Sir, the dispute has not been withdrawn, I have just decided to spare the vortex from the broken record syndrome. It is apparent that Mr. Cude and I will never agree so what is the purpose of repeating the same old arguments?
I disagree with you about his position being superior. He must rely upon issues that are not existent. For example, the closed valve, the lying engineer, the extreme increase in power being unexplained. These are glaring inconstancies that can be explained completely by my hypothesis. He offers no explanation that makes any sense. If you have questions about my theory I would hope you would direct them toward me where you will get a fair, honest, no magic required answer. Mr. Cude just makes a big smoke screen. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Charles Hope <lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 6:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy 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responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn.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.
