Adrian— IMHO if anyone is blundering its IH. They way under estimate Rossi’s resolve and intelligence, not even considering his lawyers input and their incentives.
I agree with your conclusions. Bob Cook Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: a.ashfield Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:I calculated his power output from his own data. It isveryexciting and he may have something real that he is blundering with.Seebelow. Jones, contrary to what you wrote, I don't think it matters a damn whether the customer was real of not. IH failed to find a customer for a year and possibly Rossi decided just to find a suitable heat sink. What matters is how the 1 MW plant performed. Did it really produce 1 MW with a COP of ~86? We won't know until a drawing showing the layout of things like the flow meter is made available and speculation from second hand sources doesn't really help. As to the other comments and a unnecessary multi-line title, it obviously comes as a surprise to Ahern that engineers frequently use the most convenient dimension, particularly if it is in comment use and understandable by most. Most people don't think in terms of millions of grams per second. "something real that he is blundering with." Blundering with? A possible working LENR device? Comments like that are something up with which I will not put. Adrian Ashfield On 2/2/2017 10:27 AM, Jones Beene wrote: 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 for Windows 10 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 12:40 PM To: 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. Brian Ahern <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
