I'm finding Cude's responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn.
On Nov 23, 2011, at 17:49, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > This is getting a bit out of hand. It does not make sense for me and this > poster to continue to state the exact opposites over and over as in the > broken record responses that have clogged up the vortex. I am happy to > respond to anyone who has a valid point to make, but I do not see any purpose > in repeating the same things. > > Yes, I have read your responses(Cude) and find them lacking. Should I tell > you that I find them informative just to make you happy? I fail to see > where you come up with your information, as it does not result in a logical > sequence of events or explain ECAT performance. > > Your agreements are inconsistent and attempt to cover both sides of the > discussion. Forgive me to say this but you just do not understand what you > suggest. > > I promise to monitor any valid responses that our members require, but will > not continue to repeat myself just for your(Cude) convenience. That comes > close to the definition of insanity. > > If you come up with a valid point, I will certainly respond as I intend to > seek the truth concerning operation of the ECATs. I have not, and will not > defend positions which are not reasonable and the source of any new > information will not be discriminated against, even if he is a confirmed > skeptic. > > I just want to make one main comment. The suggestion that the power output > is consistent with an average of 70 kW to 470 kW is patently in error. I > might consider a range of 350 kW to 500 +kW because of the suggestion that > each ECAT has about 8 liters of volume that can be filled by water under the > worst case condition. Likewise, the upper limit would be increased if the > water level is dropping during the test. The 479 kW average output power > calculation obtained by the engineer is acceptable to me and he is an expert > at his art. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is > clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced > that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted > otherwise. > > >You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even > >considered my arguments, so *you* clearly started with a conclusion. > >Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that > >will convince you that Rossi's demos >(including the last one) do not need > >nuclear reactions to explain them. > > Show me real evidence and I will accept it. Otherwise, it is not going to > matter. > > >The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output > >(average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, > >from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up > >period. > > Saying this over and over does not make it true. The evidence is > overwhelmingly against this. > > I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence > supports them. > > >Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your > >description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One > >you clearly failed to absorb in your education. > > That sounds like an insult. Try to improve your tone. > > There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through > without vaporization position. > > >Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge > >difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of > >vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another > >point you don't seem to >understand. > > You never explain the trap. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? > I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that > are left unanswered. > > >All the ones you have mentioned, I have countered. > > Sorry, but this is just not true. None have been countered effectively. > > The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. > > >I've been harping on the valve for days, and now finally you give your > >counter-argument? And this is it? Did you even look at the video? There are > >2 valves. One leading to the heat exchanger, which is open. And one leading > >to the trap, which is clearly >closed at 3:00. > > Please review the video. The trap is between the ECAT system and the closed > valve. Closing the valve will stop the high speed vapor you suggest that > carries the water past. Water can flow down hill. > > What would keep water from flowing downward into the trap? > > >Its horizontal momentum. Have you heard of it? If the liquid is in the form > >of entrained drops, they would have a lot of horizontal momentum. That's why > >they make steam separators. But Rossi didn't use one. > > Closed valve slows down any steam rushing past. Is this not correct? > > > I would like for someone to explain the large pulse of temperature at the > thermocouple if water is the active medium. > > >This irregularity is far too little to hang your hat on. If liquid water is > >flowing through the system at the onset of boiling, then it will be at 100C > >until the pressure increases. The pressure increase could happen suddenly if > >the pipes largely filled with >water are suddenly cleared by steam pressure > >behind it. The sort of thing that happens when a radiator bangs; the > >water-hammer effect. There are enough twists and turns in the plumbing for > >sudden pressure spikes to be completely plausible. > > This is one issue that you have made a career of during the last few days. > Why do you now deny it is important? > > >And even if you insist on your highly speculative idea to explain it, it is > >still consistent with the ecats being very nearly full, and filling up > >within minutes of the onset of boiling, which is consistent with 70 kW power > >throughout. (And if the trap valve is >open, it also explains why liquid was > >not trapped in the first 5 minutes.) Your picture fails to *prove* anything, > >except to those who desperately want it to be true, and who are already > >convinced that it is, as you stated you were days ago. > > The evidence convinced me that the ECATs are not full. I started with the > belief that the ECATs were full of water. Have you not seen my reference to > that? The evidence is overwhelming that the ECATS can not be full. > I do not think that the ECATs are ever full of water during the test. Why do > you think otherwise? Never mind, I will only respond to new ideas as of this > post. Repeating is nonsense. > > This is just one of many problems with the water only model. Again, all of > the evidence supports my current hypothesis. > > >Again, no. The best you've got is that it is consistent with the evidence, > >and that does not constitute proof. > > But it is the only theory that is consistent with the evidence. The full of > water case has been proven false. You need to understand this so you can > move on. > > > There is a question raised about my suggesting that the customer engineer is > lying. That is totally bogus as he had no way of knowing whether or not the > output flow rate matched the input flow rate but assumed it did. There is a > big difference between lying and not knowing. > > >But you suggested I accused him of lying about capturing water in the trap. > >But he had no way of knowing that the trap would capture *all* the liquid > >(impossible), or for that matter any of it if it was in the form of a mist. > >Same, same. > > You forget that 5 liters of water is a very small portion. Should we believe > you or him? I have trust in a real engineer who does real work in this area. > If you can prove you are more capable than he, I will accept your word. > > The skeptics are convinced that he fabricated the data which I do not > believe. > > >No. I have not required any data fabrication anywhere to conclude the power > >output is 70 kW. That's the whole point. Please pay attention. If I just > >assumed the data was fabricated, what would be the point in even considering > >it? > > You do not consider the fact that he is capable of capturing water as an > expert in the field. I would believe him over you unless you prove your > credentials. > > >My point is that even if you accept the measured data in the report, it does > >not support the claim of 470 kW, and is in fact consistent with 70 kW. (If > >you accept a partially filled ecat, it is consistent with even lower power.) > > This just does not make sense to me. The engineer states in the report that > the device makes the 480 kW of output power. This report is the best data we > have. Where did he or anything else state that the power was 70 kW? > > I do wish the skeptics would read the literature about kettle boiling to > throw away the false belief that the vapor is extremely wet. > > >Kettle boiling is irrelevant if the ecats are full and the vaporization rate > >is below the input flow rate. Kettles don't work that way. There is no > >reason to think the ecat doesn't. > > I agree if the ECATs are full. Now, if they are full why is no water > captured within the trap during the time the ECATs are heating up? You need > to do better than to keep claiming the valve is closed. And, the temperature > variations are far too fast as you keep saying. Which side of this issue are > you going to defend now? Too fast for the power output to rise or what? > > Why would they wish to argue vapor wetness when they are convinced that there > is no vapor in the first place? > > >Not listening... There is vapor. If 1% of the water by mass is vaporized, > >that makes a fluid that is 95 % vapor. 95% vapor is not "no vapor"; it's a > >lot of vapor. Honestly, I really don't think you read what I write. Or you > >are not capable of understanding >something that might threaten your faith > >in Rossi. > > This argument is not valid. Show me boiler information that supports your > contention as I have looked and you are in error. They clearly state that > any water contained within the output vapor is dangerous and will damage the > components of the system. There are more issues than I have time to explain > to you about this so I hope you will review them for yourself before you keep > insisting upon a point that is non existent. > > The boiler literature points out that water entrapped within the vapor is > very bad for a system due to erosion. Old steam locomotives had a structure > similar to the ECAT one where the vapor is held above the liquid and they > would suffer serious problems if the vapor is of low quality. > > There is no relevance of this to the ecat test. Serious problems would not > set in in 5.5 hours. And low quality steam in the range of a per cent or two > is less harmful than steam quality of 70 to 80 % because the speed is much > lower. > > >It's very simple: > > It must not be too simple since you seem to misunderstand the system. One > day you will realize your errors. > > >1) There is no evidence that the output is dry steam. It could be in the > >range of 1% steam by mass, or 95% steam by volume. > > Lots of evidence. > > >2) An output flow rate equal to the input flow rate is consistent with all > >observations. > > This is not true. Why is no water trapped before the temperature reaches > boiling? Why not explain this simple fact? You avoid this issue since you > know it defeats all of your claims. I have been waiting for some excuse > better than the "valve is closed for your convenience". > > >3) The measured temperatures and flow rate for very wet steam are consistent > >with 70 kW output. > > You must do better than to make a unsupported claim such as this. > > >That is not proof that those claims are right. But it means that the > >reported data do not prove 470 kW output, and therefore it is not necessary > >to invoke nuclear reactions to explain the reported data. > > At last you realize that you have proven nothing. The evidence proves beyond > reasonable doubt that the output to the dissipaters is high quality vapor. > Water would have been captured by the expert engineer. He is not ignorant. > Do you conclude that only nuclear reactions could generate the 470 kW output > power? I have not reached that conclusion yet even though the evidence > points that way. > > You are clearly combative and that behavior is not justified. This > constitutes the last response that I will direct toward your posts with one > exception. I will respond to further points that you may make if they > contain new important concepts or seem to contradict my model. I wish to > have the best model possible.
