Jed
That is what Rossi claimed. Exact values. It is 102.8 deg C to be exact.
So what are you claiming?
Sorry, I forgot. It is ~103 deg C but for various reasons I think this is too high. Indications are it was hot water and not steam.
Based only on the numbers Rossi gave Lewan, it would be just over 100 deg C, as I said.
Oh what the hell, what's a few degrees between friends.
Best regards
Frank
So what are you claiming?
~103 deg C eyeballing a graph. (Note the tilde, "~" That means "approximate.") 102.8 deg C from a table.
I don't believe these numbers, as I said.
Another red herring bites the dust.
Best regards
Frank
I don't believe these numbers, as I said.
What makes you not believe these numbers? And is that why you emphasized the 100.1 C for so long?
Quote from LENR Calender: “So how accurate is your 100.1C extrapolation? The only way you could extrapolate this value is if you had the exact input temperature, as well as the e-cat's power ouput known within a kW!”
That is what Rossi claimed. Exact values. It is 102.8 deg C to be exact.He also claimed it was exactly 35 tons of cooling water per day, and then he arbitrarily subtracted 10% from that, for no apparent reason. As he told Lewan.Based on my analysis and his choice and layout of instruments, I don't believe either number. At all. I also don't believe the 60 deg C return water temperature. That is too low.If Rossi ever gives you the data, you will see for yourself. Perhaps you will agree with him, and perhaps you will agree with I.H. At present, you have no basis to agree or disagree with anyone.
I have enough basis to disagree with your 100.1C extrapolation that you based on Daniel Rocha's calculations. I have explained why above. I noticed you didn't reply to that part of my post, so I hope you now understand why that extrapolation was erroneous.
I hope you will now stop claiming you have extrapolated a 100.1C value from currently publically available data.
Thanks for sharing the actual values that you've seen in the report.
Abd - the really sick thing about "wait until the ERV comes out" is that Rossi was still broadcasting that misleading statement to his followers while he was preparing his slipshod litigation plan against IH. He likely never had any intention of releasing the "ERV" to his people. He should go ahead and release it to his people now and get that upcoming bloodbath on Planet Rossi over with.
From the Rossi blog reader:
QuoteAndrea Rossi
June 9, 2016 at 3:30 PM
Sebastian:
I cannot disclose data from the report in pursue of precise directions from my Attorney, until the Report will be disclosed in Court.
Warm Regards
A.R.
Dewey, why doesn't IH release the report? They paid for it, if I'm correct. Now, I can easily imagine that the attorneys might be discouraging this, on both sides. Myself, I'm unsure about the legalities here. If the ERV is considered proprietary information, though, it could violate the Agreement for Rossi to release it. The contention of the IH Motion is, however, that IH may disclose whatever they please. So it seems to be to be possible that IH would be in a better position to release it.
And that's up to IH. Maybe it's time that we stop declaring what others should do and start looking toward what we can do.
Display MoreRossi must be totally crazy If he really has stated, what has been quoted by Shane D..
Here is another example (comment by Rossi in his JONP):
He had signed the License Agreement with Industrial Heat LLC, neither with "Cherokee Fund" nor another entity "from which eventually has been born IH".
The only question is whether he completely has lost touch with reality or it's an example how he deceives his followers.
Yeah, I noticed the references. Rossi's story, as told in the Complaint, is that he made a deal with Cherokee. Darden and Vaugn are Cherokee officers. But Cherokee always creates companies to handle investments. As Dewey has pointed out, this investment is not the kind of business that Cherokee goes into. It does not look like there was any Cherokee money put into IH. Darden and Vaugn had credibility because they were connected with Cherokee, but Rossi had no agreement with Cherokee.
One of his complaints is that he was told that Cherokee completely owned IH. It doesn't apparently. It doesn't have any interest, if Dewey is correct. Rather, IH gathered its own investors. There are common officers, but it's looking like Rossi never understood how corporate business operates. There is no way that Darden and Vaugn would put Cherokee at risk. Rossi is claiming that they misled him, but Rossi is not taking responsibility for what he signed. His agreement was with IH. That the principals of IH were connected with Cherokee made them appear more solid, it is true, but that creates no liability for Cherokee, so Rossi's complaint on this is crazy. So he is claiming that he's following his attorney's advice, eh? Did his attorney advise him to sue? And what did his attorney advise him as to signing the Agreement in the first place?
the Agreement with IH was in 2012. Four years later, Rossi still hasn't figured out who and what he was dealing with?
For a $100 million Agreement, did Rossi consult an attorney?
The other little snipped is "nuclear engineer." As if a nuclear engineer would be the kind of expert one would want. As Jed has pointed out many times, the expertise would be HVAC.
As to the Question here, It is not a fact that IH has lost the "E-Cat License and IP." Rossi cannot revoke that License just like that, nothing in the Agreement allows it. The court could, but ... Rossi did not ask the Court to revoke the license, it is not mentioned in his prayer for relief. Lovely, eh?
My impression and the impression of an attorney was that this is an ordinary collection action. Rossi claims that IH promised to pay $89 million more on certain conditions, and claims that the conditions were fulfilled. That's a debt, if valid. Such a debt does not convey an automatic right of repossession. Rossi has no right to take it away. Rather, if they have not paid, it would be inequitable for them to be allowed to "enjoy the rights" of the license, and a court could order the return. It might also order the return of the money paid to Rossi. What is the license worth?
I preparing the Agreement, Rossi did not contemplate non-payment.
Rather, if they have not paid, it would be inequitable for them to be allowed to "enjoy the rights" of the license, and a court could order the return. It might also order the return of the money paid to Rossi. What is the license worth?
In either case, Rossi wins. Assuming the e-Cat / Quark-X work as claimed.
What makes you not believe these numbers? And is that why you emphasized the 100.1 C for so long?
I have several reasons for not believing these numbers, but unfortunately I cannot describe them. I am pretty sure the outlet going to the mysterious fake customer site was less than 100 deg C, and very sure the return was more than 60 deg C.
As I said, 100.1 deg C is based on taking Rossi's numbers seriously. He gave exact numbers for flow, power and so on. Reversing them in one sample gives you exactly 100.1 deg C. No only are these exact, they are round, as in 36,000 kg of water per day. Of course such exact and round numbers are preposterous on the face of it, but if we take them seriously his reactor was producing just enough heat to vaporize water at exactly 1 atm. If the pressure is a little higher, or if there is any salt or antifreeze in the water, it would be liquid water and not steam, even at ~103 or 105 deg C. See:
Again Jed that 100.1 deg C value is BS. Daniel Rocha used 2 significant digits for his calculations, and as I've shown before, picking 100.1 C (rather than say 103) would require 4 significant digits on the 1MW power value.
Now let's see what happens if we use 4 significant digits like a high schooler would do:
Rate of flow: 36000/(24*3600)= 416.7 g/s
Specific heat of water: 4.179 J/g
1g of water needs 4.179J/g to increase 1C, so that quantity of water absorbed ~1741W for every C. Water entered at 60C, so, we have that the
liquid part absorbed ~69.64kW.
The latetent heat of water, assuming, 1 atm, is ~2.258MJ/kg. So, 416.7g/s of water can absorb ~940kW by completely
vaporizing.
Oh no, the total now comes up to 1009.64 kW > 1MW! So obviously the plant is missing 9.64 kW to vaporize 60 deg C water at that given rate. Fraud!
This is obviously absurd, but it shows you should only use 2 significant digits if trying to extrapolate the output temperature.
As I've shown before, heating that rate of water vapor from 100.1 to 120 only takes around 16kW.
If you assume that the plant's output is less than 1,050 kW and that input water is exactly at 60C, then all you can say is that output is below 160C!
My post above was a bit silly, but the one important part is this:
If you assume that the plant's output is less than 1,050 kW and that input water is exactly at 60C, then all you can say is that output is below 160C!
In either case, Rossi wins. Assuming the e-Cat / Quark-X work as claimed.
Seems like a risky thing to assume without further evidence.
Another red herring bites the dust.
Now at least IH does produce something: herring salad.
My post above was a bit silly, but the one important part is this:
If you assume that the plant's output is less than 1,050 kW and that input water is exactly at 60C, then all you can say is that output is below 160C!
That is incorrect. Please see these steam tables:
http://www.powerplantserviceinc.com/steamtable.pdf
This is in American units. To translate:
101 deg C = 214 deg F which gives 1150 Btu/lb total heat (starting at 32 deg F)
160 deg C = 320 deg F which gives 1184 Btu/lb total heat.
That is only 3% more, as you say, but Rossi gave numbers with 4 digits of precision, such as 102.8 deg C, or 32,000 kg of water. If we believe the precision of his numbers, we can reverse the equation to get the temperatures, and it comes out to almost exactly 101 deg C. That includes the warming up phase from 60 deg C to 100 deg C. I am pretty sure the inlet temp is too low, based on the position of the TC, and the outlet too high, so I estimate that should be ~80 deg C to ~98 deg C.
That is incorrect. Please see these steam tables:powerplantserviceinc.com/steamtable.pdfThis is in American units. To translate:101 deg C = 214 deg F which gives 1150 Btu/lb total heat (starting at 32 deg F)160 deg C = 320 deg F which gives 1184 Btu/lb total heat.That is only 3% more, as you say, but Rossi gave numbers with 4 digits of precision, such as 102.8 deg C, or 32,000 kg of water. If we believe the precision of his numbers, we can reverse the equation to get the temperatures, and it comes out to almost exactly 101 deg C. That includes the warming up phase from 60 deg C to 100 deg C. I am pretty sure the inlet temp is too low, based on the position of the TC, and the outlet too high, so I estimate that should be ~80 deg C to ~98 deg C.
So you say "this is incorrect", but then show that it is indeed 3% more? (1050 kW is 5% more than 1MW).
It actually takes 1,009 kW (if my calculations are correct) to heat 36 m3/day of water from 60C to 100.1C. So much for rounded numbers!
What makes you think the plant is dimensioned at exactly 1,000 kW? Where is Rossi's number that the plant is a 1,000 kW plant precisely?
Obviously the plant has a range of average output power which is controllable.
103.9 as a measurement with 4 significant digits is pretty standard. But saying that a 1MW plant is a 1000 kW plant is pretty absurd.
Where is Rossi's number that the plant is a 1,000 kW plant precisely?
What I meant was, they gave the numbers for steam at 212 deg F from a steam table. In other words, 32,000 kg * 1150.4 Btu/lb (only in metric units).
I think I see what happened here. They did not actually measure steam quality. They did not take into account the actual pressure or temperature. They simply multiplied the mass of water by the first row in a steam table. So when I run the numbers backward, I get back to the first row.
I do not think it possible to measure steam quality with this configuration, which is probably why they didn't do it. Rossi removed the steam trap and other instruments you need to do grown-up calorimetry.
To give Rossi some credit, he said in the Lewan interview that they ignored the heat needed to bring the water from 60 deg C to 100 deg C, so perhaps these numbers are close to the 212 deg F row in the steam table for that reason.
103.9 as a measurement with 4 significant digits is pretty standard. But saying that a 1MW plant is a 1000 kW plant is pretty absurd.
Yes, it is pretty absurd. So is claiming that the flow was exactly 32,000 kg. All of the numbers are absurdly round. I do not believe them for that reason, and for several others.
I guess a flow of 32,000 is absurd if it is meant to be exact. If it is a rounded number, I'd like to see the actual measurements, but rounding to the nearest m3 isn't gonna affect the COP much.
I would say that Daniel Rocha's post on Vortex just shows that the published numbers do correspond to 1MW. It's a good sanity check, but doesn't tell us anything about real temperatures (e.g. 100.1)
I am pretty sure the inlet temp is too low, based on the position of the TC, and the outlet too high, so I estimate that should be ~80 deg C to ~98 deg C.
I'm glad we're moving on from reverse computing temperature values.
An input value of 80 deg C would not make a difference to the COP. It takes only 35kW to go from 60 to 80 deg C. Moreover Rossi claims that Penon didn't take into account the power to go from 60 to 99.9C, and we have no reason not to believe him on that.
Now a 98 deg C value would be a problem, so maybe we should focus on this one. What about the position of the TC do you think would a measurement of 102.8 deg C be actually representative of ~98 deg C?
What about the position of the TC do you think would a measurement of 102.8 deg C be actually representative of ~98 deg C?
I don't think that is a position error. I can't discuss it. Sorry. It is a shame Rossi has put a lid on information about this test. You should ask him for info.
(The outlet temperature looks like a position error to me.)
