Will you please stop cluttering this otherwise fine site with you endless bickering. Just agree to disagree and wait for more evidence. Please. Enough is enough. On Dec 7, 2011 7:43 PM, "Joshua Cude" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:07 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Give the poor guy a break. >> > > You should give him a break about the trap. > > >> He measured the input flow rate accurately. You and I and everyone else >> would agree that the output flow rate and the input flow rate must be equal >> in the long term. The engineer most likely did not know that there was a >> chance that the level of the water within the ECATs would vary during his >> test. >> > > But you keep insisting on his competence. Now you're claiming that you're > so much smarter than him, because even from the internet, you can imagine > this possibility. Surely he kew the ecats hold 30 L. Surely he would know > they didn't have to be full. Surely he would know that he could easily > check the output to see if it was flowing. > > Anyway, the point is that this is an easier and safer assumption than > assuming he knew how effective the trap was. > > >> He was unwise assuming this since it is quite hard to safely control >> that parameter with Rossi's setup. A well designed system would not have >> this occur. As I am saying, most engineers would not expect a difference >> in output flow rate and input flow rates. He could not read Rossi's mind >> any better than we can. >> > > In fact, you're suggesting he can't read it as well as you can. But I > disagree. Any engineer knowing the volume of the ecats, should have > expected a difference in flow rates (average) unless the ecats were full. > >> >> Should you hold it against the engineer that Rossi has a non standard >> system and that he does not even know himself what it is doing? >> > > If he doesn't check the output, when it is easy and obvious to do, then > yes, you should hold that against him, regardless of Rossi's standard. Why > should he expect a standard system anyway in a ground-breaking device. He > should check things as essential to the calculation of energy output as the > output flow rate. > > This is an unfair standard. >> > > Nonsense. He's there to observe the output power. That involves the output > flow rate. How can expecting him to determine such an output flow rate with > more confidence than a remote observer on the internet can, be an unfair > standard? > > Had the test been conducted for a long enough time, then everyone would >> have been happy except for those who are convinced that water is the main >> output. >> > > Yes, well, it wasn't though. > > >> >> Now, do you wonder why the engineer would not have captured some water in >> his trap before the water had enough vapor within it to fly past the trap? >> > > But he did. If you're referring to the 5 minutes from 12:30 to 12:35, he > collected about 10% of the water that would have flowed past. That's > probably pretty close to the ratio of the pipe diameters. And considering > the horizontal momentum, 10% sounds pretty plausible. > > > >> You must realize that the closed valve suggestion is not sensible. >> > > Why exactly? It was clearly closed at 3:00. Why does that not bother you? > How do we know it wasn't closed the whole time? > > >> We are speaking of an experienced guy here, not some yoyo off the street. >> > > So, now he's competent. An experienced, competent guy would have checked > the flow rate. Or at least one incompetence is not more likely than the > other. > > >> Maybe it was closed at 3:00, that is what you say. Was it closed at >> 1:00? Or how about at 4:00? This is not proof of anything and we both >> know it. >> > > Right. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming Rossi's failure to prove. To > be an effective trap it should be open all the time. The fact it's closed > at 3:00 means we have no idea what it did any of the time. So its presence > is meaningless. > > >> So, I assume the engineer was intelligent and knew what he was doing. He >> was possibly faked out by the change of level within the ECATs, but this >> was a rare system and not normally encountered. >> > > I don't agree, as you know. To me the likelihood of him getting faked out > by a dummy trap is far higher than that he would get faked out by flow rate > effects of non-full ecats. It's not that abnormal, if remote observers can > figure out the possibility. > > >> You assume that he was ignorant. >> > > As do you. > > >> You suggest that he did not know how to set up a water trap in a system. >> > > You suggest he did not know how to determine flow rate. > > But I don't suggest he didn't know how to set up a trap, only that he was > too accepting of Rossi's set up. And that's true, no matter what you think > of him. Even a trap to capture non-misty water, would be put at the bottom > of a U, and a steam separator would be used to capture mist. And he'd worry > about the second pipe. Did he even ask Rossi why there was no trap on that > pipe? Maybe they didn't even use the lower pipe, and redirected everything > through the upper pipe. > > >> You think he might actually be an employee of Rossi, and there is no >> customer. >> > > Rossi has not given evidence contrary to that, and I think a demo that > depends on this sort of meta-information is a useless demo, especially for > something as profound as Rossi claims. > > Are our positions equal? >> > > To the extent we both impugn the engineer's competence, there is > similarity. To the extent that we consider the test in the least bit > persuasive, I think not. >
