On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Give the poor guy a break. > You should give him a break about the trap. > He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else > would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal > in the long term. The engineer most likely did not know that there was a > chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would vary during his > test. > But you keep insisting on his competence. Now you're claiming that you're so much smarter than him, because even from the internet, you can imagine this possibility. Surely he kew the ecats hold 30 L. Surely he would know they didn't have to be full. Surely he would know that he could easily check the output to see if it was flowing. Anyway, the point is that this is an easier and safer assumption than assuming he knew how effective the trap was. > He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to safely control that > parameter with Rossi's setup. A well designed system would not have this > occur. As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a difference in > output flow rate and input flow rates. He could not read Rossi's mind any > better than we can. > In fact, you're suggesting he can't read it as well as you can. But I disagree. Any engineer knowing the volume of the ecats, should have expected a difference in flow rates (average) unless the ecats were full. > > Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard > system and that he does not even know himself what it is doing? > If he doesn't check the output, when it is easy and obvious to do, then yes, you should hold that against him, regardless of Rossi's standard. Why should he expect a standard system anyway in a ground-breaking device. He should check things as essential to the calculation of energy output as the output flow rate. This is an unfair standard. > Nonsense. He's there to observe the output power. That involves the output flow rate. How can expecting him to determine such an output flow rate with more confidence than a remote observer on the internet can, be an unfair standard? Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone would > have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main > output. > Yes, well, it wasn't though. > > Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in > his trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap? > But he did. If you're referring to the 5 minutes from 12:30 to 12:35, he collected about 10% of the water that would have flowed past. That's probably pretty close to the ratio of the pipe diameters. And considering the horizontal momentum, 10% sounds pretty plausible. > You must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible. > Why exactly? It was clearly closed at 3:00. Why does that not bother you? How do we know it wasn't closed the whole time? > We are speaking of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street. > So, now he's competent. An experienced, competent guy would have checked the flow rate. Or at least one incompetence is not more likely than the other. > Maybe it was closed at 3:00, that is what you say. Was it closed at > 1:00? Or how about at 4:00? This is not proof of anything and we both > know it. > Right. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming Rossi's failure to prove. To be an effective trap it should be open all the time. The fact it's closed at 3:00 means we have no idea what it did any of the time. So its presence is meaningless. > So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing. He > was possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this > was a rare system and not normally encountered. > I don't agree, as you know. To me the likelihood of him getting faked out by a dummy trap is far higher than that he would get faked out by flow rate effects of non-full ecats. It's not that abnormal, if remote observers can figure out the possibility. > You assume that he was ignorant. > As do you. > You suggest that he did not know how to set up a water trap in a system. > You suggest he did not know how to determine flow rate. But I don't suggest he didn't know how to set up a trap, only that he was too accepting of Rossi's set up. And that's true, no matter what you think of him. Even a trap to capture non-misty water, would be put at the bottom of a U, and a steam separator would be used to capture mist. And he'd worry about the second pipe. Did he even ask Rossi why there was no trap on that pipe? Maybe they didn't even use the lower pipe, and redirected everything through the upper pipe. > You think he might actually be an employee of Rossi, and there is no > customer. > Rossi has not given evidence contrary to that, and I think a demo that depends on this sort of meta-information is a useless demo, especially for something as profound as Rossi claims. Are our positions equal? > To the extent we both impugn the engineer's competence, there is similarity. To the extent that we consider the test in the least bit persuasive, I think not.
