zjed, the pipes were half, 1/3 parts full in the ascending portions too.? peter
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
