On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even considered my arguments, so *you* clearly started with a conclusion. Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that will convince you that Rossi's demos (including the last one) do not need nuclear reactions to explain them. The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output (average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up period. > I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence > supports them. > Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One you clearly failed to absorb in your education. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through > without vaporization position. > Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another point you don't seem to understand. I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that > are left unanswered. > All the ones you have mentioned, I have countered. > The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the > trap. > I've been harping on the valve for days, and now finally you give your counter-argument? And this is it? Did you even look at the video? There are 2 valves. One leading to the heat exchanger, which is open. And one leading to the trap, which is clearly closed at 3:00. What would keep water from flowing downward into the trap? > Its horizontal momentum. Have you heard of it? If the liquid is in the form of entrained drops, they would have a lot of horizontal momentum. That's why they make steam separators. But Rossi didn't use one. > > I would like for someone to explain the large pulse of temperature at the > thermocouple if water is the active medium. > This irregularity is far too little to hang your hat on. If liquid water is flowing through the system at the onset of boiling, then it will be at 100C until the pressure increases. The pressure increase could happen suddenly if the pipes largely filled with water are suddenly cleared by steam pressure behind it. The sort of thing that happens when a radiator bangs; the water-hammer effect. There are enough twists and turns in the plumbing for sudden pressure spikes to be completely plausible. And even if you insist on your highly speculative idea to explain it, it is still consistent with the ecats being very nearly full, and filling up within minutes of the onset of boiling, which is consistent with 70 kW power throughout. (And if the trap valve is open, it also explains why liquid was not trapped in the first 5 minutes.) Your picture fails to *prove* anything, except to those who desperately want it to be true, and who are already convinced that it is, as you stated you were days ago. This is just one of many problems with the water only model. Again, all > of the evidence supports my current hypothesis. > Again, no. The best you've got is that it is consistent with the evidence, and that does not constitute proof. > 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. > But you suggested I accused him of lying about capturing water in the trap. But he had no way of knowing that the trap would capture *all* the liquid (impossible), or for that matter any of it if it was in the form of a mist. Same, same. > The skeptics are convinced that he fabricated the data which I do not > believe. > No. I have not required any data fabrication anywhere to conclude the power output is 70 kW. That's the whole point. Please pay attention. If I just assumed the data was fabricated, what would be the point in even considering it? My point is that *even if you accept the measured data *in the report, it does not support the claim of 470 kW, and is in fact consistent with 70 kW. (If you accept a partially filled ecat, it is consistent with even lower power.) > > I do wish the skeptics would read the literature about kettle boiling to > throw away the false belief that the vapor is extremely wet. > Kettle boiling is irrelevant if the ecats are full and the vaporization rate is below the input flow rate. Kettles don't work that way. There is no reason to think the ecat doesn't. > Why would they wish to argue vapor wetness when they are convinced that > there is no vapor in the first place? > Not listening... There is vapor. If 1% of the water by mass is vaporized, that makes a fluid that is 95 % vapor. 95% vapor is not "no vapor"; it's a lot of vapor. Honestly, I really don't think you read what I write. Or you are not capable of understanding something that might threaten your faith in Rossi. > 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. > There is no relevance of this to the ecat test. Serious problems would not set in in 5.5 hours. And low quality steam in the range of a per cent or two is less harmful than steam quality of 70 to 80 % because the speed is much lower. It's very simple: 1) There is no evidence that the output is dry steam. It could be in the range of 1% steam by mass, or 95% steam by volume. 2) An output flow rate equal to the input flow rate is consistent with all observations. 3) The measured temperatures and flow rate for very wet steam are consistent with 70 kW output. That is not proof that those claims are right. But it means that the reported data do not prove 470 kW output, and therefore it is not necessary to invoke nuclear reactions to explain the reported data.
