On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting Rossi: > > 1- In the test of October 28th the water flow has been measured by the two > flowmeters that the Consultant of the Customer has put just minutes before > the test. He always checked the water flow, and the water trap that > collected the non condensed water exiting form the output pipe > It's a shame he didn't check to make sure the valve was open, and to test whether the trap captured mist entrained in the steam. > > 2- The Consultant is a 60 years person, who has 30 years of experience as > engineer of military organizations; he is specialized in thermodynamics > Presumably steam was not part of his experience. > > 3- As you can see from the reports, the temperature in the output pipe has > always been more than 110 Celsius degrees during the self sustaining mode > at room pressure. > A.R." > There is no record of a pressure measurement inside the pipe. The temperature was almost always below 110 C, more like 105 on average. He appears to be claiming dry steam based on the temperature above atmospheric boiling point. This would mean that the heating elements must be partly exposed, and therefore the sort of regulation by steam production rate wouldn't work, and therefore the relative temperature stability represents unrealistic power stability (to within +/- .5%). Also, this claim requires a magical, discontinuous 7-fold increase in the output power, and a magical, simultaneous ignition of 107 ecats, all within a few minutes of the onset of boiling. Rossi uses the latent heat of deception to make a 30-year thermodynamics veteran look bad, and to get an audience with archenemies of cold fusion at MIT.
