Peter: There's a bit of a language barrier here... I was not suggesting that you actually repeat the analysis, or do something a little different... but I think most readers will understand my point.
Again, thanks for taking time to run the analysis and report your results... -Mark -----Original Message----- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 1:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:The 6 Oct Rossi test heat exchanger model Am 11.12.2011 21:51, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint: > Peter: > Thanks for taking time to RAISE the SNR! > > What can we conclude from your analysis? Well, at first reading, it seems > reasonable, so it is at least helpful and might swing the 'accuracy meter' a > little over to Rossi's favor, however, I don't think its conclusive. But that > seems to be the norm in this case, that the only conclusive thing we can > conclude from what facts we do have, is that nothing is conclusive! > > I APPLAUD your efforts here since what you did is EXACTLY what this > discussion group is for... tomorrow you could run some more test cases with > this software and come to the opposite conclusion, which I would also > applaud! It's unfortunate that some people on this list just don't > understand that... No. I can say you, that I did not test exactly the same model, because I could not find this. I tested if the orders of magnitude are possible with water and nothing more and I confirmed it. And no, I cannot do other tests. Say I use double the flow rate, then I get an efficiency of 98% instead of 99%. This doesn't matter. I'm not interested in peanut counting and will not do this. Any test with similar magnitudes will give similar results. Why should I repeat it? The result is plausible. Only an experiment with the real thing could bring new findings, but i doubt it. I agree Peter, -mark
