I guess a flow of 32,000 is absurd if it is meant to be exact.
The data is full of absurd round numbers. Evidently they are meant to be taken as exact.
Now IH have lost E-Cat License and IP, who will manufacture E-Cats in the US?
-
-
A few data that is easy to use for calculating power requirements for water and steam heating:
Heat of vaporization = 2259 KJ/kg
specific heat capacity for liquid water = 4.184 KJ/kgKelvin
specific heat capacity for gaseous water (steam) = 2.02 KJ/kgKelvinSo evidently it takes 13.5 times more energy to boil water to steam than to heat same amount of liquid water 40 degC (60 to 100 degC)
And it takes Twice the amount of energy to heat 1kg of liquid water compared to heat 1kg steam for equal delta temperatures.
To know anything of relevance of the Rossi 1MW system we need the measured pressure and temperatures. It's a Waste of time to discuss various hypothetical problems that is done here. And I will be surprised If Steam quality measurement using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter where not used...
-
See also the 'How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head of A Pin? Thread.
-
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.)
Are you under NDA with Rossi? If not, what is holding you back from sharing your information?
-
The data is full of absurd round numbers. Evidently they are meant to be taken as exact.
Well, that would be such an obvious giveaway, so much so that I'm willing to venture a guess that such data were not meant to be taken as exact. Without any visibility of the data itself, which sections of the data are intended to be measured values, and which sections of the data are intended to be sanity check calculations, it is impossible for those of us without the data to make any kind of conclusion. Can we get on with releasing the data already so that we can end the speculation?
-
Are you under NDA with Rossi? If not, what is holding you back from sharing your information?
Typically, a person who is under NDA cannot even say he is under an NDA.More to the point, Rossi supporters here do not believe me when I share technical information. They do not believe Dewey Weaver either. So there is no point to either of us sharing technical information. Rossi supporters will only believe Rossi, so they should ask him for the details. He revealed a few details during his interview with Lewan. I consider one of those details damning: the fact that the fluid goes out of the room into the customer site, and he refused to allow the I.H. expert in to see the customer site. However, many Rossi supporters see nothing wrong with this. Given that attitude, I do not think there is anything I can say which would sway them.
I do not understand why Rossi supporters say they will don't believe me because I do not supply details, yet they fully believe Rossi even though he has supplied even fewer details and I have! They have a double standard.
My policy is to try not to share technical details that have not already been revealed by Rossi or by I.H., in press releases and in the legal filings. I may have let a few things slip.
-
Well, that would be such an obvious giveaway, so much so that I'm willing to venture a guess that such data were not meant to be taken as exact. Without any visibility of the data itself, which sections of the data are intended to be measured values . . .
They are all claimed to be measured values. All of the numbers are round, and many of them are surprisingly similar to one another, as Dewey Weaver remarked. It is astounding how stable this reactor was, and how stable the pumps were, and the ambient temperature, pressure and so on. Unbelievable stable.See? That's a technical detail that Rossi will not share. I just shared it, somewhat against my policy, although Dewey already gave some examples. I expect no Rossi supporter will believe me. And yet, they will not ask Rossi for a sample of the data to see for themselves. He tells them nothing, but they believe everything he claims. I tell them something, but they believe nothing I say. It's a double standards. The will to believe. It is wishful thinking. We all wish Rossi were right, but he isn't.
-
My policy is to try not to share technical details that have not already been revealed by Rossi or by I.H., in press releases and in the legal filings. I may have let a few things slip.
Thanks for the clarification. It did seem a little odd that Rossi would somehow be stopping you personally from sharing information.
-
It is astounding how stable this reactor was, and how stable the pumps were, and the ambient temperature, pressure and so on. Unbelievable stable.
Are you suggesting that none of it was measured? Just made up out of whole cloth?
-
And I will be surprised If Steam quality measurement using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter where not used...
And I will be surprised If Steam quality measurement using a separating and throttling steam calorimeter where used...Maybe we will find out whos right some day.
-
JedRothwell wrote:
It is astounding how stable this reactor was, and how stable the pumps were, and the ambient temperature, pressure and so on. Unbelievable stable.Are you suggesting that none of it was measured? Just made up out of whole cloth?
Far be it from me to make such a shocking accusation! I am just saying I have never seen such stable performance of pumps, ambient temperature and so on. It is simply unbelievable.Besides, suppose -- just for the sake of argument -- I were to say to you in response: "yes, it sure looks like it was made up of whole cloth. No pump can produce exactly the same flow on multiple days, to the nearest kilogram." Okay, that's purely hypothetical. I am not saying that, okay? * But suppose I were to say that. Would you believe me? Or would you demand I supply proof? And what kind of proof could I supply, anyway? If I uploaded a table of numbers, you would say it is fake. After all, I can easily make tables myself.
Or, if you did not say it is fake, Rossi supporters such as Gluck surely would.
No, I am afraid the only way this issue can be addressed or resolved is for you to get data from Rossi himself. You don't need the whole ERV. Ask him for a schematic and 5 days of data.
* That's called praeteritio. It is Donald Trump's favorite rhetorical trick. See:
-
Besides, suppose -- just for the sake of argument -- I were to say to
you in response: "yes, it sure looks like it was made up of whole cloth.
No pump can produce exactly the same flow on multiple days, to the
nearest kilogram." Okay, that's purely hypothetical. I am not saying that,
okay?Okay fair enough. It appeared you were leaning that way, but understand your reluctance to go that far with it.
But suppose I were to say that. Would you believe me? Or would
you demand I supply proof? And what kind of proof could I supply,
anyway?Again, good point. This actually underscores the need for the numbers and data to come out in the context of a court of law, where real consequences loom for untoward behavior.
If I uploaded a table of numbers, you would say it is fake.
After all, I can easily make tables myself.Not necessarily. I may not go directly to fake. But I agree, it is impossible to prove data on an internet forum. I'm pretty sure IH and its sympathizers are just as likely to cry fake for whatever Rossi releases. And in fact, you have already.
No, I am afraid the only way this issue can be addressed or resolved is
for you to get data from Rossi himself. You don't need the whole ERV.
Ask him for a schematic and 5 days of data.But that still wouldn't resolve it would it? Because things can be faked. Anything released in the course of litigation will hold much more weight with me and others. Which is probably why both Rossi and IH are withholding the information and will release it in due time in connection with the pending litigation. So be it. Then we can take a closer look.
-
Quote from Jed Rothwell: Or, if you did not say it is fake, Rossi supporters such as Gluck surely would. …
Jed,
How many false accusations can you make in one sentence? When did you stop beating your wife? Peter Gluck is NOT a Rossi supporter, he is someone who for the moment maintains an open mind due (I'm guessing) to the many IH "red flags" as well as some of the positive signs regarding Rossi's technology (Lewan's reporting, Ferraro test, Focardi testimony, Celani's detection of radiation at the beginning of the Bologna demo). I tend to agree with him but I don't consider myself a "Rossi supporter" either. And how do you know what Peter Gluck would say?P.S. So far I've learned two things from reading this forum: (1) praeteritio (Thanks, Jed!) and (2) the sad story of Louis Slotkin (and co-workers)
-
I'm pretty sure IH and its sympathizers are just as likely to cry fake for whatever Rossi releases. And in fact, you have already.
Not at all! We would not cry "fake" in the sense meaning "that's not Rossi's data." We would say, "See? That's what I have been saying all along." That's what I said when Rossi revealed that he did not allow people into the customer site. There is more damning information like that in his data.JedRothwell wrote:
No, I am afraid the only way this issue can be addressed or resolved is
for you to get data from Rossi himself. You don't need the whole ERV.
Ask him for a schematic and 5 days of data.But that still wouldn't resolve it would it? Because things can be faked.
It would resolve everything. It would be proof of everything I have said about his test being a farce, and what I.H. said about flawed measurements, and unsuitable measuring devices. I say it would be proof because everything I have said is based on a sample of his data. I have no other information. Granted, it might show that my analysis is wrong, and Rossi is right. -
How many false accusations can you make in one sentence? When did you stop beating your wife? Peter Gluck is NOT a Rossi supporter, he is someone who for the moment maintains an open mind due (I'm guessing)
That is not an accusation. It is a hypothetical. It describes an event that has not happened, and will not happen. I am merely saying how I suppose Gluck would respond to a hypothetical situation. How can that be an "accusation?"Also, in my opinion, Gluck does not have an open mind regarding Rossi. If he did, he would wait to see the information from I.H. and ERV report before taking sides. He would not attack I.H. or me in his blog. I urged him to withhold judgement and not take sides before hearing from both parties, but he refused. I say that is closed minded. And childish. And unscientific.
-
Quote from quizzical: “How many false accusations can you make in one sentence? When did you stop beating your wife? Peter Gluck is NOT a Rossi supporter, he is someone who for the moment maintains an open mind due (I'm guessing)”
That is not an accusation. It is a hypothetical. It describes an event that has not happened, and will not happen. I am merely saying how I suppose Gluck would respond to a hypothetical situation. How can that be an "accusation?"…As I tried to point out it is actually two accusations:
(1) You stated that he is a Rossi supporter when I don't think that he is
(2) You stated how he would respond when you don't actually know how he would respond.
-
As I tried to point out it is actually two accusations:
(1) You stated that he is a Rossi supporter when I don't think that he is
YOU don't think he is, so I AM making an accusation?!? What kind of logic is that? That's weird. You are saying that if I disagree with you, my opinions become accusations.(2) You stated how he would respond when you don't actually know how he would respond.
You need to look up the definition of "hypothetical." When we are discussing an event that has not happened, when I speculate about how I think it would happen, that cannot be an "accusation." Accusations only apply to actual events that occurred in the real world, not imaginary events. -
It is astounding how stable this reactor was, and how stable the pumps were, and the ambient temperature, pressure and so on. Unbelievable stable.
Well you can't say you weren't warned by Rossi...
Fabiani must have done an incredible job with the controls.
Rossi:
QuoteDisplay More
At 08.10 of Sunday, Feb 14th 20161 MW E-Cat stable
At 11.41 a.m. of Friday, Feb 12 2016:1 MW E-Cat: stable
at 08.27 a.m. of Thursday Feb 11 2016:1 MW E-Cat stable
At 08.10 of Wednesday, February 10 2016:1 MW E-Cat: stable
At 10.20 a.m. of Sunday February 7 2016:1MW E-Cat: stable, after some leaks reparations
Update at 09.43 of Saturday Feb 06 2016:1 MW E-Cat: stable
Update at 09.33 of Friday February 5th 2016:1 MW Plant stable, an important leakage has been repaired few minutes ago.
06.00 p.m. of Thursday Feb 4 20161 MW E-Cat stable
10.40 a.m. of Wednesday Feb 3 20161MW E-Cat stable
At 08.35 of Monday, February 1st 20161 MW E-Cat stable
Time: 09.50 a.m. of Saturday January 30 20161 MW E-Cat: stableWhatever you think, you can't claim that the ERV report is inconsistent with Rossi's daily reports!
-
-
