This went to personal mail, so I'm forwarding to the list:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Ransom Wuller <rwul...@peaknet.net> wrote: > > Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to > then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature. It's exactly what you're claiming for the steam. If the steam contained suspended fog, there is no reason it would not survive similarly. > The > calculation ignores any steam condensed in the process and would be very > conservative. > Several estimates of heat loss by that hose were done, and it's probably around 100W; not enough to facilitate much condensation. > > I disagree, the output was not measured in the E & K demo, it was in > Lewan's 2nd test and O/I is clearly greater then 2/1 in Lewan's test. > Far be it from me to defend any of the demos, but the EK demo gives 2:1 if the measurements are accepted, without assumptions. The Lewan demo requires an assumption of dry steam at the end of the hose to get 3:1. Without that assumption, very little excess heat is in evidence. > > I'd say more then half the water was vaporized. [...] I'd say far less than half. Maybe less than 10%. But it should not be about guessing. It should be about evidence. And the evidence doesn't support the claim. > > You say it is virtually all mist taking into account no condensation and > ignoring the cooling taking place over 3 hours. Just what level of > entrapped steam do you believe can account for this physical evidence? > The evidence proves the water was heated to boiling, and the electrical input pretty well accounts for that. Beyond that, there is no credible evidence, and no claim of extraordinary effects can possibly be based on guesses and suggestions. The flow of steam looked consistent with maybe a hundred watts (or a few hundred tops, when Rossi goosed the power in the next room). I suspect the ecat can produce a few hundred watts of power by some pretty ordinary means, such as the ones Talbot suggested. Sorry, mankind has understood steam a lot longer then nuclear physics Yes, and still professors of physics think they can measure steam quality using a relative humidity probe. And mankind has had language for a long time, and still, people who make their living by it don't know the difference between "then" and "than". > and > without most of the lost water being steam, I'd say that physical evidence > is impossible. Radiation less nuclear reactions which have been suggested > and ignored for 20 years because we theorize they are impossible is lot > more likely. > > To a lawyer, maybe. I'm gonna take my likelihoods from people who understand both steam and nuclear physics. And LENR has been ignored because of the lack of good evidence, *and* the theoretical unlikelihood.
