No one would have believed 99.9C as being Rossi's data. Whereas it was possible that 100.1C was Rossi's data as was claimed by Jed. It only took a few days to figure out that it was the result of a flawed reverse engineering by Jed. I don't think Jed was being mischievious trying to find the number that would discredit Rossi the most.
Anyway, it's been a while now. But it explains in part why some of us questioned everything Jed says afterwards.
Never mind LENR, figure out how to skip that phase change penalty at ~100.1 , and there is a COP of 15 waiting for you.
The pressure value is certainly curious. Jed has hung his hat on this issue. I mentioned awhile back that a slight vacuum on the exit-end of the pipe could explain it. Some here mocked me for the suggestion. But I think it must not be dismissed. The folks over on e-cateworld are now exploring that possibility in greater depth:
Are you suggesting 0.0 = 1 atm or 0.0 = vaccuum is possible?
I think 0 psi is preposterous and I wonder how Penon could have let that happen after receiving his first set of data.
Never mind LENR, figure out how to skip that phase change penalty at ~100.1 , and there is a COP of 15 waiting for you.
All you need is a faulty pressure transducer and voila!
Roger,
My guru? You must be new here. I try not to insult people and provide references. I believe in CF but not in NiH CF but I would change my mind if credible peer reviewed data becomes available. I am a believer in Pd CF based on reading the LENR-CANR database. I was sloppy earlier and called on it. Carry on.
Never mind LENR, figure out
Just for clarity to future generations reviewing these fragile moments in history, I was not referring to LENR the person, but LENR the hypothesis.
Regarding the pressure curiosity, I think Jamie Sibley over on e-catworld presents a nice plausibility. Of course, it is all speculation at this point, but until we get more information about what was on the other side of the wall, that is pretty much all we have to go by.
"The 0 psi reading makes perfect sense. If the customer was using the
steam in a condensing heat exchanger ( very likely) then the pressure in
the exchanger would be below atmospheric. This negative pressure is
used in steam driven machinery to increase performance. Instead of
exhausting used steam into the atmosphere pressure, you discharge it
into a head exchanger and gain the benefit of negative pressure. In
this case, the negative pressure generated by the customers heat
exchanger would be all the pressure necessary to cause the steam to flow
from Rossi's side to the customer. Even with a small 2 or 3 inch
pipe, only a few psi would be necessary to move 1 mw of steam."
Following up on a thread at ecat world:
Suppose we just heat the water from 76.8 to the reported 103 .. with ZERO steam quality (for 7/31/15).
I ran this through my steam calculator, set the quality to 0.0 and then raised the pressure until I reached the reported 103.0 temperature.
This requires a pressure of 1.127 and requires 41.31 kWh for one hour .. which still gives a COP of 7
http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc…&et1=76.8&ep2=1.127&er2=2
Raising it just to boiling point at 1 atmosphere (99.6C) needs 35.9kWh, with a COP of 6.2 .. which is just at the minimum required COP.
What are you talking about specifically?
Jack, I know that you know what I am specifically talking about.
Everyone here knows.
Alan Fletcher What about if you use the total factory bill rather than values reported in the annex? Still >1, I presume?
Jack, I know that you know what I am specifically talking about.
Everyone here knows.
If I knew, I wouldn't be asking. You make conclusions without citing what you are basing the conclusions on. I have no idea what you are accusing Jed of falsifying.
Hi Alan, here is the update with the COP graph added.
However when adding the produced energy graphic it became obvious the produced energy was simply the effective flowed water multipled by 564.75. I'm obviously mistaken and made a big error somewhere (its getting late) so would be grateful for someone to look it over.
I guess that does relate directly to the steam produced, but wasn't expecting that method of calculation.
It is not my job to
LFH Sam,
Thanks for the clarification.
However, I have noticed that you do seem to "scold" only those on one side of the argument. More specifically in reality, only a certain few that seem to rile your feathers somewhat. What I do not understand is why? Why all the "nonsense" from one side slides by without any critique from you yet a few get the occasional "wrist slap"?
It does seem that it is a bit one sided. Do you hold Mr. Rothwell and Mr. Dewey to a different standard that IHFB and some others? You seem to think Mr. Rothwell has lost all credibility and have publicly stated so, but not so with IHFB and others? Hmmmm.... just wondering? 
Why do you think you made an error? Rossi asked Penon to remove 10% to the flow (hence reduced flow), ignore the energy to go from 70C to 100C and 100C to 103C, and only use the energy to vaporize water.
THanks for the work btw.
Jed is in the process of wrapping up quite a substantial and positive contribution for the CF sector. He is a trusted party with many in sector leadership and may have the most credibility of anyone on the L-F.
I don't expect anyone in the the Topsy-Turvy kingdom to be able to understand or appreciate that even after it publishes.
Hi Alan, here is the update with the COP graph added.
However when adding the produced energy graphic it became obvious the produced energy was simply the effective flowed water multipled by 564.75. I'm obviously mistaken and made a big error somewhere (its getting late) so would be grateful for someone to look it over.
I guess that does relate directly to the steam produced, but wasn't expecting that method of calculation.
Thanks again!
Raising the water to boiling the water takes (for 7/31/15) 40kW. Boiling it takes 940kW and super-heating it to 103 takes only 3 kW (all for an hour).
Your calculation gives 134.6 COP, the complete value gives 143.5 (without de-rating the flow from 36,000 kg/day).
using the full calculator for boiling only gives COP 137.
Close enough for gummint work!
Interesting that the highest COP is consistently when it was running at "750kW"
Jed is in the process of wrapping up quite a substantial and positive contribution for the CF sector. He is a trusted party with many in sector leadership and may have the most credibility of anyone on the L-F.
The reason why IH worked so hard to get Jed into their camp? Token payments to other LENR researchers to do the same?
IHFB - Hide, hate and lie - it's all you do
Dewey,
I want the truth--from both sides. Pure and simple. No smoke screens. No BS.
