I would expect the required heating and therefore the current measured by the amp meter to decline as the reactor reached a stable thermal balance between PWM and the extraction rate allowing Rossi to use a slightly narrower pulse and more residual heat to cause disassociation. Fran
From: noone noone [mailto:thesteornpa...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 12:07 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative I bet Rossi was trying to keep the reaction perfectly stable throughout the experiment. He could have detected an increase in temperature and wanted to throttle down the input slightly. ________________________________ From: Angela Kemmler <angela.kemm...@gmx.de> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 8:55:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Lewan video is informative > > On 11-05-02 10:36 PM, Angela Kemmler wrote: > > I just saw the video. And there is something interesting: at the end of > the video, Mats Lewan goes in an other room to follow the black hose ending > in that dirty bucket. And turning the camera, we can clearly see that > Rossi is "doing" something with the blue box. As if he was touching one of the > switchs. Here, the problem is the following: M. Lewan checked the current once at the beginning. (by the way: clamp meter are usually not very precise. But: assume good faith, he checked that instrument later). Did he made a recording of the current/power over the whole time? Was the current constant? Lewan says yes. Did he check periodically the current? We don't know. Why is Rossi touching the blue box? > > > > The pump's stroke frequency was 33/min this time. > > > > > > And looking into the pdfs, we have the proof, that indeed Rossi used a > LMI P18 pump with a max. flow rate of 12 l/hr. > > > > The product of 31 strokes at 2 ml is 62 ml/min. Lewan tells us, he had > measured (weight difference method) a flow rate of 63 ml/min (at 3.8 l/hr). > The two values match pretty well. > > > > What does that mean? Someone was lying. Or someone made a big mistake > and published it. > > Big mistake where & when? I'm feeling a little lost here. > > The only pump flow rate I recall as being considered possibly dubious > was a claimed measured rate of 13.4 l/h, in Levi's first paper on the > January test, and that seems to be within the range of a reasonable > measurement error of the actual max flow rate of a nominal 12 l/h pump. > The longer I observe this discussion, the more I am becoming sceptic. Using two different methods, we are coming to the same result. Thats good. We are able to calculate the flow rate knowing: a.) the pump b.) stroke frequency c.) stroke volume Assuming a volume of 2 ml (in favor to the inventor, since it is the maximum value), we can calculate the flow rate by multiplying frequency and volume. Here we have (it's easy to hear in the video, listen to the regular "tok..tok" noise) 31 strokes/minute. Lewan tells us: 63.3 ml/min. This confirms, the the stroke volume was 2 ml. Now, we know also, that the maximal flow rate of this pump is 12.1 l/hr. How is it reached? 12.1/h divided by 60 is 202 ml/min. That is the value at 2 ml volume and 100 strokes/min. The maximum, right? What do we get at 31 strokes? It is 0.31 multiplyed with 202. Check: ist is 62. OK. Now, lets check it with the pumps "tok tok" noise of 14 of january: we clearly hear 60 beats/min. And that is 60 x 2 = 120 ml/min. BUT: in the report we find the value 292 ml/min (=17.5 l/hr). Or Lewan made a mistake AND the data sheet of the pump is wrong, OR the author of the report made a mistake. A big mistake in favor of the claimed principle. A 243 % mistake ! Or, in other words, the claimed power was much lower. Instead of 12.4 kW we have only 4.9 kW. (how we explain that is another issue) I have the impressio! n, that someone is OR cheating (don't forget: its also a big business) or someone is incompetent. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
