On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> At 12:12 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: > >> Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone >> can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy. >> > > *What steam?* > > Understand that 2.5 KW of steam being generated at the E-Cat is not going > to be 2.5 KW of steam coming out of a 3 meter hose, right. Except Rossi claims the ecat is producing 5 kW, not 2.5 kW. > Suppose, as someone claimed, the steam is right for the input power claimed > (about 750 watts). Actually, I think that's wrong. Taking the flow rate as claimed, 600 W are needed to bring the water to the boiling point, leaving only 150 W to produce steam. So, on the face of it, the ecat seems to be producing some power, if the output steam represents more than 150 W. The problem is that it's hard to trust any of the numbers. Someone has estimated the flow rate to be 1/2 of what Rossi claimed, based on the pump frequency, and a photograph of the pump dials. And the power was only measured at the beginning. It was not monitored. In the Lewan video, Rossi is caught with his paws on the control dials. He is not similarly caught in Krivit's video, but it can't be ruled out. What is abundantly clear though, is that the steam coming out is not consistent with 5 kW being produced by the ecat, as claimed by Rossi. > So, then, we need only lose 1.75 KW by conduction, convection, and > radiation, from the 3 meters of hose, and someone did calculations showing > that to be reasonable. > There is no way that is reasonable. The equivalent surface area of a steam radiator produces about 150 W, and there is no way that rubber radiates more than 10 times the amount of heat than cast iron does at the same temperature. And anyway, even at 1.75 kW, there should still be about 3 kW left corresponding to the steam.
