Unless you know the temperature and the pressure you can make no sensible statements as to whether it was steam or water, and again you are left with a roughly 1:7 possible range of power output (70kW if water, 490kW if steam).
Forget analysis and go on faith (or lack of faith) in Rossi and the secret engineers, there is absolutely no useful data that can be derived from this demo without a lot more information being released. Sadly I suspect we have seen and end to public tests/demos or other useful info until late 2012 On 29 October 2011 15:15, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Can we make the assumption that since the temperature is well above 100 C > inside the output piping heading toward the condensers that the steam must > be of very high quality? It seems to me that the condensers are capable of > totally condensing the vapor so that the pressure within this pipe must be > very near atmospheric. I suspect that there is enough information hidden > within the data to determine that the test was a major success. I direct > these questions toward our resident experts in steam systems as they would > know this immediately. > > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sat, Oct 29, 2011 4:29 am > Subject: [Vo]:Some calculations, discussion and accurate temperature graph > > Here is the temperature graphs with more accurate time stamps: > http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28230378/oct28demo.png > > And some simple calculations: > > Water flow rate: 675.6 l/h > > Temperature above 100°C: 12:34 > End of dataset: 18:24 > > Total time: 350 min (5h 50 min) > > Heating period: > > Started: 11:00 / Ended: 12:34 > Total: 94 min > > Energy for heating metal mass: 400 MJ > Energy for heating 1060 kg water: 375 MJ > Total: 775 MJ / 137 kW > > Here we see that most of the electric input that was allegedly > supplied to the device went for initial heating. > > Total water volume of 107 E-Cats was 2700 liters. > > If they can give proof that non vaporized water was just 5 kg, then > test should be valid. Simple proof would be that if they measured the > water flow rate from the heat dissipator. This would be valid > indicator, because there was still plenty of empty water storage > capacity inside E-Cats when water started boiling. Therefore only > steam escaped. > > However, if they did not measure the flow rate, then it is difficult > to establish with certainty that all steam was really vaporized. > However I would think that used water trap was sufficient to collect > non-vaporized water. At least within one order of magnitude. > > Therefore I would think that test appears to be valid and indeed E-Cat > was producing at least 7 GJ energy with average power of 340 kW. > > This is the lower limit. Maximum power output was 12 GJ and 550 kW > power. Min and max possible power levels were determined how much > water was remaining stored inside E-Cats and pipes after the demo > ended. > > As input was used almost fully for initial heating of the E-Cat array, > total COP was 400:(1/∞). I do not know the total imported heating > energy, but I assume here that it was below 770 MJ. And also I do not > know how much input was remaining in alleged 350 min self-sustaining > period. I assumed that it was zero. > > However, this test was by no means made by independed scientists. > Therefore I do not see how this could be a proof for successful > validation, because there is no way that hidden power sources are > excluded. Therefore, I do not expect mass media attention. This is > extremely sad situation, because I am tired of listening skepstics' > assertions considering the validity of the technology. > > However, contract that was signed stands that the energy was produced > by the means of cold fusion reactions. Therefore if this is a hoax, > then it could be considered as a breach of contract, therefore > Customer has right to demand compensation if they have paid anything > for the Dr. Rossi. > > Therefore, it seems to be valid technology. However we need some > further information from Bologna University considering long term > performance. > > –Jouni > > >
