Posts by LENR Calender

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “In reality you need to:

- bring water from 60 to 99 (1)
- vaporize water (2)
- bring water from 101 to e.g. 110. (3)

The energy to produce each of (1) (2) and (3) is positive.
”
You are assuming here:
(1) The input averages 60C (no…

Display More

Thomas,

I get your point on assumptions I made, and I agree that we will have to see the data on the report to make any conclusion.

However, the purpose of my post was to explain to Tom Paulsen why ignoring the energy below and above boiling point is indeed conservative. I think you will agree with me on that part, given how obvious that is.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Quote from LENR Calender: “<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1569-Tom-Paulsen/">@Tom Paulsen</a>

.If they hadn't ignored the energy above the boiling point (the energy which was needed to produce the real quality of steam) then the COP would have been LOWER.

Again you are misunderstanding what is meant by "ignoring" the energy.

In reality you need to:

- bring water from 60 to 99 (1)
- vaporize water (2)
- bring water from 101 to e.g. 110. (3)

The energy to produce each of (1) (2) and (3) is positive.

So real COP= ( E(1)+ E(2) +E(3))/ Input energy

ERV COP= E(2)/ input energy

Since E(1) and E(3) are positive, then ERV COP< real COP.

Therefore ERV COP is conservative.

QED

EDIT to add: all you need to do is prove that water is being fully vaporized to show to E(2) is legitimate. Depending on the data in the report this will be more or less clear.

But the conservative aspect shown above is very clear.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

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.

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?

@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

@Tom Paulsen

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.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

IH Fanboy

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 &quot;a position what was measured&quot;…

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.

It's might just be a big misunderstanding between IH and Rossi.

I think it's possible that both Rossi and IH have been honest, but had a bit of a breakdown.

IH then reads the report with a bias and decides it's junk by misinterpreting some parts of it.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

&quot;the steam was superheated&quot;

What a farce.

<b>Why does he not simply specify that the (average) steam temperature was measured X °C at a pressure of Y bar.
</b>
&quot;Superheated steam&quot; makes me &quot;super sceptical&quot;.

Rossi has answered that question of yours:

Quote

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 6:29 PM
Hank Mills:
I cannot disclose data of the report before it is disclosed in Court.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Zorud - if you read my posts you will see that I came up with that scenario

Warm Regards,
LENR Calender

So on one side we have Rossi saying that there is no such value as 100.1C in the report, and on the other side we have Dewey saying an entire column of data contains that value.

Given that the report will be eventually published, this is very weird?

Maybe Dewey you can clarify?

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

Quote

Absolutely necessary, I'd think, to consider that cooling water, its temperature and its pressure. Rossi, however, insisted on something else, and then claims that the ERV consented

You claim that Rossi insisted that Penon not consider water input temperature and pressure. That is not what Rossi said. Rossi asked Penon not to account for heating water to just below boiling point in his COP calculations.

He did not ask Penon not to measure input temperature and pressure.

Edit to add: this is what Quizzical was talking about. I guess you did not say that Penon did not measure input temperature, instead you said that Rossi asked him not to consider it and that Rossi claims he consented. Subtle differences but same jumping to conclusions.

So IH claims they couldn't visit the customer area but then they claim there was only a fan and radiator there?

The only way this is true is that they visited after the test, and obviously the customer had moved out. So I don't see how this fan/radiator story is a gotcha.

@Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

I understand what I read and repeat, thank you very much.

What you quoted frmo my post comes from Rossi's comment today:

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, to be conservative.Warm Regards,A.R.

To respond to the rest of your post, I don't see how ignoring the heating of water from 60 to 100 and from 100 to 1xx is suspicious. It is just most conservative. Maybe less than 10% if we believe this post:http://www.mail-archive.com/vo…eskimo.com/msg109919.html

If the ERV did his job, input and output temperature will be part of the ERV report. Just because they aren't used in the calculation doesn't mean they are ignored. You are jumping to conclusions here.

IH insiders think they have found a major flaw in the report with that 100.1 degrees C value.

Dewey Weaver thinks he found proof of fraud because supposedly that 100.1C value has been copied and pasted even on maintenance days.

Jed Rothwell has claimed multiple times that the 100.1 value comes from Rossi without being able to substantiate his claim.

NOWHERE did Rossi publish a 100.1 value. Perhaps it is in the report that Jed got a snippet of. But that means that this is Penon's data, not Rossi.

In fact Rossi has claimed multiple times that there was no such value. He even said the steam was superheated.

So definitely 100.1C doesn't come from Rossi.

Now my belief is that there is a simple explanation for that value being copied and pasted throughout the report's data. I believe that there is an explanation for it written in the report.

@Dewey Weaver Did you actually read the entire report in detail? There might be a very simple explanation for the copy and paste.

HINT: the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point.

(sorry for the cross post)

Dewey Weaver Could you spend a bit more time on the ERV report with an open mind and check if the 100.1C value that you saw everywhere could just be a placeholder for Penon to calculate a conservative value of power?

Is there another column for output temperature in the raw data? Is there one for pressure?

My belief is that Penon calculated power needed to heat water from 99.9 to 100.1C, thus being conservative.

As long as ouput water was significantly past the boiling point (and the other columns of data would confirm that), I don't see what would be wrong with that.

@Dewey Weaver

Could you spend a bit more time on the ERV report with an open mind and check if the 100.1C value that you saw everywhere could just be a placeholder for Penon to calculate a conservative value of power?

Is there another column for output temperature in the raw data? Is there one for pressure?

My belief is that Penon calculated power needed to heat water from 99.9 to 100.1C, thus being conservative. As long as ouput water was significantly past the boiling point (and the other columns of data would confirm that), I don't see what would be wrong with that.

So once again, Rossi never published a 100.1C temperature value. He has repeated 3 times in his blog that this value is bogus.

It might be in the report, since both Dewey and Jed have pulled that value from there, but then it is not a value from Rossi but from Penon.

Again, my hypothesis is that if this value is in the report, this could be because Penon is ignoring the power needed to heat the water from 60C to 99C and above 100.1C.

Rossi just confirmed that Penon ignored the power needed to heat up the steam above 100C:

Quote

Rossi (JONP): 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, to be conservative.

My hypothesis is that water temperature was measured at a value significantly higher than 100C when the plant was in operation, but the ERV used a 100.1C value for his calculations (just as he used a ~99C value for the input water even though it was at 60C)

I think this is way more likely than assuming Rossi is stupid enough to run his output at 100.1C for a year. Moreover it would take quite a bit of skill to keep water at exactly that temperature.

There is no way temperature was at 100.1C without going to values such as 99.8C, 100.4C, etc.

Would it not be possible to measure 1MW with a margin of error of 90% (i.e. 100kW + which would mean COP>5) if pressure and temperature were measured and under a less error prone scenario than 100.1C/1 atm?