On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down
inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry
purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal
surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly
not 130°C.
I think with this new method this is not so important.
With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a
hidden place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry.
There cannot be a large temperature difference between water
steam and metal.
This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than
required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through
insulation losses). The excess energy has to go into heating the
steam.
If more energy is supplied, this will not give false overunity
results. It is absolutely unnecessary to know the temperature
inside. It is absolutely sufficient if we know the input and the
final output.
.
.
How does your response relate to my statement above? I am pointing
out that the temperature of the steam can differ greatly from that of
the metal, and can be way above that of boiling water, even at
atmospheric pressure? The temperature of most of the metal can be
way different from that of the water in the system.
I certainly agree that it is sufficient if the total *energy* of the
output and input can be directly measured. The measurement of
momentary *power* of a highly dynamic system is not sufficient.
.
.
So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more.
The pressure is above air pressure always.
We can assume no such thing. The water shown coming out of the
exit port at the top was clearly not at 130°C. The pressure
clearly was not high. The pressure appears highly variable,
indicating the possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism.
If water at 130° comes out it will immediately start to boil and
vaporize until it is cooled down to 100°. Therefore we can assume,
that the water that finally comes out of the hose is at 100 degrees.
.
.
The water in the video at the top outlet did not do this. There was
no sign of flash boiling.
.
.
When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will
immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100
degrees.
This did not happen at the top exit port in the video.
I think this process is very fast and happened already at the
pressure reduction valve.
.
.
What pressure reduction valve? Are you saying you know there is a
pressure reduction valve between the boiler and the outlet at the top
of the new E-cat?
.
.
It did happen, when they finally opened the input valve. Steam and
water came out. This valve is at the bottom water level and at the
coldest level. So if the water where 100° or colder then there
wouldnt have been any steam.
.
.
That to me is a sign that both the input water flow and output flow
at the top was stopped.
.
.
Of course you can assume this is a tricky fraud, but this is
impossible to prove via internet. Only time and Rossi can answer
this question, I cannot. Therefore I dont assume fraud or tricks,
because this is impossible via internet.
.
.
I did not say there was any fraud or trick. I've seen a lot of self
deception in the free energy field over the last 15 years. Some
researchers, when they observe an apparent excess energy effect,
manipulate the variables to enhance the apparent effect, without
regard for the possibility that it is merely an artifact that is
being amplified. Other researchers do everything they or anyone else
can think of to rule out artifacts. Rossi and associates appear to
fall more into the first group than the second, regardless of whether
the effect is all artifact or not
.
.
Best regards,
Peter
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
