To cut to the chase ... Rossi's claim for supplying a massive amount of
steam to a customer in an adjoining space (which no one from IH was
allowed to visit) could be instantly validated if there was indeed a
real customer using the steam.
If there was no customer, and the steam was not being used for a real
manufacturing process, then we have fraud - no matter how much reputed
steam was being supplied.
This is the issue of fact to be determined by a jury, or by the judge if
Rossi cannot present a prima facie case that there really was a real
customer using steam to manufacture a product. It's really pretty
simple, no?
Was there a customer using the steam or not?
Legal definition of Fraud - A false representation of a matter of
fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations,
or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and
is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it
to her or his legal injury.
Brian Ahern wrote:
Yesterday I corrected the Rossi calculations. I failed to note the
water was above 100C with no pressure to keep it in the liquid phase.
The metering device cannot function with a compressible fluid. It will
always measure higher values than measuring it as a single liquid
phase at the input.
Measuring the flow beyond the heating stage is OK if the output
temperature is below 100C. Allowing the temperature to exceed 100C
is a surfire way to get inflated flow measurements.
Rossi was warned about involving two phase fluid flow. He did it
anyway because it is so easy the provide inflated values.
I agree with Jed that this was the most ambiguous method possible.
Use the minimum power to get to 103 C and have your flow meters
operate in a two phase mode that is guaranteed to over report flow
rates due to the increased compressibility.
Once again he selected the most ambiguous method .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* bobcook39...@gmail.com <bobcook39...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 8:27 PM
*To:* Jed Rothwell; Vortex
*Subject:* RE: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data.
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is
blundering with. Seebelow.
The enthalpy calculations of Ahern do not appear to account for the
change of the phase of water to steam at about 100 C. This is about
540 calories per gram and should add to the heating of the liquid
phase over about 30 C.
This amounts to 540 /30 or about 1800% additional enthalpy—joules or
calories whatever units you want-- IMHO.
Bob Cook
Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
Windows 10
*From: *Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM
*To: *Vortex <mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
*Subject: *Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data.
It is veryexciting and he may have something real that he is
blundering with. Seebelow.
Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com <mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:
The water flow rate is 36000kG/day or 36,000kG x 1,000g/kG x 1
day/84,600 sec/day = 425.5 G/sec
Note:
1. Rossi and Penon arbitrarily reduced the flow rate by 10%. That is
what Rossi told Lewan in an interview. That is shown in this
spreadsheet, in the "reduced flowed water (kg/d)" column. So, use
32,400 kg instead of 36,000 kg.
2. They used the wrong kind of flow meter, and it was installed in the
gravity return pipe, which was only about half full of water. The
manual for this flow meter says it does not work in a pipe that is
half full, so the flow rates are far too high. It is difficult to say
how far off they are, but they cannot be right.
3. The numbers are impossible in any case. No flow rate can be exactly
the same, every day, for weeks. This meter measures to the nearest
1000 kg, which is ridiculous, but given that it does, it would record
something like 35,000 kg one day, 34,000 the next, and 36,000 the next
even if the flow was extremely consistent.
The change in temperature is 69.1 C up to 103.9 = a temperature
rise of34.8 degrees C.
Heat capacity of water = 4.2 joules/gram/C
The power needed for this temperature rise at that flow rate is:
Flow rate (G/sec ) x Temp. rise (degrees C) x heat
capacity of water (4.2 joules/G/degree C)
425.5g/sec x 34.8C x 4.2 Joules/gram/C leaves units of
Joules/second = 62,191watts
The authors claim that the water was vaporized, so they used the heat
of vaporization. It could not have been vaporized, because there was
some back pressure from the equipment. At these temperatures, even a
little pressure will prevent vaporization.
However, their calculations result in a COP of 82.3. Who knows
where that came from?
Probably the adjustments I just described account for it, but the data
is fake and the instruments and configuration are preposterous, so it
means nothing.
- Jed
