Jed Here the "flow meter" http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LCgn_05ZGY/TWGehaAfm-I/AAAAAAAAE5w/Ew3nHhdHUDQ/s1600/E-Cat110211.jpg
It's a simple house utility water meter like this http://shop.compracomodo.it/materiale-idraulico-professionale/moduli-utenza-satelliti-utenza-contatori-di-calore-contatori-di-acqua-calda-contatori-di-acqua-fredda/contatore-acqua-a-getto-singolo-per-acqua-fredda-30-c-e-acqua-calda-90-c-da-1-2-a-3-4-quadrante-bagnato-.html They mounted above a camera connected to the laptop taking pictures at some interval. This meter has in the middle a kind of star. Its spinning speed shows the water flow. Visually you can only rougly extimate the flow rate. They misured the average flow storing the meter reading at some interval time. With such setup it's very hard to extimate the istantaneous flow rate. It depends how ofthen they read the count of water consumed and this could be done only after because in this way the computer captures only images, not values that can be calculated right away. It's not very unlikely that, if for any reason the water pressure temporarly dropped, they could think of an unexplanable power peak. 2011/8/24 Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> > 2011/8/23 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > > Along similar lines, the tests with steam do not produce such easily > > understood, irrefutable results. But the weakness of these tests does not > > call into question the flowing water test. > > It is kind of sad that Levi refuses to admit that he did poor > measurements with steam tests, because he was not familiar with them > and did not realize that when measuring total enthalpy from water > boiler, water inflow rate and "steam quality"(sic) measurements are > irrelevant. Only thing what is necessary for measuring enthalpy is to > put the outlet hose into barrel of cool water. > > If he had realized this, then there would not be any arguments left. > But it was Levi's mistake, it is unfortunate, but it was a mistake. > But this mistake by Levi, also disproofs all criticism by Ekström, > Krivit, etc., because Levi (et al.) had all the might to do it right > way, but they failed with the experimental setup and continued to > measure irrelevant variables such as water inflow rate. Therefore Levi > is not the only one whom to blame. > > Also 18 hour test had wrong approach to the experimental setup. It > would have been much easier to measure the enthalpy from steam and hot > water. Only requirement was to have large enough cooling water > reservoir that can be replaced on flight. With this kind of setup, > water inflow rate would be irrelevant and it can be variable and only > thing what is necessary to measure is the ΔT of cooling reservoir. > > I think that Levi might have good reasons not to publish all the > details, if data is not very good. This is not surprising, as his > method was very crude and it did not allow good measurements. But I > think that his argument about the difficulties of making it properly > is out of the proportions, because we are not making detailed analysis > of Ni-H cold fusion, but only are measuring anomalous heat. This is > very simple to do. > > Levi did it wrong way and he should just admit it. It is not shame do > it wrong, because people usually are not experts in every field. E.g. > even for me to gain adequate knowledge to be an expert on this field, > required to write many messages to Joshua and others. But this is > called learning. And also gambling with very high stakes, because if > E-Cat is a hoax, I have wasted lots of my brain power to nonsense. I > definitely did not want to become the first class steam quality expert > only for nothing! > > –Jouni > >
