David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> 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. > The flow varied over time. It might have varied during that 6 minutes. There were definitely bubbles seen going though the pipe. There might have been some then, undetected. There might have been changed in backpressure due to rising or falling enthalpy. One measurement for 6 minutes when the power was at a low ebb is better than nothing, but it cannot be precise with this system and it does not tell us much. It does not tell us the flow rate when the power was nominally ~8 kW instead of ~3 kW. > He did a very thorough job in this and I accept his data. > I would not call this thorough. It was the best he could do under the circumstances, but one measurement is not thorough. > >A precision flowmeter should give a reasonable approximation of > instantaneous performance. Not as good as the cooling water loop. > > One was not available. > Yes, I know. > Mats was extremely careful to hold the hose at the same level as it was > when it entered the sink drain. > I know, but he could not see the condition of the hose and bubbles all the way back or inside the heat exchanger. > >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? > What obvious fact? That the flow rate was ~320 g over 6 minutes? Sure, we know that. What about the rest of the time? How quickly did it fluctuate? What would it be if he had measured it again immediately after the first measurement? What was the margin of error for this measurement? How much did it change in the 12 minutes before he recorded the cooling loop measurement? This is not merely supposition. I have had significant experience using pumps, flowmeters and thermocouples, in ponds and calorimeters. I have made many, many stupid mistakes with them, which -- if it does not make me an expert -- is at least the beginning of wisdom. > >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. > Those issues would not be clarified by measuring the flow downstream from the heat exchanger. You still would not know how much of the water went through the system as liquid, and how much condensed back into water. > 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. > He would if he thought he could make a great of money by doing so. Assuming that customer is real, and Fioravanti is who he claims to be, those people got the most accurate data anyone can get from a megawatt scale reactor. They got the best assurance that this is real technology that can be provided. Rossi does nothing except for profit. That is not unusual. He does take it to extremes. Most business owners do things to improve their image, or as PR, which is an indirect method of increasing profit. Rossi sees no need to do these things. At least, that is what he tells me. - Jed
