waiting for it...
I'll give it a go.
That is simply IMPOSSIBLE. Nobody in their right minds would do such a thing, and so therefore, it wasn't done--obviously. --Jed.
Industrial Heat Amends Answer to Rossi’s Complaint on Aug 11th
-
-
@IH Fanboy,
Nope. That's not the answer I was waiting for. -
your assumption is that the water circuit is the same as the steam circuit. If the two circuits are different, then the flow meter says nothing about the amount of steam produced.
You said the reactor self-throttles. Not the separate steam circuit. If the reactor continues to produce 1 MW while the steam circuit throttles, then the heat has to be dumped by the invisible fans and vents, or the non-existant cooler. That's a different story.By the way, IMHO, no industrial heat boiler is restricted to producing a constant amount of heat. These units are heat on demand systems.
Of course! No real industrial boiler would produce a steady 1 MW day and night for months. That's absurd. But that is what Rossi claims. That is what his data shows. He claims it even produced steady heat on days when Rossi and eyewitnesses saw it was turned off and disassembled. -
You said the reactor self-throttles. Not the separate steam circuit. If the reactor continues to produce 1 MW while the steam circuit throttles, then the heat has to be dumped by the invisible fans and vents, or the non-existant cooler. That's a different story.
Of course! No real industrial boiler would produce a steady 1 MW day and night for months. That's absurd. But that is what Rossi claims. That is what his data shows. He claims it even produced steady heat on days when Rossi and eyewitnesses saw it was turned off and disassembled.The the temperature in the water circuit is the parameter used to throttle the reactor.
-
the temperature in the water circuit is the parameter used to throttle the reactor.
I wonder where that temperature measurement is measured.
-
I wonder where that temperature measurement is measured.
In a multiple unit reactor (4 units), one or more reactor modules could be removed from power production while the demand for steam is low.
-
The the temperature in the water circuit is the parameter used to throttle the reactor.
NOTHING throttles the reactor. It continues to produce the same level of heat, day and night, for months. That's what the data shows. You cannot even throttle it by turning it off and taking it apart, according to Rossi. It is unquenchable! A zombie reactor! -
NOTHING throttles the reactor. It continues to produce the same level of heat, day and night, for months. That's what the data shows. You cannot even throttle it by turning it off and taking it apart, according to Rossi. It is unquenchable! A zombie reactor!The data shows the amount of water that flows in the water circuit.
Quote"you cannot even throttle it by turning it off and taking it apart, according to Rossi"
Do you have a link on that. I did not see anything in the blog about this subject.
-
In a multiple unit reactor (4 units), one or more reactor modules could be removed from power production while the demand for steam is low.
Maybe you could do that, but that never happened. The power production and total energy was the same every day to within a few percent. In fact, even when eyewitnesses saw that several of the modules were turned off for the day, the data showed the same 1 MW of power, and the same net energy. Apparently, the reactors left on magically increased their power to make up for the loss.As I said, the heat continued even when eyewitnesses saw the whole darn thing was off, and stone cold. In some cases, the data shows the power increased!
Even though you are a Rossi supporter, you apparently do not fully grasp the sublime magnificence of this machine. You don't get it! This machine produces 1 MW heat even when people see that it is turned off and taken apart into pieces. Nothing can throttle it. Nothing can slow it down. The heat it produces is magic, because it does not heat up the room. It is conducted out by invisible fans and fairy farts.
If that sounds improbable -- if you doubt that for even a second -- the fault is in you, not Rossi. You just don't have enough faith. Believe. Wish upon a star. You know that everything Rossi says is true by definition, so do not doubt, and do not question his wisdom.
-
"you cannot even throttle it by turning it off and taking it apart, according to Rossi"
Do you have a link on that. I did not see anything in the blog about this subject.
That's in Exhibit 5. Quote:QuoteDisplay More2. The consistency of the reported flow rate statistics.
At different points in time during the assumed 350 operational days of the “test” you were measuring, a number of the reactors were turned off (apparently for repair). At even more points in time, different units within the reactors were either turned off or simply disabled. Yet there does not appear to be any impact on the mass flow rate in the system. How is that a credible outcome?
In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible? It should be virtually impossible to have that level of consistency even over just a one-week period, let alone a one-month period.
3. The number of reactor units in operation varied substantially over time.
As discussed on February 16, 2016 while at the location, 21 of the 64 units in the 4 large reactors had clearly been disabled, leaving only 43 of those 64 units that may have been operational. Also, all 51 of the smaller units were disabled. See Exhibit C (examples).
Similarly, at the time you completed the “MW1-USA electrical measurement” chart on October 13, 2015, out of operation were all 51 of the smaller units, one of the large reactors (containing 16 units), and 17 of the 48 units in the remaining 3 large reactors. That means only 31 units were operational. In contrast, according to your February 2015 report, 111 units were operational at the beginning of the “test.”
Your reports do not account for these substantial variations. There is no explanation as to how the energy output at times increased or stayed constant during periods when a substantial number of the units were inoperable and/or the average power supply into the system was decreased. There is also no explanation as to how other variables, such as the flow rate, were not impacted in an expected manner by changes in the number of operating units.
(Murray refers to Rossi's statements in his blog, that the reactor was off.) -
Display More
Maybe you could do that, but that never happened. The power production and total energy was the same every day to within a few percent. In fact, even when eyewitnesses saw that several of the modules were turned off for the day, the data showed the same 1 MW of power, and the same net energy. Apparently, the reactors left on magically increased their power to make up for the loss.As I said, the heat continued even when eyewitnesses saw the whole darn thing was off, and stone cold. In some cases, the data shows the power increased!
Even though you are a Rossi supporter, you apparently do not fully grasp the sublime magnificence of this machine. You don't get it! This machine produces 1 MW heat even when people see that it is turned off and taken apart into pieces. Nothing can throttle it. Nothing can slow it down. The heat it produces is magic, because it does not heat up the room. It is conducted out by invisible fans and fairy farts.
If that sounds improbable -- if you doubt that for even a second -- the fault is in you, not Rossi. You just don't have enough faith. Believe. Wish upon a star. You know that everything Rossi says is true by definition, so do not doubt, and do not question his wisdom.
Multiple units could be taken offline for maintenance while the production of steam is continued by the on-line units. The result of the degraded configuration is the reduction in the speed that the Customers leaching process would achieve the proper leaching temperature.
-
The data shows the amount of water that flows in the water circuit.
Yes, 36,000 kg per day, exactly. And it shows the temperature, which was close to 102 deg C every day. For several days it was exactly the same. Those are the only two data points given. That's all Rossi gives. There is no mention of secondary circuits, and no indication that the reactor was throttled. On the contrary, even throttling for 10 minutes a day is ruled out.Perhaps there is a way to throttle it, but the data does not show any examples of that happening.
Of course it is all bullshit, as you see from the quotes from Exhibit 5. This is all imaginary. But anyway, you have to stick to the imaginary rules that Rossi described. You can't introduce your own fantasies about "throttling," any more than you can invent your own Pokemon monsters.
-
That's in Exhibit 5. Quote:
(Murray refers to Rossi's statements in his blog, that the reactor was off.)This makes sense because the water circuit is not directly connected to the production of steam. The water circuit acts like a water reservoir who flow remains constant. Steam is produced from that reservoir and steam condensation is added back into that reservoir. This is the simplest way to configure a multi module reactor. The water circuit performs a like function to the bus on a computer.
-
Multiple units could be taken offline for maintenance while the production of steam is continued by the on-line units. The result of the degraded configuration is the reduction in the speed that the Customers leaching process would achieve the proper leaching temperature.
Nope. There was no reduction in the power or temperature, and no reduction in total energy when half the reactors were turned off, so there would be no impact at all on the imaginary customer. The customer would have no way of detecting the machine was partly turned of. He could not even tell when the machine was fully turned off, and stone cold, because the data shows it delivered exactly the same amount of heat even then, at the same temperature.You just don't get it, do you? Not enough faith. NOTHING can throttle this machine. Turning off half the reactors, turning them all off . . . it makes no difference. Rossi's data shows conclusively that that temperatures, power and energy remain the same every single day, no matter what you do.
Since you always believe Rossi, you must believe this, and stop blathering about throttled reactors. Rossi says it was not throttled, ever, and whatever he says is true.
-
Yes, 36,000 kg per day, exactly. And it shows the temperature, which was close to 102 deg C every day. For several days it was exactly the same. Those are the only two data points given. That's all Rossi gives. There is no mention of secondary circuits, and no indication that the reactor was throttled. On the contrary, even throttling for 10 minutes a day is ruled out.Perhaps there is a way to throttle it, but the data does not show any examples of that happening.
Of course it is all bullshit, as you see from the quotes from Exhibit 5. This is all imaginary. But anyway, you have to stick to the imaginary rules that Rossi described. You can't introduce your own fantasies about "throttling," any more than you can invent your own Pokemon monsters.
A reactor like any steam boiler must be able to be thrilled if a steam exposition is to be avoided.
-
Nope. There was no reduction in the power or temperature, and no reduction in total energy when half the reactors were turned off, so there would be no impact at all on the imaginary customer. The customer would have no way of detecting the machine was partly turned of. He could not even tell when the machine was fully turned off, and stone cold, because the data shows it delivered exactly the same amount of heat even then, at the same temperature.You just don't get it, do you? Not enough faith. NOTHING can throttle this machine. Turning off half the reactors, turning them all off . . . it makes no difference. Rossi's data shows conclusively that that temperatures, power and energy remain the same every single day, no matter what you do.
Since you always believe Rossi, you must believe this, and stop blathering about throttled reactors. Rossi says it was not throttled, ever, and whatever he says is true.
You might be misinterpreting the numbers in the ERV report based on a preconception about how the Rossi reactor works.
-
This makes sense because the water circuit is not directly connected to the production of steam. The water circuit acts like a water reservoir who flow remains constant. Steam is produced from that reservoir and steam condensation is added back into that reservoir.
Of course! Why didn't I think of that? That's why you get heat even when the reactor is turned off. * But you forgot to mention that this reservoir is invisible. No one saw any reservoir in the reactor area, just a large container of water at 60 deg C. So your invisible reservoir must be in the pretend customer area, along with the invisible fans and non-existent chillers, vents no one can see, and the magic silent, brooding, endothermic machine. This reservoir is perfectly insulated and never produces any waste heat. Oh, and it holds many days of heat at 1 MW of input when no one is in the customer area, even thought it is so small you cannot see it. Any ordinary reservoir capable of doing that would be bigger than the whole building, but this one fits in your back pocket. Heck it holds months of heat -- a year even -- because no production or activity was ever seen in the customer area.It is all so obvious and clear when you explain it me like that.
* Except not really. Alas this fantasy conflicts with Rossi's fantasy. The problem is, you see, the 1 MW of heat reported by Rossi is in the primary loop, coming out of the reactor. That is what remained at 1 MW even when the machine was turned off. Too bad!
-
It might not be necessary to connect the water circuit to a storage tank because of all the piping used in the water circuit. There is a large number of reactor units included in the water circuit and that large amount of interconnect piping might store enough water to buffer large swings in temperatures in the water circuit.
-
A reactor like any steam boiler must be able to be [throttled] if a steam exposition is to be avoided.
Well, not if Rossi designs it. He sets his own rules. He bends and breaks the laws of thermodynamics. But you may be right. Perhaps there is a way to throttle it to avoid a steam explosion. I wouldn't know. However, the data shows conclusively that it was not throttled during the entire test. Not even when it was turned off, or half turned off. That does not prove it can't be throttled, it only proves it was not throttled.So the customer probably had no ability to throttle the reactor directly. As you say, he probably stored the heat in a magic invisible perfectly-insulated reservoir. Or, perhaps the customer had no need to throttle? He had people working day and night, holidays as well, with trucks coming in and out, and forklifts . . . All of this invisible and silent, needless to say. No one saw any of this, but who are you going to believe? Rossi or your lying eyes?
-
You might be misinterpreting the numbers in the ERV report based on a preconception about how the Rossi reactor works.
How could I possibly be misinterpreting them?!? There are only 3 numbers for each day, and two are identical for the entire data set. Flow rate: 36,000 kg; pressure 0.0 bar; temperature 102 deg C plus/minus 2 deg C. How can anyone misinterpret that?I did not make any assumptions about how it works. The data table is simplicity itself. You subtract 10% from the flow rate for no apparent reason, multiply the mass of water by the steam value of 102 deg C (assuming perfectly dry steam), and you get EXACTLY the same amount of energy as Rossi shows in the right column. There is nothing to it.
Net energy varies slightly as the temperature increases and decreases.
