read the literature about kettle boiling to throw away the false belief that the vapor is extremely wet. Why would they wish to argue vapor wetness when they are convinced that there is no vapor in the first place? The boiler literature points out that water entrapped within the vapor is very bad for a system due to erosion. Old steam locomotives had a structure similar to the ECAT one where the vapor is held above the liquid and they would suffer serious problems if the vapor is of low quality. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: I gave the model you mentioned a great deal of consideration as well. The evidence does not support that concept for several reasons. I could not see any explanation for the lack of water being captured by the trap set by the engineer as one example. Here's one: The valve was closed. Here's another: the liquid was a mist entrained in the steam. He states that he collected all of the water exiting the ECATs and obtained 5 liters. But the device could not possibly have trapped entrained mist, especially with the valve closed. If the water is being constantly moving throughout the system this is not possilbe. Again if only 1% of the water by mass is vaporized, the fluid is 95% steam by volume. That means a small droplets can be entrained in the steam and would not be trapped by a simple tee. And if one accepted a partly filled ecat at the beginning to explain the first 5 minutes before boiling (assuming the valve started out open), then by the time the ecat is filled, there will be plenty of steam available to entrain the water as it is forced out. Moreover, the valve could have been closed before the ecats filled up. According to Lewan's video, it is closed at 3:00. I do not think it is fair to say he is lying about his measurements as some suggest. You are suggesting he is lying about the constant output flow rate. He is saying they collected 5 liters, but the statement that they collected *all* the water is clearly unsupportable. Even if the phases were completely separate, some water would surely get past the trap. And if it's a mist, nearly all of it would. This device allows him to claim ignorance, so it is not necessarily a lie to say it collected all the liquid; it is merely not plausible. The closed valve, on the other hand, looks like deliberate deception. But maybe Rossi did it hoping F. would not notice. Also, an explanation for the large, fast rising temperature pulse after the shoulder can not be explained by the constant water theroy. I also think that that shoulder ahead of the large pulse is explained quite convinceingly by my hypothesis. This sort of erratic pressure (which would explain the erratic temperature) in a complicated network of pipes and valves is hardly surprising, and if you are going to base evidence for something as profoundly important as cold fusion on that shoulder, you're not going to get any new believers. The existing believers will lap it up of course. There are far too many problems associated with the water runs through it theory. There are no problems at all. And it fits with the claims of Rossi and F. of constant flow rate. The only requirement for my hypothesis to be true is for the water to be slightly below full during the test. To get a plausible increase in power before the ecats fill would require it to be more than slightly below full. For example, if it were 90 % full, then the power would have to reach 470 kW in about a half an hour. Still not plausible, given the time it took to warm up to 70 kW. No one needs to be a liar and the readings do not need to be fudged. The claims of Rossi that the output flow rate is constant and the output power is constant would be lies. And the accurate flow rate selection to maintain the level just below full needs to be assumed. No fudging at all is needed for the constant flow rate model. Why should we not use logic to arrive at the correct answer if it fits? The problem is you need something more than a fit, if there are other possibilities that also fit. The goal here is not to find a way to make Rossi's claims consistent, but to make his claims the only ones that can explain the observations. Otherwise it's not proof. Not only is cold fusion not necessary to explain the (reported) observations, but if you look at it without your foregone conclusion stuck in your mind, they are not needed for the simplest and most likely description.
