You fail to understand. I am seeking a reasonable explanation for the error in
the flow rate that Jed is assuming. That is the scientific way to explain his
belief without just plain guessing. For some reason you think that I believe
that Rossi is actually generating the 1 MW of heat without any reservations.
Could this be the reason why you seem so negative about my attempts to uncover
the truth? Perhaps you can explain to us how the flow rate is reading much
greater than it should, especially taking into consideration the recent
excellent posts by Mr. Higgins, and others? If you are a scientist or engineer
then you should want an honest explanation for the errors in flow rate
readings. Otherwise it would be better for you to leave that determination to
those of us that have the proper training.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 11:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described in court document
If I understand this discussion, you appear to be engaging in massive
doublethink here.
You're trying to explain a bogus reading of the meter while assuming
that the system was actually producing 1 MW of heat.
If it was generating 1 MW then the meter reading was presumably correct,
and in that case there's nothing funky about the meter that needs to be
explained, save for the constant flow rate and other anomalies Jed has
mentioned.
It's only if the system wasn't generating a megawatt that there's an
anomalously high flow reading to explain, and in that case you can't very
well assume that much heat is being dissipated.
So, either the meter reading was anomalously high and the heat was much
lower than a megawatt, or the meter reading was more or less bang-on, and
there was a megawatt of heat being dissipated somewhere. But not both.
On 08/08/2016 11:52 PM, David Roberson wrote:
OK, interesting concept. I was thinking along the lines of how a heat
pump operates. It consists of a closed system with a pump(compressor)
and a strong restriction to the flowing fluid as well as heat
exchangers. A low pressure return pipe carries the active fluid in
vapor form to the pump. If sufficient heat is not absorbed by the
expanding mixture then some of it remains in the liquid form. I
wonder if a significant portion of that mixture in Rossi's case might
be vapor, leading to false reading within the gauge ahead of
the pump?
This is merely a conceptual idea to digest.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2016 9:19 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Problems with Rossi's flow meter described
in court document
I was thinking more of the cooling mechanism, which had to cool
1MW. The surface area is very large. In less then 3D (scale of
the tubes in 1D in comparison to other), turbulence can go from
small vortices to high, and when it exits to large tubes it
goes from high vortices to low. Depending on the design,
a lot of cavitation may form and accumulate in the flow meter,
if no system to elimate bubles is developed.
2016-08-08 21:32 GMT-03:00 David Roberson
<dlrober...@aol.com>:
I agree, the pump might actually lower the pressure at
its input enough to allow the water to vaporize if the
flow is restricted ahead of the gauge.
Dave
