Joshua Cude wrote:
There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W input.You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat.What are you talking about. You just did the calculation yourself showing that it takes only 3/4 of that (600W) to bring the water to the boiling point. If you are putting 800W into the cell, and the only way you are taking it out is with water, some of the water would vaporize.
Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it radiates from the cell into the surroundings. The "recovery rate" for the water flowing through will be maybe 50% to 75%. In other words, only 400 to 600 W reaches the water. Barely enough to boil it, and none of that steam would make it to the other end of the 3 m hose. Even if 700 W reached the water, I doubt you would see any steam emerge from the other side. I believe the most pessimistic estimate here is that the hose radiates ~100 W.
What I am saying is that this is a poor design for a flow calorimeter. If you want to recover 80% or 90%, you need to run at a much lower temperature (below 50°C I think), and you need convolutions in the cooling water path.
You can make a fantastic flow calorimeter, with 98% recovery, with the water below 30°C and lots of other techniques. That's what McKubre did.
Rossi is claiming these things produce multi-kW, but only a few hundred watts are enough to explain all the quoted data.
You have it backwards. Rossi is assuming the steam is dry, which it almost certainly is. Based on that assumption he estimates that it produces multiple kilowatts. He does not start off with that assumption and then work backwards. _You_ are doing that! You assume there must be only 800 W so there has to be some way to explain these temperatures and the appearance of the steam, and there must be hot water coming through.
Rossi has spent a lot of time with teapot-shaped flow calorimeters, where the steam exit is placed well above the hot surface. That ensures dry steam, as long as you keep the flow rate reasonable. I have seen tons of calibration data from Fleischmann and Pons and the Italians who did boiling calorimetry to know that he is right.
You're saying even those few hundred watts prove a nuclear effect, and maybe if they ran it long enough there would be something, if all the numbers were really nailed down with credible observers. But if it's really nuclear, why is this experiment, just like all CF experiments, in this pergatory, where it's even possible to quibble day after day? Why is there never enough power to make it obvious, and better, to power itself?
There is enough power to make it obvious! The power is in kilowatts. Rossi's method of estimating power is correct. You imagine it is wrong, and you invent all kinds of improbable "Just So Stories" to explain how your fantasy might be true, but you are wrong.
You know perfectly well why this one does not power itself. Because it is likely to explode. Ask Mizuno what that's like.
There will be self-powered ones with electric power generation within a year or so.
- Jed
