On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Of course you are correct if water is being forced out of the ECAT. I see > no reason to believe that that is the situation since an attempt was made > to measure the water and some was captured. > But we don't know how successful this attempt was. If we believe the engineer, then the output flow rate was equal to the input, and all he had to do to be sure of this was to make sure liquid was coming out before the onset of boiling. If you assume he is competent, then it is fair to assume he would have checked that. In that case, the trap collected only 10% of the liquid water before boiling started (12:30 - 12:35), when the output was all liquid. That shows that the trap was ineffective even for liquid. It would then have had no chance with an entrained mist. > It should also be noted that Rossi and company had the input power set to > 180 kWatts during the initial portion of the self sustaining mode. The > ECATs should have been producing 1 MW under that condition before the power > was shut down. > Where does that come from? If the output is just 6 times the input, then why would it be 500kW when the input is zero? And why do earlier ecats give 30:1. In any case, there's no evidence it was 1 MW, and I don't buy it based on some dubious 6:1 claim from Rossi. Especially since the point of the test is to show the output, if only to the engineer. You can't use a claimed COP to verify an output. That's circular reasoning. > If that was the case, then twice as much water was being evaporated as > inputted to the ECATs during that time. > Even if it were 1 MW, it would have to be 1 MW getting to the water, and that requires heating thermal mass. Again, zero evidence. In fact, if 1 MW were getting in to the water in a partly filled ecat, it would have reached boiling much sooner. > This is further evidence that they were not full of water and overflowing. > A claim that the COP is 6 is not evidence that the COP is 6, or that the power is 500 kW, or that the ecats were not full, especially in *contradiction* to the engineer's implicit claim that they were. > Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things > do not add up. > But you do. You have to claim he was ignorant of the output flow rate, when he in fact claimed he knew the output flow rate. And I submit that knowing that the output flow rate was equal to the input flow rate (at least) is much easier than knowing how effective that trap was. All he needed to do to be sure the flow rate was equal to the input (at least) was to observe water coming out before the onset of boiling. Surely he was competent enough to know that. To know the effectiveness of the trap for wet steam, he would have to send steam of a known wetness through, and determine if it captured all the water. And that would require an independent way to determine steam wetness, which, even if it had been available, would have taken considerable time to measure. And it doesn't look like he paid much attention to the veracity of the trap contents, when you consider that only one of the steam pipes had a trap, and that the valve was closed at 3:00. > The only way that anyone can suggest that the ECATs were full and > overflowing is to assume bad test procedures. > And yet, the engineer and Rossi do more than suggest exactly that. They assume it implicitly in the power calculation. But I don't have a problem with assuming bad test procedures, especially since: The only way anyone can suggest that the ecats were *not* full before boiling is to assume bad test procedures, because it contradicts the engineers assumption.
