tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post8623327728215754371..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: AUG 11, 2016 LENR COMMENT, PSEUDO-DIALOG AND SOME INFO Georgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-13306710967266755282016-12-13T06:26:58.457-08:002016-12-13T06:26:58.457-08:00Dear Doba,
Thank you...my dispute with Jed Rothwe...Dear Doba,<br /><br />Thank you...my dispute with Jed Rothwell re FLOWMETERS is an ugly story, but prthaps interesting.<br />Will be enchantedc to publish your expert opinion even if late a abit.<br />greetings,<br />peterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-24529071224487675142016-08-14T17:31:33.551-07:002016-08-14T17:31:33.551-07:00This is not the case under discussion, which is on...This is not the case under discussion, which is on open air with mixing fluids (hot and colder air from outside). The flux is enclosed and as they say "care must be taken with turbulent flow". Otherwise, you are assuming that Rossi let people in the other room<br /><br />And it is possible to confuse 1000kW with even nothing: that is when the device is not working.<br />Daniel de França MTd2https://www.blogger.com/profile/01281817409696805377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-1204356000850306802016-08-13T06:23:35.065-07:002016-08-13T06:23:35.065-07:00Thanks, Jed. The only remaining way that material ...Thanks, Jed. The only remaining way that material (in this case water) could have moved through that warehouse without being noted was via the water-pipes, and this has been comprehensively shown to be bunk. As I noted, though, the IR survey would have seen the hot drains anyway. <br /><br />I see no reason why the customer should have wanted to hide the process heat or to simply throw it away like this, but it is not impossible. Why pay that much for the energy and do nothing with it? It's illogical, implausible but (just) possible.<br /><br />The question that Rossi-supporters refuse to answer is where that 1MW of heat went. So far only around 2% has been accounted for in the heat-plumes from the locked room. The hand-waving of saying that it was measured and so was there is pretty useless - it would have visible consequences too and they aren't there. <br /><br />I hope the results of the IR survey you mentioned are made public. This is the job central-heating engineers do every day, and it won't be far off in accuracy. That may convince the people who are still arguing about how the measurements were fudged.<br /><br />Exactly how the metering was fooled or the log was falsified is not critical. The heat wasn't there, and can be shown to not be there, and therefore the ERV report is false.Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-50341446562528864012016-08-12T11:50:32.748-07:002016-08-12T11:50:32.748-07:00As a practical matter, it is not possible to flush...As a practical matter, it is not possible to flush 1 MW of continuous heat down the drain in a Florida warehouse. The Florida regulations prohibit this. You would destroy the sewer.<br /><br />The reason is a little complicated. The regulations do not allow you to dump water down the drain which is hotter than 60 deg C, because this will destroy some sewer pipes, made of PVC. See:<br /><br />http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/content/PDF/2001%20Florida%20Codes/Plumbing/Chapter%207_Sanitary%20Drainage.pdf<br /><br />http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/plastic-pipes-operating-pressure-d_1621.html<br /><br />Because you can only raise the temperature this much, you would need a large flow of water. Much larger than normal water service to a facility of this size. You would use as much water as a very large apartment building.<br /><br />If you were to dump water at a high temperature or as steam, this would quickly destroy the sewer, and the city engineers would find out and stop you.<br /><br />Also, there is no reason why a legitimate customer would want to hide the heat by flushing it down the drain. What motivation would he have? It is at least plausible this customer did not want to show people equipment, but why would he also wish to hide waste heat? What could be secret about that?Jed Rothwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00179077151947615762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-69018516137551183742016-08-12T04:06:56.652-07:002016-08-12T04:06:56.652-07:00Peter - the essential question here is not the flo...Peter - the essential question here is not the flowmeter but whether the 1MW of heat was actually produced. <br /><br />Can you think of _any_ industrial process that uses heat where 98% or so of the input heat goes into the product with only around 2% wasted to the atmosphere, and where sufficient material to do this can be stored in that Florida warehouse to absorb 1MW or so for a whole year with no need to replace such material (there were no movements in or out of that warehouse seen)? Jed has mentioned that an IR survey of the warehouse was performed by IH (though currently this has not been confirmed by IH) and that the total heat plume emitted by the warehouse was consistent with around 20kW. Bear in mind that the 98% efficiency of the process is also not thermodynamically possible at around 100°C peak temperature. <br /><br />If that IR survey is confirmed, then to an accuracy of maybe 10% we'll be certain about the amount of heat dissipated in the warehouse. Given the absurdity of the hypothetical manufacturing process being 98% efficient with no movement of materials, and that the only other way of getting rid of that heat energy would be to heat a flow of water and put it down the drain (where the IR survey would have also shown hot water being discarded after a few hours of this starting), the only logical reason for the lack of visible heat would be that it wasn't being produced.<br /><br />Arguing over the method by which the figures were fudged is futile. If it's not obvious to you that 1MW of heat at around 100°C would need a flow of materials to process into and processed materials out of that locked room, and that even so there would be a very obvious heat-plume from waste heat from that process, then your competence as an engineer is in question. <br /><br />Simply put, the 1MW (or 750KW) wasn't there. Exactly how the meters were set up to produce the wrong measurements may be an interesting discussion-point, but it's not important scientifically except in knowing how not to measure. <br /><br />Repeatedly asking Jed to publish data he has received in confidence, where he has already stated that he's said all that he can, is also futile. Given his past performance, and the effort (and money) he's put into publishing all available information on LENR, I trust his word. He wants LENR to succeed (this is obvious) and does not lightly say that data is wrong. <br /><br />This particular Emperor has no clothes. I'm looking to other experimenters to achieve a commercially-viable LENR. It is very likely that Rossi has seen excess heat in his experiments (or at least thought he has); it is not shown that he can produce excess heat reliably and to the COP he claims. In particular, the 1MW generator seems to have a COP of around 1.0 and not 50. <br /><br />Shooting the messenger won't affect the reality of the news. It may be some time before Jed's words are shown to have been true, but I have no doubt that his data is correct. Simon Derricutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15137826634256652580noreply@blogger.com