Wondering about some things while I'm making dinner.
How accurate is the "0 bar" number believed to be? (I should probably
know this already from earlier discussion, but I don't; sorry.)
"0" by itself carries no precision information; it's got no significant
digits.
If I'm not mistaken, if it's actually 0 +/- 0.1, as would be implied by
the statement "0.0 bar", then a pressure at the high end of that would
push the boiling point up by enough so that 102.8 would no longer be
assuredly dry. (But that's based on a quick Google search for water
vapor pressure tables, and could be wrong.)
The other interesting question here is, 0 bar above /what?/ What was
atmospheric pressure on site -- was that measured? The temperature is
absolute but the pressure isn't (unless this was done on the surface of
the Moon and 0 bar really meant, /zero bar/), and the baseline
atmospheric pressure may have a significant impact.
On 08/24/2016 08:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You couldhave a pressure reading of below atmospheric at the output of
Rossi's system if you were to place a pump in the return line carrying
the hot liquid back to his device. Some claim that this is the actual
configuration. I am assuming that that is true for my calculations
since otherwise what you state must be correct and the output would
have to reside at a pressure higher than 0 bar.
I do not think that Rossi would be that careless in reporting his
results. Of course it is extremely unlikely that the pressure would
be exactly 0.0 bar. That must be a case of his rounding of the
numbers to emphasize the dryness of the steam. When this case goes to
trial his actual numbers might still suggest dry steam without a
Bernoulli trick or two.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
On 08/24/2016 08:14 PM, David Roberson wrote:
Just consider what you would believe if shown that the steam
readings 102.8 C, and 0 bar were accurate?
But, as pointed out in one of the exhibits, that /can't/ be accurate.
The volume of steam was quite large; consequently, the flow rate in
the /steam /pipe must have been very fast, and to drive that flow
requires a pressure differential. Unless the pressure on the
"customer site" was below atmospheric, the pressure at the point where
the steam entered the line /must/have been above atmospheric
pressure. So, the 0 bar number must be wrong.
How far wrong it must be, I can't say (I'm totally out of my field
when it comes to friction in a pipe carrying steam) but it doesn't
take a huge overpressure to raise the boiling point by a couple
degrees. Throughout I've been tacitly assuming that the pressure is
slightly over atmospheric, matter what was claimed. As I said
earlier, this has been the issue since the beginning, four or five
years ago: The steam temperature is always kept low enough so that,
with very slightly elevated pressure in the line, the claim that it's
"totally dry" may be false.
Of course, if the pressure reading is wrong (as it apparently must
have been, else the system would not have worked at all, as the steam
would not flow without a differential), then there must be an
explanation for the error. Your Bernoulli effect idea sounds good.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 7:45 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
I'm having trouble understanding the problem you're having seeing
how he could fake it.
The power calculations depend on the steam being dry, and there's
no evidence it was.
They also depend on the flow meter reading accurately, and there's
no evidence that it did.
If the flow was lower than claimed, and the steam was wet, the
power could have been just about anything. No matter how many
people looked at how many gauges, the conclusion is going to be
the same. Run some numbers assuming wet steam -- it doesn't have
to be very wet to be carrying most of the mass as liquid rather
than gas, since the liquid phase is so compact, and that makes an
enormous difference to the output power.
What more do you need?
BTW note that there was no flow meter in the *steam line*. That
would have been diagnostic (had it been chosen to work correctly
with either steam or water, of course).
On 08/24/2016 06:45 PM, David Roberson wrote:
You haveput together a good arguement. His refusal to allow
access to the customer site being one that bothers me the
most. Why not go to that little effort in order to receive
$89 million? I can not understand that type of logic.
Another issue that keeps me awake is the fact that so many
people were viewing the gauges during the period and not
finding a problem. That is what I am attempting to understand
and to find an explanation as to how this can happen right
under their noses.
I think I am close to finding a way. Maybe I can pull off a
similar scam and get $100 million!! ;-) Naw, that is not
something that I would ever consider seriously.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2016 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Interesting Steam Calculation
David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com
<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote:
If half the reactors are taken out the power would
definitely fall in half without the external loop. Even
with it, there is only a certain amount of correction that
is possible which would be seen with all of the individual
devices running at full drive input power. It is not
likely that there is enough reserve to fill in that large
of a gap.
Ah, but Rossi claims the gap is filled. He claims that on some
days, half the reactors produced more power than all of them
did on other days. See Exhibit 5. I agree this seems
impossible. I suppose you are saying we should ignore that
part of his data. We should assume he was lying about that,
but the rest might be true.
I think it is more likely the entire data set is fiction. As I
said, there is not much point to you or I spending a lot of
time trying to make sense of fiction. It is like trying to
parse the logic in a Harry Potter book.
Many other aspects of the data, the warehouse ventilation, the
customer, Rossi's refusal to let anyone into the customer
site, and so on, all seem fictional to me. The totality of the
evidence strongly indicates that none of it is true.
- Jed
