Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[a.ashfield]

That is certainly one way of avoiding answering the questions I asked.
You say you have "all the data."  It seems very unlikely that IH has all 
Rossi's data and so how would you get it?


AA

On 2/17/2017 6:18 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping
drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.


Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further 
messages from you.


Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping drawing
> but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.
>

Okay, so you are saying I am a liar. Got it. I will block any further
messages from you.

Done and done.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I have every reason to doubt it.  Saying that you have the piping 
drawing but refuse to publish it doesn't hold water.

If it was indeed so damaging to Rossi IH would have published it already.
As far as I can tell IH haven't even claimed the 1 MW didn't work, only 
that they could not replicate it.

(Show me the exact quotation if they have.)
AA

On 2/17/2017 5:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) . . .


You have no reason to doubt it. You are accusing me of lying here. I 
don't take kindly to that.


please post the much requested layout of the piping.


I will not post it. I have told you many times: I will not post 
anything not revealed by Rossi or I.H. I will say it is a gravity 
return. You can see that from the reservoir, which cannot be airtight.


If you do not believe me, I suggest you ask Rossi. You will get 
nothing more from me, so if you are not satisfied, I suggest you 
ignore my messages.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) . . .
>

You have no reason to doubt it. You are accusing me of lying here. I don't
take kindly to that.



> please post the much requested layout of the piping.
>

I will not post it. I have told you many times: I will not post anything
not revealed by Rossi or I.H. I will say it is a gravity return. You can
see that from the reservoir, which cannot be airtight.

If you do not believe me, I suggest you ask Rossi. You will get nothing
more from me, so if you are not satisfied, I suggest you ignore my messages.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:


> you have no idea what other people think.
>

This has nothing to do with what people think. This is about plumbing.



> The pipe you are showing there has nothing to do with the plant.
>

It is a gravity return pipe with a flow far smaller than its maximum
capacity. The maximum capacity of Rossi's pipe is 140 gpm. Rossi claims it
is carrying 6 gpm. That is much smaller than 140, so we can be 100% sure it
is not full. It is mostly empty.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
If indeed you have all the data (which I doubt) please post the much 
requested layout of the piping.


AA

On 2/17/2017 2:10 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

a.ashfield > wrote:

I rather liked Rossi's comment. Discussing the flowmeter on the
blogs before the full information is released in court is about as
useful as discussing the sex of angels.


That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information 
on this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are 
inescapable --


The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36 
times per day is absurd.


The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data.

The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when _Rossi 
himself reported the reactor was turned off_. Would you like to 
explain that miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know 
that's impossible?


The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed.

The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe.

The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity 
of a 3" pipe is 140 gpm:


http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes

Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically 
impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than 
the pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the 
flow meter cannot possibly work.


A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this:

http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston-sewer-line-cleaning.jpg

Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used 
pipes and pumps will know this is how it looks.


- Jed

[Vo]:professional approach to LENR, but how?

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/02/feb-17-2017-proffessional-approach-to.html

peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Peter Gluck]

Jed,

you have no idea what other people think.
The pipe you are showing there has nothing to do with the plant.
I was working with pipes in plants when you were stll in the kindergarten,
you say too many inept things loud.
I remember when you told the first time - getting no other explnation for
the moronity with the hal full pipes than that the flowmeter was in the
grqvity retiurn pipe- but I bet you have no digram and I bet the flowmeter
is not on that pipe.
You are just defending a long ago lost position and impossible idea.

You do ot respect the rules of professionality and it is very difficult to
discuss with you. I will discuss again when you show the diagram, OK?

I fear you are really believing what you say, lying is more sane.
peter



On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> a.ashfield  wrote:
>
>
>> I rather liked Rossi's comment.  Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs
>> before the full information is released in court is about as useful as
>> discussing the sex of angels.
>>
>
> That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information on
> this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are inescapable --
>
> The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36
> times per day is absurd.
>
> The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data.
>
> The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when *Rossi
> himself reported the reactor was turned off*. Would you like to explain
> that miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know that's
> impossible?
>
> The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed.
>
> The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe.
>
> The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity of a
> 3" pipe is 140 gpm:
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes
>
> Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically
> impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than the
> pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the flow meter
> cannot possibly work.
>
> A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this:
>
> http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston-
> sewer-line-cleaning.jpg
>
> Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used pipes
> and pumps will know this is how it looks.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:


> I rather liked Rossi's comment.  Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs
> before the full information is released in court is about as useful as
> discussing the sex of angels.
>

That is bullshit. We have Rossi's data. We have detailed information on
this flowmeter, including the manual. These conclusions are inescapable --

The pump is far too big for this application. A pump that registers 36
times per day is absurd.

The flow data is impossibly regular, as is the other data.

The flow data shows 36,000 kg/day and high heat on days when *Rossi himself
reported the reactor was turned off*. Would you like to explain that
miracle? How much "full information" do we need to know that's impossible?

The pumps that feed the reactors cannot move as much water as claimed.

The manual warns you not to use it in a partially empty pipe.

The flowmeter is 80 mm in diameter (3"). The gravity return capacity of a
3" pipe is 140 gpm:

http://www.slideshare.net/raju175/water-flow-pipe-sizes

Even assuming Rossi's flow rate was accurate (which is physically
impossible), Rossi reported the flow was 6 gpm, which is far less than the
pipe capacity, so the pipe would be mostly empty. Therefore the flow meter
cannot possibly work.

A mostly empty gravity return pipe looks like this:

http://benfranklinplumberhouston.com/images/blog/plumber-houston-sewer-line-cleaning.jpg

Peter Gluck believes no such thing exists, but anyone who has used pipes
and pumps will know this is how it looks.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[a.ashfield]

Jed,
I rather liked Rossi's comment.  Discussing the flowmeter on the blogs 
before the full information is released in court is about as useful as 
discussing the sex of angels.


AA

On 2/17/2017 11:12 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Peter Gluck > wrote:

Jed.  have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the
instrument to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real
one. (now this is 4X)


Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was 
zero and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.



The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution-
scending pipe is simple and fine.


No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the 
flow rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the 
machine was turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much 
water as shown. It is not possible the machine consumed more electric 
power than the power company supplied. That is not "perfectly 
plausible"; it is outrageous nonsense.


The main differences to the Doral plant case:
a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has
that ascending pipe


That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return 
pipe, according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy 
of that schematic, since you do not believe me.


b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting,
a professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the
parameters are established and constant- and only then to compare
reading and effective flow.


That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long 
the water runs.


You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is
anomalous in a way.


Completely wrong.


Now there are two cases possible in principle:
 A. Normal professional setup:
RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant
errors possible


No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who 
looked at it saw that immediately.


B. Setup according to Jed


The setup is according to Rossi, not me.

FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if
flowmeter works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air
inclusions however not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable
system.


There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because:

1. The pipe was half empty.
2. It was the wrong kind of meter.
3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water.

Various other reasons such as --

4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat 
source.


Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.


This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen.

BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?


You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer 
the issues raised by Gamberale?


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Jed Rothwell]

Peter Gluck  wrote:

Jed.  have claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument
> to show one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)


Yes, you can make the error 4 X, or 10 X. At Defkalion the flow was zero
and they showed it was high. That is an error of infinity, I suppose.



> The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution-
> scending pipe is simple and fine.
>

No, it is not "perfectly plausible" that the pressure was 0.0 bar, the flow
rate was exactly the same every day, even on days when the machine was
turned off. It is no possible these pumps provided as much water as shown.
It is not possible the machine consumed more electric power than the power
company supplied. That is not "perfectly plausible"; it is outrageous
nonsense.



> The main differences to the Doral plant case:
> a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that
> ascending pipe
>

That is incorrect. The flow meter is located in the gravity return pipe,
according to Rossi's schematic. I suggest you ask him for a copy of that
schematic, since you do not believe me.



> b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a
> professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters
> are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and
> effective flow.
>

That is incorrect. You would see the same result no matter how long the
water runs.



> You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous
> in a way.
>

Completely wrong.



> Now there are two cases possible in principle:
>  A. Normal professional setup:
> RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors
> possible
>

No, the flow meter was installed in a half-empty pipe. Everyone who looked
at it saw that immediately.



> B. Setup according to Jed
>

The setup is according to Rossi, not me.



> FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter
> works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however
> not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.
>

There is no doubt whatever the flow meter was wrong because:

1. The pipe was half empty.
2. It was the wrong kind of meter.
3. The pumps could not possibly supply that much water.

Various other reasons such as --

4. Everyone in the building would be dead if there were a 1 MW heat source.



> Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
>

This was the most inept and obvious scam I have ever seen.



> BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
> Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?
>

You should ask instead: where is Defkalion? Why did they never answer the
issues raised by Gamberale?

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Regarding what BOB COOK THINKS ABOUT THE NAE

[Chris Zell]

So the restoring force may be a quantum mechanical process that works under 
subtle conditions.



Um. I am forced to wonder if this explanation is similar to skeptic Victor 
Stenger's rejection of quantum entanglement - when he suggested "de-coherence" 
as the alternative.   An elegant way to avoid saying, 'Well, that's just how it 
is " ( ?)  Ultimately, the laws of the universe are just arbitrary and we can't 
have endless causes extending downward  any more than an infinite series of 
turtles holding up the earth.. right?



If we go down that route, then I guess we just need hard proof of an effect 
verified and the usual reductionism stops at the quantum 'gate'.



I do puzzle at the notion of opposing magnetic fields being 'bounced'  (all 
North at the edges but all South in the middle ??).  One would visualize a 
collection of springs - in which you stretch them and let them oscillate to a 
stop with no net gain.  Something more is needed. And if cold is created, then 
something is stilled - or moving more slowly

Re: [Vo]:How to overestimate water flux by wrongly positioning an instrument

[Peter Gluck]

An excellent paper kind of old friend- I remember when it was first
discussed on the blog of my friend Daniele Passerini years before the trial
and then once again in the Flowmeter scandal days when you, Jed.  have
claimed that a good flowmeter expert can convince the instrument to show
one order of magnitude more flow than the real one. (now this is 4X)
The results of the paper are perfectly plausible and the solution- scending
pipe is simple and fine.
The main differences to the Doral plant case:
a) the paper describes an open flow not a circuit, the Plant has that
ascending pipe
b) the tests with errors are made when the flow is just starting, a
professional test would let the flow for a few minutes when the parameters
are established and constant- and only then to compare reading and
effective flow.
You do not measure the speed of flight during landing- start is anomalous
in a way.
However the Gioanola instructions are fine and have to be respected
strictly being the same as those for the flowmeter used in the Plant.

Now there are two cases possible in principle:
 A. Normal professional setup:
RESERVOIR- PUMP-FLOWMETER-E-CATS: no systematic, significant errors possible


B. Setup according to Jed
FLOWMETER- RESERVOIR-PUMP- E-CATS- serious problems; doubtful if flowmeter
works- erratic, inconstant, jumping readings due to air inclusions however
not constant multiplier effect, incontrollable system.
Errors- yes, scamming is much more difficult.
BTW the same true for Luca Gamberale's calumny paper.
Where in the LENR land are you now, caro Luca?

peter


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is an article and some videos showing how a flow meter can installed
> incorrectly:
>
> https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2016/04/19/how-to-overestimate-water-flux-by-
> wrongly-positioning-an-instrument/
>
> Figure 4 shows how to correct the problem. As far as I know, Rossi had
> these same problems, and he did not install the kind of plumbing shown in
> Fig. 4 that would fix them.
>
> The instructions for the meter are here:
>
> https://gsvit.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/istruzioni-per-la-
> corretta-installazione-contatori-unico-e-multiplo.pdf
>
> Concluding sentence:
>
> N.B. Per mantenere il buon funzionamento dei componenti del contatore, si
> raccomanda di assicurarsi che il contatore sia sempre pieno d'acqua (ad
> eccezione di brevi periodi dovuti a manutenzione).
>
> Google translate:
>
> N.B. To maintain the proper functioning of the meter components, it is
> recommended make sure that the counter is always full of water (except for
> short periods due to maintenance).
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com