Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote: We, from the list, are well aware that Jed Rothwell has some inside > information about the validity of the e-cat.
> Despite that, I haven't seen him clearly manifest about the feeble steam > output of the hose in the e-cat video. It does not "look" feeble to me, but the video of the steam teakettles shows that you cannot easily tell the difference between 900 W and 2200 W, so visual observations of steam are useless for this discussion. The merit is not on the quality of the steam, even if has 0% liquid water, > it still looks like a 800W. If it is 800 W of steam then there has to be excess, because that was the input power, and there have to be a lot of losses from the eCat body and the hose. You cannot have all of the input power magically transfer to the water without any losses. Anyway, I don't think anyone can say whether this is 800 W of steam or 3000 W. The 3 kW steam cleaner video I found looks about like this, too. To lose over 3000W from that hose, which measures 4m, the temperature of the > steam should be way over 120C, the upper limit of the temperature it can > handle, more like above 450C. I don't see where you get a 3000 W loss. > So, Jed, what is your reason to think that video does not make the e-cat a > fake device? > There is not a shred of evidence the eCat is fake. Rossi's recent demonstrations did not prove the thing is real. They were only meant to show how it works, not to prove that it is real. But the previous tests proved it was real. Other tests of similar Ni-H devices prove that the Ni-H effect is real. There is no reason to doubt this device is real. A person might have lingering doubts because the claim is so dramatic, and because Rossi is such a flamboyant person who makes himself look bad. But in all the months of blather here I have not seen a single valid reason to doubt any claim made by Rossi. All the talk about magical wet steam and these visual comparisons of steam are nonsense. Steam at these temperatures and pressure is dry. The heat of vaporization of water is shown in any textbook, and the textbooks are correct. It is 540 cal/g at 1 atm. That's not exact but it is close enough. - Jed
