David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
>Jed Rothwell wrote:
The first technique you suggested would spread out the test for too long of a
time(hour).
>You misunderstand. I would fix hose at a certain height, let it fill with
>water, then let it run through a precision flowmeter. I would record it
>constantly, so that we know the rate for each minute and for the whole run.
>This would overcome any problems >with back pressure and it would record
>changes in the flow rate, which I sure occurred.
>It is still a nutty method, but it would be better than a 1-time manual check.
Of course we would prefer to have more extensive data. But I do not think that
the difference would amount to hardly any difference in calculations. Mats
stated clearly that the flow was steady. No bubbles, same height, everything I
would have hoped to have him state. He did a very thorough job in this and I
accept his data.
It would be difficult to get a good snap shot of the instantaneous
performance.
>A precision flowmeter should give a reasonable approximation of instantaneous
>performance. Not as good as the cooling water loop.
One was not available. The total flow is quite accurate in calculating energy
delivered. This energy was distributed over a time frame of 6 minutes, plenty
of time for a good average of a steady flow.
If you wanted a better cooling water loop, we should have had Rossi to reverse
the location of the output and input ports of the heat exchanger. The water
was adequately cooled in either case, just the extra contribution from the hot
input port would have been far reduced. It would have been funny to see the
power read negative under this condition as it might well have done so since
the input thermocouple would have been given the boost instead of the output
one. We should not continue to support the pitiful placement of these
thermocouples. It only give ammunition to the skeptics who can see through the
charade.
The technique used by Mats is the best that can be had under these
circumstances.
>Yes, that is true. Without a flowmeter he cannot do much better. We can't ask
>him to repeat this dozens of times, making sure to hold the hose at exactly
>the same height every time. Move it up or down a little and you get a
>different result.
Mats was extremely careful to hold the hose at the same level as it was when it
entered the sink drain. I questioned him extensively about this. He knew that
a system disturbance would lead to problems.
I do not feel that he had significant errors in his determination of the flow.
>I am pretty sure he must have had significant errors, based on my experience
>with pond pumps, and based on the complexity of this system. If you disagree I
>suggest you try messing around with pumps . . . and try modeling a system with
>a mixture >of steam and water in it. That's a nightmare.
This is merely supposition. How much proof do you need to accept an obvious
fact?
The input flow meter leaves doubt also. The leakage is unknown and level of
water is not ensured to be topped off.
>That is true. The trick would be to stop the leak.
This would help but still not good enough for proof.
There is evidence that the vapor has an existence above the water that varies.
>I do not see what difference that would make. You measure the flow in the pipe
>leading into the reactor, just above the pump.
This point was made to make it clear that knowing the input flow rate is not
enough. What if the quality of the vapor is not 100%? What if the water level
is changing inside the ECAT? I would be very surprised if there is no vapor
trapped above the water inside the ECAT. And there is no reason to suspect
that the water level does not change with time.
Again, Mats made the most accurate measurement possible with his technique.
None you have suggested with the exception of a calibrated output flow meter
could have been better and it has no assurance of improvement.
Do you really think that Rossi would allow us to have accurate data? Has he
ever done this? It is laughable to think he would do so.
>- Jed
I am on your side, but I demand that the truth is available for everyone to
review. This one is a no brainer.
Dave
