Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: Jed, do you have a system diagram for the 1 year test unit? >
I have a diagram but I do not think it is detailed enough to answer this question. If I were Rossi, and I knew that some of the units would have to be taken > off line, I would design in bypass valves. > I suppose this would allow the flow rate to remain about the same. But not so precisely the same that it would be exactly 36,000 kg that day. However, in that situation the temperature would be lower and the heat output would be lower. The data shows 1 MW being produced when the log book shows half the units were off line. In some cases the data shows 1 MW when the entire reactor was turned off. I do not think it would be a good idea to leave the same flow rate when half the units are off-line. I suppose this would cool the remaining units too much. > Do you have evidence that the water circulation pump(s) was ever shut off? > Eyewitness observers told me they were off. They said the entire reactor was disassembled at times, yet the data shows the flow rate was 36,000 kg and heat output was 1 MW on these days. I find that improbable. Highly improbable. > Even if the reactors themselves were shut down, the water flow could > remain constant. > Ah, but the temperature would vary, so heat output would be reduced. Yet it was within a few degrees every day. Apparently, when half the units were turned off the remaining units magically put out twice as much heat. If you believe the data. > Looking at the flow gauge spec, there is some discrepancy in the > specification. It has 6 digit mechanical readout, claims a range of 1E6 > m^3, but also claims an indication of down to 0.5 liter. > It measures to the nearest metric ton. 1,000 L to be exact. (It is volumetric and it only works with liquids, I believe.) > However, what one would expect to see in that case of constant flow is the > water output temperature to be reduced during reactor shutdown or bypass. > Do you have that corresponding temperature data? > The temperature was supposedly about the same, every day. I do not actually believe any of this data. It is bogus. Some of the numbers were confirmed by witnesses, but clearly they came from instruments that were not working correctly, such as the flow meter in a half-empty pipe. This is Grade-A, in your face, ham-handed, half-assed *bullshit*. It is fraud. The most outrageous fraud I have ever seen. This is obvious for the reasons given in Exhibit 5, and for many other reasons not yet revealed, such as the fact that there was no measurable heat in the customer site. In my opinion, there is not slightest chance this machine produced excess heat. - Jed
