>>Again, I do not need to apply the ignorant engineer card every time things do
>>not add up.
>But you do. You have to claim he was ignorant of the output flow rate, when he
>in fact claimed he knew the output flow rate. And I submit that knowing that
>the output flow rate was equal to the input flow rate (at least) is much
>easier than knowing >how effective that trap was.
>All he needed to do to be sure the flow rate was equal to the input (at least)
>was to observe water coming out before the onset of boiling. Surely he was
>competent enough to know that.
>To know the effectiveness of the trap for wet steam, he would have to send
>steam of a known wetness through, and determine if it captured all the water.
>And that would require an independent way to determine steam wetness, which,
>even if it had >been available, would have taken considerable time to measure.
>And it doesn't look like he paid much attention to the veracity of the trap
>contents, when you consider that only one of the steam pipes had a trap, and
>that the valve was closed at 3:00.
Give the poor guy a break. He measured the input flow rate accurately. You
and I and everyone else would agree that the output flow rate and the input
flow rate must be equal in the long term. The engineer most likely did not
know that there was a chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would
vary during his test. He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to
safely control that parameter with Rossi's setup. A well designed system would
not have this occur. As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a
difference in output flow rate and input flow rates. He could not read Rossi's
mind any better than we can.
Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard system
and that he does not even know himself what it is doing? This is an unfair
standard. Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone
would have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main
output.
Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in his
trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap? You
must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible. We are speaking
of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street. Maybe it was closed
at 3:00, that is what you say. Was it closed at 1:00? Or how about at 4:00?
This is not proof of anything and we both know it.
So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing. He was
possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this was a rare
system and not normally encountered.
You assume that he was ignorant. You suggest that he did not know how to set
up a water trap in a system. You think he might actually be an employee of
Rossi, and there is no customer. Are our positions equal?
Dave
