tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post8178489526639655161..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: JUL 13, 2016 LENR CREATING WICKED IMAGINARY PROBLEMS AND IMPOSSIBILIZATIONGeorgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-53955987033210409742016-07-14T20:02:45.752-07:002016-07-14T20:02:45.752-07:00I discussed this further at
https://groups.yahoo....I discussed this further at<br /><br />https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/770<br /><br />I have now responded to the above at<br /><br />https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/771<br /><br />I appreciate Engineer48's answer above, but something is drastically off here. At 0.2 barG, 105 C steam is not superheated.Abd ulRahman Lomaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14566271926809161923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-42464510622583982372016-07-14T16:15:32.712-07:002016-07-14T16:15:32.712-07:00Hi Abd,
Engineer48 here.
In private corro with R...Hi Abd,<br /><br />Engineer48 here.<br /><br />In private corro with Rossi in regard to a potential clients interesting in purchasing 10 x 1MWt reactors to build a test system, Rossi suggested the potential client's engineers to design the test load based on the delivery of 105C superheated steam at 0.2 barG.<br /><br />The published plant data shows 120C as the max stemp temp: <br />http://ecat.com/ecat-products/ecat-1-mw/ecat-1mw-technical-data<br /><br />which would imply a 0.95 barG max pressure to keep the steam superheated.<br /><br />I believe there were pressure leak issues with the 1 year test and that is why Rossi, to be conservative, suggested the 0.2 barG pressure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-82268193439846023822016-07-14T08:54:48.918-07:002016-07-14T08:54:48.918-07:00Brian appears confused about what has been reporte...Brian appears confused about what has been reported. This is what happens when we become convinced about a conclusion, in this case Rossi = fraud. We then interpret and remember information according to our conclusion, not according to our actual experience, in this case what we have read.<br /><br />This phenomenon in cognition and thought happens with everyone, not just on Planet Rossi!<br /><br />Rossi has always measured water inflow, never outflow. What is missing is study of outflow water and steam. Only outflow temperature is measured, and sometimes pressure. Reading the Agreement, it is considered enough if the outflow temperature is 100 C., which is obviously too low in a pressurized system. In addition, even if there is dry steam, there can be liquid water below it. So the classic Rossi assumption is that all inflow water is evaporated, and estimates of power output are based on that assumption. We see this in the comment by Engineer48. Some possibly imprecise data attributed to Dewey Weaver (an IH insider) is then used to imply that the steam is "superheated," i.e., by 0.1 C. Even if this were true (what is the measurement error?) outflow may have superheated steam above water at 100 C, or even lower temperature.<br /><br />The reported pressure of 0.0 bar is quite unlikely. This is a pressurized system, recirculating, there will be pump pressure and steam pressure. Peak pressure would be in the reactor area, not in the customer area, there would be a pressure drop through the heat exchanger or whatever is there. No pressure drop, no flow, by the way. This is basic physics.<br /><br />If the temperature is actually 100.1 C, this is almost certainly below the boiling point at the pipe pressure at that point.<br /><br />There are additional issues with the water inflow measurement, but that is all in controversy.<br />Abd ulRahman Lomaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14566271926809161923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-87147311374393313492016-07-13T19:59:30.044-07:002016-07-13T19:59:30.044-07:00commentary on this blog post
https://groups.yahoo...commentary on this blog post<br /><br />https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/messages/769Abd ulRahman Lomaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14566271926809161923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-54584603242443325562016-07-13T16:20:15.387-07:002016-07-13T16:20:15.387-07:00Hi Brian,
Engineer48 on ECW here.
As far as I kn...Hi Brian,<br /><br />Engineer48 on ECW here.<br /><br />As far as I know this is the 1st time I have read someone claiming there was not a flow meter on the condensate inflow to the reactor.<br /><br />Neither Weaver or Jed has ever stated that.<br /><br />Where did you read it? Would like to study your link to that data. <br /><br />So far the data that has been stated is:<br /><br />1) outlet steam pressure 0.0 barg by Weaver.<br />2) outlet sream temperature 100.1C by Weaver.<br />3) averaged electrical energy usage 22kWh/hr by utility account by Mats.<br />4) fluid flow 1,500kg/hr by Mats/Rossi.<br />5) COP > 50 by Rossi in court statement. <br /><br />From those data, the steam was superheated / dry.<br /><br />For COP=1 & assuming steam was superheated & input energy was as per utility account, the flow must be 30kg/hr, which means if the flow meter reported the claimed 1,500kg/hr, the flow meter had to record a flow 50x greater.<br /><br />In closing, no one is saying steam volume was measured but instead input condensate flow to the reactor's diaphram/solenoid pumps, with multiple 1 way flow valves, was monitored. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-70127181446469736972016-07-13T15:03:31.724-07:002016-07-13T15:03:31.724-07:00Brian
Have you been following the discussion
betw...Brian<br />Have you been following the discussion <br />between Jed Rothwell and Engineer 48<br />and others on EcatWorld.<br />http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/07/03/rossi-addresses-some-issues-regarding-1mw-plant-test/#comment-2780143303<br />Samsam northhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268558018307793474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-31761575327054140122016-07-13T11:51:00.126-07:002016-07-13T11:51:00.126-07:00The arguments about water flow support the most eg...The arguments about water flow support the most egregious statements I can imagine.<br /><br />They should have measured the water inflow rather than the steam outflow, because the density can vary by a factor of 1,000.<br /><br />Rossi did not measure the water flow in because it would have foiled one of his favorite parlor tricks.<br /><br />The steam flow measurement is absolutely indefensible. I welcome criticism on this point.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10564497666847741316noreply@blogger.com