At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes,
and he should simply acknowledge them and move on.
Where, in his report, are these mistakes?
Someone here claimed that he did not measure
input power, when the report clearly states he did.
He measured input power at one point, he did not
measure it continously. You know an odd thing?
Jed actually claims that Rossi adjusts the input
power, in order to match boiloff, so that the
E-cat neither overflows nor runs dry. Really?
Input power is being varied? Then ... how do we
know what it is if we don't measure it for the
whole demonstration? So that we are talking about
the same thing, here's the report in question:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.
This report only mentions measuring input power
at turn-on. Not later. Small point, but an
important one. Some unstated assumptions are being made.
Simple, clean and clear. He reported what he
saw and based some speculations on that,
without having thoroughly investigated, that's all.
I see no evidence for that.
What I'm aware of as problems are the steam
quality "measurement" that wasn't, a minor thing, probably . .
An imaginary thing. You believe it, he doesn't.
Don't blame him because he disagrees with you, and do not assume he is wrong.
He has not disagreed with me. Jed, you have
disagreed with me, he has not. He made a
statement, I'll quote it. I disagree with it, as
to what it implies. I am, thus, disagreeing with
his statement, not exactly with him. He has not
responded to this criticism of his statement.
Therefore he cannot be said to have disagreed
with it. You've confused your own intepretations with the truth. Mistake.
Here is what he wrote about steam quality:
Between 11:00 and 12:00 oclock, control
measurements were done on how much water that
had not evaporated. The system to measure the
non-evaporated water was a certified Testo
System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to
resist up to 550°C. The measurements showed that
at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized, at
11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was
non-vaporized. The energy produced inside the
device is calculated to be (1.000-0.013)(16:30-10:45)4.39 =25 kWh.
I'll repeat the issue. A Testo System, as
described, cannot measure the "non-evaporated
water," apparently. Lots of people have pointed
out the problem. That's a relative humidity
meter, and measuring steam quality is complex and
difficult. The meter has a scale that will read
g/m^3 for water vapor, but this is, apparently,
reading the content of the vapor, and there is no
way to relate this to steam quality; that is,
steam of any quality, at a certain temperature
and pressure, will read the same. It's a
calculated value. So my first question for
Kullander, "Exactly how did you use the Testo
device, which does not have a "steam quality"
function, a function that will express total
quantity of unevaporated water (how could it?),
to determine the quantity of non-evaporated water."
The second problem with this is that it would
completely miss any liquid water runoff. We know,
from the other tests (such as the Krivit video
and the Mats Lewan report), that there is water
in the hose. Is this condensed water
(representing evaporated water later condensed)
or is this runoff water? To the extent that there
is any runoff water, overflow, the calculation of
energy produced will be erroneous, overestimating
the energy. I see no sign that the two forms of
outlet water have been discriminated, therefore
we have no information (or incomplete
information) on "how much water ... had not evaporated."
Jed, I see no sign that Kullander has responded
to this anywhere. That means that there is no
basis for your claim that he disagrees. The
recent blog post quoted here actually provides a
rumor that he is privately backing off. That *is*
just a rumor, but there is more basis for it, in
fact, than your statement that Kullander
"disagrees." Have you spoken to him, do you have
information to pass along like that?
You and others here have convinced yourselves
there are problems where no problems exist.
First you dream up something that might be
wrong. Then you assume it is wrong. Then you
assume E&K did not address it -- when in most
cases their report shows they did. You get
carried away by your own imagination, in a
dialog with yourself, the way Groucho Marx as
president of Freedonia went to war:
Cool. I love Groucho Marx, I'm glad to be like him in some way.
E&K did not address the issues in the report. If
they did, I've missed it. There may have been an
opportunity to address the issues in the brief
interview with Krivit, but Krivit didn't ask the
necessary questions, instead getting stuck on
this silly volume thing, a total red herring.
If E&K did address the issues, can you show where?
There are, by the way, additional issues, I've
just mentioned two that loom large as obvious
problems. The first, steam quality, would
normally have little impact, though it is
possible that a device could be constructed to
produce *really wet steam* to amplify and
apparent effect. The second, overflow water, has
a major impact. If E&K had, in fact, addressed
both these issues, initially, that report would
be much stronger. As it is, it still does create
an impression of some excess heat, from the
temperature behavior. That's a bit weak, but not nothing.
