So are you referring to the water usage/bill? How much water AR used could be a big deal.
Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production
- News-Feed
- Closed
-
-
-
-
The statement of AR explains clearly that for Rossi and the ERV it doesn't matter what was measured really, because the real temperature measurement was ignored in the COP calculation.
So, nobody needs to have "a position what was measured" to recognize the indication for cheating.
But the temperature measurement was "ignored" for the purposes of being conservative, allegedly. And so I think it is important to distinguish between which values were measured, and which values were used in the COP calculation. If the values that were used in the COP calculation are being held out as the measured values by Jed and Dewey, then that would be important to know. My impression from Jed and Dewey is that the 101.1 C value was a measured value. I just want them to confirm or refute that impression, one way or the other.
-
Quote
Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point
That can only be considered as "conservative" by someone who is a cult member, others would see a clear indication for cheating.
-
The statement of AR explains clearly that for Rossi and the ERV it doesn't matter what was measured really, because the real temperature measurement was ignored in the COP calculation.
So, nobody needs to have "a position what was measured"…
Again, similarly to Abd, you are jumping to conclusions saying that, since the real temperatures weren't used, what was measured didn't matter to Rossi/ERV.
If the ERV is competent, those values matter a lot. For each data point, they have to be in a certain range, otherwise the COP calculation is null.
For example:
T(in)= 60 degrees C; T(out)= 90 degrees C => Power=0
T(in)= 65 degrees C; T(out)= 105 degrees C => Power is computed using 99.9 and 100.1 values.Possibly the ERV is also looking at pressure but I wonder: if input temperature is low enough and output is high enough then maybe pressure doesn't matter? Maybe someone can confirm.
Actually the job of the ERV is very simple. For each time frame, if temperatures/pressure are in the right zone, output power= 1MW (or whatever power corresponds to the flow rate for vaporisation). Whenever temperature isn't in that zone, power is 0.
Most likely, power was at 1MW most of the time anyway except for maintenance/start up.
-
Quote: “Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point”
That can only be considered as "conservative" by someone who is a cult member, others would see a clear indication for cheating.
How offensive. As an IH Fanboy, I can assure you that our IH cult is alive and well, and much more tightly organized than any stupid Rossi cult. Get real.
In any case, not sure how *not counting* energy expended on heating the steam in the COP calculation is anything but being conservative, even for cult members. I think Rossi cult members and IH cult members could probably come together in a circle, mumble a few repetitive chants, and agree at least on that point.
-
@lenr Calendar
My comments are referring to clear statements made by AR himself.
Quote... Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point ...
There is no "possibly", "maybe" or "most likely" in these statements.
What you explain is irrelevant, because Rossi clearly stated, that all that was ignored.
-
Rossi stated that they ignored the energy, not the actual temperature values
Again you are jumping to conclusions.
Edit to add: if they hadn't ignored that extra energy, COP would have been higher. Which is why it is conservative. I don't see how there is any argument against that.
-
What you explain is irrelevant, because Rossi clearly stated, that all that was ignored.
Well, to be precise, he didn't state that *all* was ignored, and rightly so, because that would be nonsensical. My read on what Rossi said seems to suggest that the energy needed to vaporize the water was not ignored. And so if you "ignore" the rest of the energy generated by the Rossi plant, then well, that would be quite conservative. "Ignoring" as used in this context is not an indication of cheating, but indeed, is nearly the opposite--i.e., it is an indication of a good faith effort for reducing as much as possible any kind of measurement error.
-
Quote
But the temperature measurement was "ignored" for the purposes of being conservative, allegedly. And so I think it is important to distinguish between which values were measured, and which values were used in the COP calculation. If the values that were used in the COP calculation are being held out as the measured values by Jed and Dewey, then that would be important to know. My impression from Jed and Dewey is that the 101.1 C value was a measured value. I just want them to confirm or refute that impression, one way or the other.
We are not really much further along than at the start of this thread. However the issues of "what was conservative and why" is pretty clear now and in line with what I expected at the start.
(1) Rossi discounts the liquid phase heating - which is a fair (conservative) thing to do.
(2) Rossi does not explicitly say, but must, get his output power by assuming heat of vaporisation. This is of order 1MW, whereas the discounted value is of order 2kW/C (and Rossi claims 40C of heating but this is not known, and it could be much less).So the "discount" is really not significant, being about 10% of the claimed total, and never has been. What IS significant is whether Rossi's assumption that the output is all dry steam is correct. He has (incorrectly - as was obvious from the video) made this assumption in a past demonstration. It will be down to what proof can be given this time that the assumption is justified.
-
@Thomas Clarke Could you give me an example of a temperature value for which it is clear that the output is mostly dry steam? I
-
Quote
@Thomas Clarke Could you give me an example of a temperature value for which it is clear that the output is mostly dry steam?
No. There is no such value because it depends on pressure. Also depending on the system it may be unsafe to assume that the output is all the same temperature. There could be lower temperature water running with some higher temperature steam if it is not well mixed. relying on phase change calorimetry in a closed system where you cannot easily work out whether the phase has changed is inherently unreliable.
It should surprise no-one that Rossi discounts the reliable part of the measurement (which might give him a real and definite COP of maybe 3-4, if his device worked) and calculates his output from something inherently unreliable. The COP could be anything between 50 and 1.
-
So much noise and clutter from the R Fanboyz. Another documented strategy of theirs. They should prepare for an additional heat round. This one is going to hurt. drip.....drip......drip......
-
I was hoping you would make a reasonable assumption on pressure. What if pressure is 1 atm? I'm sure there is a point where measure temperature is high enough that variations within the steam don't matter?
-
So much noise and clutter from the R Fanboyz. Another documented strategy of theirs. They should prepare for an additional heat round. This one is going to hurt. drip.....drip......drip......
I'm going to guess that you will be saying that water was dripping therefore the steam was wet?
FYI I'm a Rossi fanboy as much as Darden was a Rossi fanboy in 2012. Still looking for truth.
-
Yeah Dewey. And everybody hurts.... sometimes.
-
What IS significant is whether Rossi's assumption that the output is all dry steam is correct.
With that, I can agree.
The COP could be anything between 50 and 1.
I don't think this hurts Rossi. I think it might make IH uncomfortable, which makes me uncomfortable, given that I am an IH Fanboy. As many have pointed out, even if you take the phase change completely out of the picture, the COP is likely between 3-4. It is likely that at least some steam was generated, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. What is being disputed now is the quality of the steam. But given that at least some steam was generated, even if wet, the COP is likely higher than 3-4, based on what we know given the leaks so far. Could IH just release the ERV report already? If they think it is so damaging to Rossi's positions, then why hold back?
-
So much noise and clutter from the R Fanboyz. Another documented strategy of theirs. They should prepare for an additional heat round. This one is going to hurt. drip.....drip......drip......
Meanwhile I made a little summary so that you can enlighten yourself on your amazing transformation
-
Quote
I don't think this hurts Rossi. I think it might make IH uncomfortable, which makes me uncomfortable, given that I am an IH Fanboy. As many have pointed out, even if you take the phase change completely out of the picture, the COP is likely between 3-4. It is likely that at least some steam was generated, and I don't think anybody is disputing that. What is being disputed now is the quality of the steam. But given that at least some steam was generated, even if wet, the COP is likely higher than 3-4, based on what we know given the leaks so far.
No that is not correct. There is no reason for the COP to be 3-4 unless the input temperature is on average 60C and the output temp on average 100C or higher.
Far simpler, and consistent with previous Rossi tests, for the COP to be 1. That would mean, if the output is always ~100C, that the input would be around 90C. Always assuming there is no other error in the calculations that we are not aware of...
Perhaps my statement above misled you. It would be more correct to state that given the information we now have COP could be anything from 50 down to nearly 0. I was lopping off the <1 part on the grounds that an endothermic nuclear reaction in Rossi's reactor was not likely? But then an exothermic nuclear reaction is also not likely so we should perhaps keep the whole range!
Whether a test that provides no information about COP hurts Rossi will be a legal matter. But, of course, information we do not have may well pin things down.
