I was going to mention this before I saw Peter's message, but he beat me to it.
On 01/17/2011 11:14 AM, P.J van Noorden wrote: > Hello Jed, > > How do we know that all the water ( 8.8 l) evaporated? Was the Rossi > device weighted before and after the test? The diameter of the device > is about 10 cm, so there could still be a few liters inside after the > experiment. This is another example of the disastrous consequences of depending on a "black box" test. The stuff coming out could have been dry steam, or it could have been hot air. In fact, unless the "dry steam" was recondensed and the water which resulted was weighed, all we know for sure is that Rossi has demonstrated a device which made some quantity of water /vanish/. The person presenting the demonstration -- Rossi -- claims he turned it into steam. What proof is there of that? With a single demonstration, in which only one researcher knows what's inside the box, unless you have rock solid confidence in that researcher, you should take /nothing/ for granted. Once again, this is also probably not the "trick". In fact, I don't know what the "trick" might be; chances are, if there's a "trick", it's something far cleverer than any idea we'll come up with here. But without solid evidence to the contrary, there is no way to prove that there is no "trick". Without full disclosure and independent replication there is no "solid evidence". > An easy way to measure the heat of this system more accurately would > have been to increase the waterflow to e.g 100 ml /sec ( about 20 > times higher as the flow that was used). If 12 kW was produced one > would have measured a temperature increase of 30 degrees constantly, > with a power input of only 700-800W. This would have been a very > practical system because normally with 700-800 W you can not have a > shower with hot water. You need about 10 kW. If Rossi had demonstrated > that he could heat such an amount of water continously for an hour he > could have convinced almost anybody. Why didn`t he do that? > > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Cc: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 3:20 PM > Subject: [Vo]:Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi > Experiment at U. Bologna, January 14, 2011 > > >> Brief Description of the Calorimetry in the Rossi Experiment at U. >> Bologna, January 14, 2011 >> >> by Jed Rothwell >> >> The experiment has been underway at U. Bologna since mid-December >> 2010. It has been done several times. Several professors with >> expertise in related subjects such as calorimetry are involved. >> >> LIST OF MAIN EQUIPMENT IN EXPERIMENT >> >> A hydrogen tank mounted on a weight scale which is accurate to 0.1 g >> >> 10 liter tank reservoir, which is refilled as needed during the run >> >> Displacement pump >> >> Tube from pump to Rossi device (The Rossi device is known as an "ECat") >> >> Outlet tube from the Rossi device, which emits hot water or steam >> >> Thermocouples in the reservoir, ambient air and the outlet tube >> >> An HD37AB1347 IAQ Monitor (Delta Ohm) to measure the relative >> humidity of the steam. This is to confirm that it is "dry steam"; >> that is, steam only, with no water droplets. >> >> Alternating-current heater used to bring the Rossi device up the >> working temperature >> >> METHOD >> >> The reservoir water temperature is measured at 13°C, ambient air at >> 23°C. >> >> The heater is set to about 1000 W to heat up the Rossi device. >> Hydrogen is admitted to the Rossi device. >> >> The displacement pump is turned on, injecting water into the Rossi >> device at 292 ml/min. >> >> The water comes out as warm water at first, then as a mixture of >> steam and water, and finally after about 30 minutes, as dry steam. >> This is confirmed with the relative humidity meter. >> >> As the device heats up, heater power is reduced to around 400 W. >> >> RESULTS >> >> The test run on January 14 lasted for 1 hour. After the first 30 >> minutes the outlet flow became dry steam. The enthalpy during this >> last 30 minutes can be computed very simply, based on the heat >> capacity of water (4.2 kJ/kgK) and heat of vaporization of water >> (2260 kJ/kg): >> >> Mass of water 8.8 kg >> Temperature change 87°C >> Energy to bring water to 100°C: 87°C*4.2*8.8 kg = 3,216 kJ >> Energy to vaporize 10 kg of water: 2260*8.8 = 19,888 kJ >> Total: 23,107 kJ >> >> Duration 30 minutes = 1800 seconds >> >> Power 12,837 W, minus auxiliary power ~12 kW >> >> There were two potential ways in which input power might have been >> measured incorrectly: heater power, and the hydrogen, which might >> have burned if air had been present in the cell. >> >> The heater power was measured at 400 W. It could not have been much >> higher that this, because it is plugged into an ordinary wall outlet. >> Even if a wall socket could supply 12 kW, the heater electric wire >> would burn. >> >> During the test runs the weight of the hydrogen tank did not >> measurably decrease, so less than 0.1 g of hydrogen was consumed. 0.1 >> g of hydrogen is 0.1 mole, which makes 0.05 mole of water. The heat >> of formation of water is 286 kJ/mole, so if the hydrogen had been >> burned it would have produced less than 14.3 kJ. >> >
