At 03:43 PM 6/17/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
About those pseudoskeptics who doubt the dryness of the steam. Why
they do not just boil water on the stove and then calculate the
energy concumption from water used. If the setup resembles Rossi's
setup, then it would be child's play to calculate probable error margins.
Jouni, a real skeptic will ask about the dryness of the steam. A
pseudoskeptic believes that the thing is bogus, from the outset, so
will simply assert that there is a problem with the steam.
No, boiling water on the stove does not actually resemble the setup,
as far as we can tell. When you boil water on a stove, do you have a
hose running from the pot to the kitchen sink?
If you did, are you aware that you could appear to "boil" the water
rapidly if, say, the water is propelled by steam pressure out through the hose?
This is a clue to a possible problem! Rossi says that there is a
safety issue with pulling the hose out of the drain.
That can only mean to me one thing: this thing can spit water.
Whether or not it could do that, and how much it would do that, would
depend on the internal design, which we are not given to know.
It's a poor excuse, because there would be a way to arrange the hose
so it would be safe if it spits water, the water would just go into a
container, where it could be measured....
Rossi obviously doesn't want to take this relatively simple step. Why not?
Jouni, do you understand this? Imagine a "pot" on the stove, and it
has water in it, and an outlet below the water level on the pot, and
when water is boiled in the pot, the pressure pushes the hot water
out the outlet, through the hose, and down the drain. This water
would be hot, at boiling temperature, but it would be almost zero
steam, in the extreme, it would require much less energy to push out
a given weight of water than it requires to vaporize the water.
So if we assume vaporization, as Rossi and Levi want us to,
apparently, we would, for this setup, vastly overestimate the energy
generated. It might even just be the electrical input, those numbers
seem possible.
"Pseudoskeptic" is completely inappropriate here. Asking questions to
satisfy normal and reasonable skepticism is not pseudoskepticism, at all.
