Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test > apply to another. He is. Partly my fault, since I quoted 17 kW without specifying which test I meant. People should look here for the numbers: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm > Cude is correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed. > No, he is wrong. It was not assumed, it was measured by several methods, such as keeping an eye on the weight scale. I do not know about the Krivit demonstration but in other tests people made sure the flow rate was constant. Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very > carefully. No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. >From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January >> demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help >> maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. >> >> >> No, he adjusts the power. >> > > See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an "out." Anything is "conceivable" but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother worrying about it. Levi et al. spent a month working with this device. I think the only way it could be fraudulent would be if they are in cahoots with him, and they are hiding the fact that he adjusts the flow rate or there is a hidden wire, or something like that. I do not think they could overlook this, because if it were me there instead of them, I would *instantly* notice if Rossi changed the flow rate. Perhaps they are monumentally stupid and he has fooled them. I have no means of detecting fraud if Levi et al. are taking part in it. In that scenario, they might have invented the Feb. 10 test out of whole cloth -- it might be a complete lie. The assertion that this might be fraud is not easily falsifiable at present. But it will soon be resolved one way or the other. If this is fraud, Defkalion is also committing fraud; their factory will never open; and a year from now we will know they are liars. Also, if it is fraud, people such as Brian Ahern who think they have seen anomalous heat from Rossi-type cells must be wrong, and eventually they will report their mistake. I do not think it is possible that Rossi is committing fraud yet by some fantastic coincidence people who replicate him get real results. So fraud will be revealed soon, and there is no point to speculating about it or worrying about it. So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct: "This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics." However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to > reach, from an engineering perspective . . . Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming through, and the temperature drops several degrees. It would not be close to boiling if the flow is too fast for it to boil. What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum > power. Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water. Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound > doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't change, > because there could be valving or obstruction within the E-Cat. These pumps > are designed for constant flow, but they cannot maintain it if flow is > obstructed. Actually, this particular type of pump is pretty good at maintaining a steady flow against different pressures. Better than peristaltic pump. Anyway, they used a weight scale as flowmeter in the steam tests, and a flowmeter-flowmeter in the liquid flow tests, so there is no question about the flow rate and the fact that it was steady. No need to consider that. i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's report that guarantees that all that > water was vaporized. > Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure is negligible with this device. As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. People who do not understand elementary physics will not agree, but they are wrong. I have already said far too much on this subject. - Jed
