Posts by Tom Paulsen

"the steam was superheated"

What a farce.

Why does he not simply specify that the (average) steam temperature was measured X °C at a pressure of Y bar.

"Superheated steam" makes me "super sceptical".

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Now let us go to the Rossi effect, and imagine it works.

Most countries have regulations in place, which could be applied to LENR technologies/devices. The conformance with these regulations would be enforced consequently.

I stated also clearly, that we have to wait for the publishing of the ERV report, before correct conclusions are possible.

But as already leaked, the ERV was manipulated by Rossi, who had instructed the ERV what and how to calculate. I see this as an indication, that not only the report would be needed but also the raw data.

Quote

The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant. The ERV accepted.

This might also be an indication, that the whole test is BS.

Quote from Keieueue

It's all over this site and others, people with seemingly plausible scientific background who say that numerical facts about the experiment add up

Here was evaluated also that the "numerical facts" may "add up" to the assumed energy input of 20kW.

See (and the following comments):
To discus the 'science' behind the dispute between Rossi and Industrial Heat

Rossi and me356 actually have something in common.

Both fail when it comes to substantiate their claims.

Alan, I appreciate your work, but I simply hate every form of censorship. Therefore, I'd support your idea about the banner.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Eventually the new folks will catch on to what is acceptable here.
The old members don't seem to have censoring problems (maybe with very rare exceptions).

Your differentiation between "new folks" and "old members" might be seen as an insult.

Alan,

the rules state, that is possible to delete comments.

I'd request, to make only exceptional use of this possibility, because it destroys the traceability of the threads and otherwise I think the members are very well in a position to make their own judgment.

If the mods think that they need other sanctions, I'd suggest for example a ban for a couple of days as an alternative to the deletion of comments.

But you are a moderator here, so if you think that the deletion of 5 comment in different threads just for today is ok, then I have to accept this and to ask myself, wether I'd like to participate in a censored forum, which doesn't allow me, to make my own judgment.

Quote from Alan Smith

Please describe the rules you are thinking of.

Link: Forum Rules

I am very disappointed that the forums moderation deletes comments in this extent and in multiple threads.

There should be other ways to enforce the forum rules without breaking the traceability of the thematic threads.

Deleting comments in this extent could be regarded as a kind of censorship and gives the impression of a dictation what normal members should read here and what not.

For me, this has nothing to do with sanctions to enforce the forum rules and I hope that the moderation may find other ways ...

Please don't delete comments.

@Slad

From Mats blog:

Quote

The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop

CLOSED CIRCULATING LOOP!

ALL WATER IS RETURNED!!!

Quote from Slad

You just need to know the mass flow rate of water multiplied by it's enthalpy of vaporisation.

That would only be valid if dry stream had been produced and I doubt that.

Let's wait for the ERV report and disclosed "steam" temperature. I'm pretty sure that I'll be right and you'll be surprised.

P.S.
Reliable test results should be based on continuous measurement of ALL relevant parameters an not on calculations out of thin air or thick fog.

Quote from Slad

Which implies to me that the temperature was being measured (it averages 60C), it's just not being taken into account for the purposes of evaluating the COP.

Now, I'm pretty sure, that your mission here is to defend Rossi, otherwise you would have realized, that a correct COP calculation is absolutely impossible, if, in a closed circulating system, the true, continuous measured return temperature is not being taken into account.

Slad,

thanks for the confirmation, that my possible scenario is not totally unrealistic.

I admit, that the really relevant facts are not available before the ERV-report is published.

My point (and something to check after the ERV report has been published) is:
If it is true, as implied by the statement in Mats blog, that the return temperature was not monitored continuously and corresponding data were not recorded (and taken into account), then every kind of manipulation (behind the wall in the customer area) is thinkable.

If no information is available, what was behind the wall in the "customer" area and the return temperature was estimated or only measured at special occasions, then for example a valve with different radiator lines might have existed (equal line resistance however different heat consumption) to manipulate the test outcome.

Quote from Slad

Tom P. It seems there is some hope for you... I thought you were suggesting that the return pipe contained steam, not water.

Ok Slad, that saves the time to ask, where you got your assumptions from.

I took the leaked "facts" as a starting point:
- 101°C (wet) steam flow
- 36m^3 per day
- 20 kw (at least) permanent electrical input

And my assumption is 99°C water return.

If you are an expert in the field, you may calculate with these values and prove the plausibility.

@oystla

That's not the point, I just asked myself

When will anybody realize, that in a closed loop "inflowing water" means "ALL WATER".

And then, after that realization, you should read Rossi's/Mats statement again.

Quote

Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant.

With appropriate attachable heater/stimulation coils and exchangeable caps (optional without or with tungsten electrodes), this would be the general purpose experimentation device of my dreams.

I hope you make a product of it.

Dewey

Quote

The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop ...
Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant.

... in a circulating and closed system ...

But he's such a generous guy, isn't he?

Why so complicated?

If someone doesn't know what exactly was produced and in which quantities, it is also possible that the "heat exchanger" on the production side actually was a simple loop back installation.

Quote from Longview

Granting someone "due respect" might feel good, and has a certain Kantian categorical to it. Unfortunately there is a "trojan horse" risk embracing these folks of the "old guard". Look carefully at role of dogma in the history of CF / LENR / AHE.

For me, that sounds like an at least moderate form of paranoia.

Some of the users here might have an agenda (for example in the Rossi/IH disput), but certainly, I'd not expect, that the "old guard" is at standby to conquer this forum.

I think, that this forum needs to have members with a solid and "established" scientific background like Peter Ekstrom and I'm also glad that he is here.

It doesn't matter, wether someone seems to be a believer or a skeptic, because no one is forced to adopt the opinions of the other. But everyone here may benefit from the presentation of different views / facts and might become inspired to new ideas or solutions.