On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Peter Heckert <peter.heck...@arcor.de>wrote:
> > But even at steam quality of 0% most of the experiments would give a COP > > 1, because the input energy measured was not enough to heat the water to > 100° and definitely there was boiling and some steam observed. > In the E&K test the input was too low to reach boiling (60C), but in that case the input power was not monitored, although the flow rate was. So, it would have been possible to increase the flow rate after things got underway. In the Krivit test, the claimed input was enough to exceed boiling. in the two Lewan tests, the input power was enough to get within a few degrees of boiling and the power was not monitored (and Rossi was caught on camera with his hand on the power control). In the January test, with the max flow rate of the pump, the input was enough to exceed boiling, although not with the claimed flow rate of the pump, which was higher than the pump's maximum. So if the effects where faked, then we must have water flushing out or > water sucking out or tricks with input energy. > I think small misrepresentations of input energy or flow rate can account for all the observations. Rossi does not monitor all the variables all the time. > > Wet steam alone is not sufficient for an explanation. > That's true. But it brings the discrepancy down to much lower value, that could be accounted for by small misrepresentations, or possibly chemical reactions, or energy storage.
