Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Here a picture and information about the "customer" warehouse. It is only 6000 square feet and the height is 20 feet. Let's do a Fermi problem to see what is needed to get read of 1 MW dump in this spaciove. By the way 1 MW can power easily 1000 houses. Giovanni http://warehousespaces.com/warehouse-for-rent/United-States/FL/Doral/2082 On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Che wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM, a.ashfield > wrote: > >> Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process. He >> said the balance was vented. >> > > Excuse us? I'm not following all this close enough to understand from this > exchange: is this customer location *also* the location of the verification > experiment as well..? > > If so -- how could *any* heat whatsoever just be 'allowed' to vent..?? > > > > >
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM, a.ashfield wrote: > Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process. He > said the balance was vented. > Excuse us? I'm not following all this close enough to understand from this exchange: is this customer location *also* the location of the verification experiment as well..? If so -- how could *any* heat whatsoever just be 'allowed' to vent..??
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
This is not the case under discussion, which is on open air with mixing fluids (hot and colder air from outside). The flux is enclosed and as they say "care must be taken with turbulent flow". Otherwise, you are assuming that Rossi let people in the other room And it is possible to confuse 1000kW with even nothing: that is when the device is not working. 2016-08-14 13:29 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > http://www.trutechtools.com/Measuring-Airlfow-with-a-Hot- > Wire-Anemometer_c_1001.html > >
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Daniel Rocha wrote: No, you have to know the flux, the distribution of speeds. An anemometer is > not enough. > It is enough, and this is how all HVAC engineers measure the heat flow with air cooling and heating. This web site and video show the method: http://www.trutechtools.com/Measuring-Airlfow-with-a-Hot-Wire-Anemometer_c_1001.html > But, this is quite odd, this is a quite invasive procedure. > This is not a bit odd, unusually or invasive. HVAC engineers do it thousands of times a day everywhere in the U.S. > Going to the roof, bypassing security, by laying what their purposes are. > Why would they lie? They could easily get permission. They would hire an HVAC contractor to do the actual measurement. Contractors go on roofs all the time. Just call the landlord and tell him you will have someone check the vent next Tuesday morning. People do that all the time. Do it several times, in several days, during several months to have an idea > of what is happening. > Once would suffice. It not possible they would confuse 20 kW with 1000 kW. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
No, you have to know the flux, the distribution of speeds. An anemometer is not enough. But, this is quite odd, this is a quite invasive procedure. Going to the roof, bypassing security, by laying what their purposes are. Do it several times, in several days, during several months to have an idea of what is happening. 2016-08-14 0:42 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > With an IR camera. Or by standing on the roof and holding a thermocouple > in the air, and then measuring air speed with an anemometer. > > - Jed > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Daniel Rocha wrote: > I am not able to see how the "thermal signature" of a flux is can be > measured at a distance without being invasive. > With an IR camera. Or by standing on the roof and holding a thermocouple in the air, and then measuring air speed with an anemometer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
The sieze exit vent is more than enough to allow the exit of 1MW. Alan Fletcher and I showed that. I am not able to see how the "thermal signature" of a flux is can be measured at a distance without being invasive. You have to know the flux çomes of the convective current to know that. That is invasive method, you'd have to put smoke right in the exist and see how the ascending column behave.
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
a.ashfield wrote: It does have a vent. > Yes, of course it does. All warehouses do. The vent is visible in the photo, and in the Google photos of the roof. But this vent is far too small to vent 1 MW of heat. That's the whole point. > What are you going to do when this is proved? > Say you don't believe it? > I said all along there is a vent, visible in the Google photo. Everyone knows there is one. Anyone who understands ventilation knows it is far too small and it lacks a powerful fan. If there really were 1 MW the heat would build up and kill people. Quoting the amended Answer: Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no method to ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it producing the amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon such that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. This conflicted with the claims of individuals who had been in the building when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed the temperature in the building was near or not much greater than the outside temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
It does have a vent. What are you going to do when this is proved? Say you don't believe it? On 8/13/2016 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process. He said the balance was vented. Rossi lied. It cannot be vented. There are no adequate vents. Furthermore, if it were vented this would be easy to detect. No such large heat flux was detected, anywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
a.ashfield wrote: Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process. He said > the balance was vented. > Rossi lied. It cannot be vented. There are no adequate vents. Furthermore, if it were vented this would be easy to detect. No such large heat flux was detected, anywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Rossi never claimed the customer used all the heat in the process. He said the balance was vented. On 8/13/2016 11:09 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: a.ashfield mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>> wrote: Rossi answered the question n his blog, saying the the customer used the heat in an endothermic process. That is impossible. There are endothermic industrial processes, but they use only a tiny faction of the heat. The rest is waste heat. Textbooks often list baking bread as a typical endothermic process. Most of heat comes out of the oven, which is why a bakery is hot. Frankly, I am astounded that anyone would take this statement by Rossi at face value. It is even more preposterous than his usual oeuvre. I also gather the revised response showing photos of the customer's space conveniently left out showing the ventilation system. That is incorrect. The photos in Exhibit 26 clearly show the ventilation system. If that is the customer site in the enclosed area, then the entire 1 MW of heat would be released in this suite, which is 100% absolutely utterly COMPLETELY ridiculous. The text accompanying Exhibit 25 is a little unclear to me. It says: 82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5. Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no method to ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it producing the amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon such that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. This conflicted with the claims of individuals who had been in the building when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed the temperature in the building was near or not much greater than the outside temperature. Photographs of the building ceiling from the inside are attached hereto as Exhibit 26. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
a.ashfield wrote: Rossi answered the question n his blog, saying the the customer used the > heat in an endothermic process. > That is impossible. There are endothermic industrial processes, but they use only a tiny faction of the heat. The rest is waste heat. Textbooks often list baking bread as a typical endothermic process. Most of heat comes out of the oven, which is why a bakery is hot. Frankly, I am astounded that anyone would take this statement by Rossi at face value. It is even more preposterous than his usual oeuvre. > I also gather the revised response showing photos of the customer's space > conveniently left out showing the ventilation system. > That is incorrect. The photos in Exhibit 26 clearly show the ventilation system. If that is the customer site in the enclosed area, then the entire 1 MW of heat would be released in this suite, which is 100% absolutely utterly COMPLETELY ridiculous. The text accompanying Exhibit 25 is a little unclear to me. It says: 82. Indeed, when Murray eventually gained access to the Plant in February 2016 and examined the Plant, the methodology being used to operate the Plant, and the methodology being used to measure those operations, he immediately recognized that those methodologies were fatally flawed. Some of the flaws that he was quickly able to identify are explained in Exhibit 5. Murray also recognized that the building in which the Plant was located had no method to ventilate the heat that would be produced by the Plant were it producing the amount of steam claimed by Rossi, Leonardo, and Penon such that persons would not have been able to work in the building if the Rossi/Leonardo/Penon claims were true. This conflicted with the claims of individuals who had been in the building when the Plant was operating, all of whom claimed the temperature in the building was near or not much greater than the outside temperature. Photographs of the building ceiling from the inside are attached hereto as Exhibit 26. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Rossi answered the question n his blog, saying the the customer used the heat in an endothermic process. I also gather the revised response showing photos of the customer's space conveniently left out showing the ventilation system.
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Bob Higgins wrote: If the room was filled with water that began at 25C and was heated to 60C > over the course of a year, with good insulation and no heat leakage . . . > There is no such thing as "good insulation with no heat leakage." As the water gets hot, it leaks more and more heat, until the heat leak equals input. At that point it is radiating 1 MW. You would reach this point long before the test ends. Probably in a week or so, depending on the size of the container and the quality of the insulation. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Bob Higgins wrote: I saw the picture of the inside of the customer's facility with its big black box. It caused me to consider the possibility that the heat was stored. Imagine an immense store of water … Rossi was fond of storing hot water in his old demos. If you can view this video, go to about 0:30 http://tinyurl.com/j5b99ac
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
First of all, if enough heat could be stored, it would be an excellent proof that the heat was actually created. Also, because there was no sign of venting, and there was no huge thermal signature for the building, there was (and is) no clear indication of where that heat (if created) would have gone. It is possible that it all went down the sewer with fresh city water being taken in at low temperature. It was an exercise to determine if storage would have been possible. On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Che wrote: > Why would the heat be stored? In especially such a way? > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > >> I saw the picture of the inside of the customer's facility with its big >> black box. It caused me to consider the possibility that the heat was >> stored. Imagine an immense store of water as big as the entire black box. >> If Rossi produced 1 MW of heat continuously, what would the numbers look >> like?. >> >> OK, with 1MW of heat, that would be 8.64E10 joules/day and over the >> course of the 350 day test, that would be a total of 3E13 joules. If the >> room was filled with water that began at 25C and was heated to 60C over the >> course of a year, with good insulation and no heat leakage, that would be >> 35C of heating and would require 1.47E5 joules/liter. To absorb all of >> that heat, would take a total of 2.1E8 liters of water or 7.2E6 ft^3. So >> how big was the black box? Visually I would guess it was it was 100' x 50' >> x 8' which is a volume of 4E4 ft^3. This is more than 2 orders of >> magnitude smaller volume than would have been required to store all of that >> heat in water up to 60C. If this water in the black box were heated to >> 95C, it wouldn't change much of anything (only a factor of 2). >> >> Conclusion would have to be that there was change of state of some large >> mass of something to store the heat, or the heat was discharged to outside >> the building. >> > >
Re: [Vo]: Where did the heat go?
Why would the heat be stored? In especially such a way? On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 6:51 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > I saw the picture of the inside of the customer's facility with its big > black box. It caused me to consider the possibility that the heat was > stored. Imagine an immense store of water as big as the entire black box. > If Rossi produced 1 MW of heat continuously, what would the numbers look > like?. > > OK, with 1MW of heat, that would be 8.64E10 joules/day and over the course > of the 350 day test, that would be a total of 3E13 joules. If the room was > filled with water that began at 25C and was heated to 60C over the course > of a year, with good insulation and no heat leakage, that would be 35C of > heating and would require 1.47E5 joules/liter. To absorb all of that heat, > would take a total of 2.1E8 liters of water or 7.2E6 ft^3. So how big was > the black box? Visually I would guess it was it was 100' x 50' x 8' which > is a volume of 4E4 ft^3. This is more than 2 orders of magnitude smaller > volume than would have been required to store all of that heat in water up > to 60C. If this water in the black box were heated to 95C, it wouldn't > change much of anything (only a factor of 2). > > Conclusion would have to be that there was change of state of some large > mass of something to store the heat, or the heat was discharged to outside > the building. >
