> That calculation also requires an assumption that the steam that escapes > at > the end of the hose is dry. That is highly unlikely. If in fact, a fine > mist or fog was entrained in that steam, to explain the disappearance of > water, very little gain is established.
Sure, but the output after traveling through meters of hose also had to then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature. The calculation ignores any steam condensed in the process and would be very conservative. > The best test is the E&K demo, because in that case, if the numbers are > accepted, then it required an energy gain of at least 2, because the > input > energy was only enough to bring the water to about 60C. But as in the > Lewan > test, the input power was not monitored, and moreover, the total energy > needed to explain wet steam is rather modest, and certainly does not rule > out chemical heat. I disagree, the output was not measured in the E & K demo, it was in Lewan's 2nd test and O/I is clearly greater then 2/1 in Lewan's test. > >> >> While manipulation of input energy, a hidden energy source or chemical >> energy were not excluded by Lewan's 2nd test, it did confirm significant >> measured output over input. >> > > If the input energy was manipulated, then no, it doesn't, even if you > accept that half the water was vaporized. I'd say more then half the water was vaporized. The output also included 1/2 a liter of water while the Ecat was heating up which also went into the bucket. Lewan may have also let the pump trial water go into the bucket another 3/4 liter but you'd have to ask him. If he did that 3/4 of a liter of 20C water may have been in the bucket before the steam began. But ignoring that at least (11.7 - 5.4) is 6.2 of the water disappeared. You say it is virtually all mist taking into account no condensation and ignoring the cooling taking place over 3 hours. Just what level of entrapped steam do you believe can account for this physical evidence? Sorry, mankind has understood steam a lot longer then nuclear physics and without most of the lost water being steam, I'd say that physical evidence is impossible. Radiation less nuclear reactions which have been suggested and ignored for 20 years because we theorize they are impossible is lot more likely.
