Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is accounting for the water. But how much water? I can't really tell what Lewan measured. It's pretty simple. Lewan measured about 11 liters going in to the ecat over 3 hours. His calculations assume all of it was vaporized, to give about 8 kWh of energy out. The input power was 380 W to give about 1.1 kWh in. But at the end of the hose, he collected 5.4 liters of water. (That's in the note at the end.) He claimed it was due to condensation, which is not likely. Ransom's argument is that at least 11 - 5.4 = 5.6 liters had to be vaporized because it was not collected. That means that the output would be about 4 kWh, for a gain of 4/1.1 = 3.6. That calculation assumes that any steam that escaped at the end of the hose was completely dry. That is, that there was no mist entrained in it. I don't believe that. I guess I will look again for it. An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. It may be far-fetched, and probably not necessary, since fast moving steam pushing past the liquid will form some mist, and a simple nozzle could promote the formation of mist. But far-fetched or not, it's not nearly as far-fetched as heat from radiationless nuclear reactions. However, Lewan did not inspect under the insulation. So if Ransompw read it right, where did 5 liters go if not steam? Into the room in the form of a mist. I am still not sure what experiment Ransompw was referring to. You had the link to the detailed report in your first post. The information is there.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without forming drops and becoming an ordinary flow of water? I would say that is impossible. So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. The steam is flowing at something close to a m/s, depending on the fraction that gets vaporized, and the diameter of the hose. A fine mist or fog carried along with the steam would take only a few seconds to get through the hose. It seems entirely plausible that half of it would survive as a mist, while the other half is collected as a liquid.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. Joshua: Considering this mist after traveling meters in a hose had to then travel through water allowed to stand at room temperature before being exposed to air, I suggest impossible would be a good word for it. Ransom
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Cude wrote: So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. What is possible and impossible can only be determined by experiment. Our state of mind, being open or closed, has nothing to do with it. We know that radiationless nuclear reactions are real because they have been widely replicated at high signal-to-noise ratios. It would be easy to test whether micrometer droplets can travel through a hose. I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. However, I am certain that the mist will all condense into liquid water, so I will not bother to do this. If Cude wants anyone to believe this is possible it is incumbent upon him to do a test. He should publish photographs and data showing that a measurable fraction the mist traveled through the hose and was released into the air. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I wrote: I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Use a scale to weigh the bucket and the humidifier reservoir before the test, and again after several hours of operation. Be sure to drain the hose into the bucket before weighing the bucket. I say go for it. I am sick of skeptics making assertions without doing a test or pointing to a real-world example to back up these assertions. If you seriously believe it is possible to send mist from a humidifier through a hose and then into the air, you should take the trouble to prove this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. This is why I think all this talk about vapor quality is useless and I don't believe it is possible to carry over 3 meters vapor with more than 1/1 in volume of liquid. 2011/12/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Use a scale to weigh the bucket and the humidifier reservoir before the test, and again after several hours of operation. Be sure to drain the hose into the bucket before weighing the bucket. I say go for it. I am sick of skeptics making assertions without doing a test or pointing to a real-world example to back up these assertions. If you seriously believe it is possible to send mist from a humidifier through a hose and then into the air, you should take the trouble to prove this. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm long... 2011/12/13 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. This is why I think all this talk about vapor quality is useless and I don't believe it is possible to carry over 3 meters vapor with more than 1/1 in volume of liquid. 2011/12/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com I wrote: I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Use a scale to weigh the bucket and the humidifier reservoir before the test, and again after several hours of operation. Be sure to drain the hose into the bucket before weighing the bucket. I say go for it. I am sick of skeptics making assertions without doing a test or pointing to a real-world example to back up these assertions. If you seriously believe it is possible to send mist from a humidifier through a hose and then into the air, you should take the trouble to prove this. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Daniel Rocha wrote: BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm long... Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the vapor into a hose. Put a plastic bag around the exit tube, and tape it. Cut off one corner of the bag leaving a small hole. The vapor should all emerge from that hole. There is a fan blowing the vapor out. Insert that corner of the bag into a hose (or insert the hose into the bag) and tape that off too. It should be pushed through the hose. Little or none will emerge. After water builds up in the hose, none will emerge. Technically it is not vapor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cude wrote: So some things are impossible? You should keep an open mind. It doesn't violate any principles of physics for a mist of micrometer droplets to travel through a hose, and it is far more plausible than radiationless nuclear reactions producing heat. What is possible and impossible can only be determined by experiment. Our state of mind, being open or closed, has nothing to do with it. Of course. I was mocking all the believers who so often adjure skeptics to keep an open mind. We know that radiationless nuclear reactions are real because they have been widely replicated at high signal-to-noise ratios. This would only be effective for the small minority of people who accept the evidence that expert panels have rejected. It is a useless argument for those of us, including you, who before Rossi, did not accept that the evidence suggested such reactions were possible in H-Ni. You said: As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims. It would be easy to test whether micrometer droplets can travel through a hose. I could set up a test to do that this afternoon, since I have an ultrasonic humidifier. I would use a plastic bag to funnel the mist into a short garden hose, and put a bucket at the end of the hose to collect the water. Even if your mist did not survive, that doesn't prove it's impossible. It just proves that it doesn't work for your hose, at your temperature, and with your flow rate, and on the particular day of the week. Rossi may use a special catalyst on the inner hose surface that promotes the formation of surface plasmon polaritons in a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field that violates the Born-Oppenheimer approximation and promotes the survival of mist. But to be serious, it would seem the temperature, flow rate, and hose diameter would be pretty important parameters. You'd need at least to add in the flow of gas from a bottle at high speed to simulate the presence of steam in Rossi's hose. If Cude wants anyone to believe this is possible it is incumbent upon him to do a test. Again, you're mixing up the onus. Rossi has done a demonstration, and I'm simply explaining why it is not convincing. It's not as if it would burden Rossi in any particular way to avoid these ambiguities, as everyone has frequently pointed out. He could have sparged the output and measured the heat; he could have increased the flow rate to prevent phase change; he could have measured the speed of the output fluid. Instead he measured the temperature of boiling water to keep things sufficiently uncertain that his followers would not turn away. I'm sure it's true that believers will not accept the skeptical argument about mist without a demonstration, but to me the definition of impossible is trying to convince a believer. But likewise, skeptics will not accept Rossi's claims without an unequivocal demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. A few seconds is all it takes for the mist to go through the hose. In the ecat's case, the mist is carried along by vapor (steam) moving at high speed. The fraction of vapor (steam) by volume is probably a lot higher, even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is converted to steam.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha wrote: BTW, the vertical component of the exit tube of my humidifier is only 5cm long... Mine too. As I said, I think you could use a plastic bag to funnel the vapor into a hose. Be sure to mix it with a high velocity gas, and put the whole thing at close to the boiling point, if you want to simulate the conditions accurately.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Even if all is carried, the fog is extremely think and doesn't match the video. And even with a such thick fog, my hand, it takes seconds for my hand to feel the moisture. This leads me to think that it is impossible that more than 1/1 of liquid by liquid is present in that video. 2011/12/13 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. A few seconds is all it takes for the mist to go through the hose. In the ecat's case, the mist is carried along by vapor (steam) moving at high speed. The fraction of vapor (steam) by volume is probably a lot higher, even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is converted to steam. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
*liquid by volume 2011/12/13 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com Even if all is carried, the fog is extremely think and doesn't match the video. And even with a such thick fog, my hand, it takes seconds for my hand to feel the moisture. This leads me to think that it is impossible that more than 1/1 of liquid by liquid is present in that video. 2011/12/13 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I have one of those, 5L. At maximum power, it takes 33W and 15 hours to empty all the reservoir, but the fog is so dense that it falls within a meter but it is so opaque cannot see through it. Despite all this, putting my hand in front of exit of the fog, it takes a few seconds to make my hand feel humid. A few seconds is all it takes for the mist to go through the hose. In the ecat's case, the mist is carried along by vapor (steam) moving at high speed. The fraction of vapor (steam) by volume is probably a lot higher, even if only a few per cent of the water (by mass) is converted to steam. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before. What I find odd about Newan's documentation is that he notes the boiling point at 99.5 C. He then adds .5 C to that on page two when explaining the outlet under approximately 200 mm or so of water. So he gets 100 C overall and a measured T out of slightly above 100 C - which would result in steam if we assume that the hose itself plus the valve its connected to don't need any pressure to let the steam pass through. However on April 28 pressure in Bologna was recorded at 1012 hPa throughout most of the afternoon which would lead to a boiling point of 100 C for pure water - not 99.5 C. However with a boiling point of 100 C and the outlet 200 mm under water the measured temperatures could not lead to boiling, let alone vaporization.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Here is a message from Mats Lewan. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A couple of comments. - The report you should refer to is this: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf Mary referred correctly to this report, but someone referred also to the report from the test one week before when several measurements were not made. - Please don’t bother referring to air pressure that day to calculate the boiling point. I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report. - My method of verifying that the T/C probe was not immerged in water was most probably not valid, unless you can suppose that the steam could be superheated by the part of the reactor/heater that was above water and thus possibly notably hotter than the part under water. I have not been able to validate that possibility. The higher temperature might as well be due to a slightly increased pressure inside the Ecat resulting in a higher boiling point (added to the increase due to the outlet hose being immerged in the bucket with condensed water), and consequently the probe could possibly have been immerged in water. - Still you have to account for the water that didn’t end up in the bucket. The theory of fog travelling 3 meter in the hose, exit the hose under water and make it to the surface, and still remaining fog, seems pure fantasy. Feel free to share on Vortex (I’m sorry that I haven’t time to take active part in the discussion on Vortex). Mats
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On 13 December 2011 23:25, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The higher temperature might as well be due to a slightly increased pressure inside the Ecat resulting in a higher boiling point Abd ul-Rahman Lomax calculated this many months ago. If steam was saturated (what is almost certain), then there must have been considerable amount of steam produced in order to explain one degree temperature increase. Even if the orifice for the outlet hose was relatively small. That means that at least 60-80 % of the water must have been vaporized inside ecat in order to explain excess pressure and temperature of the steam. This kind of analysis is of course vain, if we assume a fraud, because it is easy to manipulate thermocouple readings (just write a fake computer software, not very difficult). But if we assume, that the setup was real and honest, then data shows quite clearly, that ecat was operating rather well with Mats Lewan. However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. He had all the the necessary _scientific_ instruments: A cell phone's clock for timing, thermometer and the famous blue water bucket. So, there is just one person to blame if data is hard to analyze and that is Mats Lewan! So Mats is the real culprit behind the great ecat hoax! ^^ –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. I discussed this with him. I think the bucket was too far from the reactor to do this effectively. They should have used a hose ~1 m long for that purpose, and a lot more water in the bucket to start with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I calibrated the thermocouple in a pot of boiling water before the test and it was 99.6 deg C. That’s all you need to know. It’s in the report. The temperatures +/- a degree or two within boiling are not informative. The flat temperature indicates pretty clearly that it is at the boiling point. Measuring temperature in a pot of boiling water is not very reliable way to get the bp, considering it is only boiling near the element, and there will be gradients in the water, even if it is rolling. The higher temperature might as well be due to a slightly increased pressure inside the Ecat Right, this is necessary to ensure the flow of water plus steam to the output. - Still you have to account for the water that didn’t end up in the bucket. The theory of fog travelling 3 meter in the hose, exit the hose under water and make it to the surface, and still remaining fog, seems pure fantasy. That appears to be a consensus around here, but I'm not convinced. If the steam can survive the trip down the hose and through the water, then I don't see why fog suspended or entrained in the steam wouldn't also survive, or at least half of it. The steam flow rate just didn't seem to be enough to represent one L/s, in spite of the fact that there is a good chance that Rossi goosed the power in the other room just as Lewan was inspecting the hose. So, whether the pail got bumped, or whether a mist got transported, it looks to me like pure fantasy that the output shown in the video represents enough steam to account for the missing water. And of course you know that most people regard the idea of radiationless nuclear reactions in H-Ni to produce enough heat to vaporize the water as even purer fantasy. So the mist theory is the lesser of the fantasies. It's just a shame that we have to try to interpret these demos based on such indirect observations, when direct and relevant measurements would have been very easy. And still would be. Rossi could resolve the issue if he wanted to. So it seems likely that he doesn't want to.
RE: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I have to say, I think that Mats did a great job in these tests. An input flowmeter would've been nice, but I think that the biggest criticism that I have is that the input power was not continually monitored. The results cannot entirely be explained away by the vaporization question. For these results, either additional chemical/nuclear heat would be necessary, or the input power would have to have been increased surreptitiously. What did Mats think about the famous stable, stable video? Krivit's discussion: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/08/05/reviewing-ny-teknik-video-did-rossi-play-with-power-setting/ The actual Youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=uviXoafHWrU Does he believe that Rossi could have been Jockeying the controls? Does he recall what the settings were on the black box throughout the demonstrations? Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:16:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: However, it is very sad, that Lewan forgot to do simple steam sparging test, what would have been given simple datapoint of the overall performance. I discussed this with him. I think the bucket was too far from the reactor to do this effectively. They should have used a hose ~1 m long for that purpose, and a lot more water in the bucket to start with. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
I don't see how boiling a pot of water and sticking a thermometer somewhere into the swirling flow can possibly be as accurate as calculating it. Depending on the heat source, the pot and the placement of the thermometer you should always find a range of temperatures at least one or two degrees C wide. If it was pure water, then the 99.6 C measurement is just a confirmation for that (unless the pressure sensors of the Italian meteorological society are significantly less accurate than the thermocouples used by Mats - which is not imossible, of course). As far as the unaccounted for water is concerned: I found before/after weights of the hydrogen cylinder in the report but not from the machine itself. So the missing water is only unaccounted for if we assume that the eCat didn't contain any more liquid after the test than before - or did I miss the weight and it has been mentioned somewhere else?
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
OK. Looked at the video at http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece . I'm not sure if that's the right video for Wuller's question but if so, it's the infamous stable, stable video in which Lewan is walking all over the room with his camera, nobody is watching the power meter, and Rossi does something with the power controller right when the steam intensity pipes up in the notorious blue bucket! Well, I did ask Wuller for some clarification. If I get it, I'll post it also.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: I have to admit, I can't follow the PDF report enough to figure out what reservoir 1 and 2 are and what volumes Lewan is measuring.And even if Lewan lost some water along the way, was it necessarily converted to steam? If it was still liquid, it would flow into the bucket. I believe that is what he had in mind. Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed here in which it is 90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would definitely fall into the bucket. The only way it could not have reached the bucket would be if it was vapor, as far as I know. Notice it was not sparging when the camera first looked at the steam pipe in the bucket. The steam was escaping and the condensate flowing down into the bucket. After that Lewan put the hose under the water but a lot of steam still escaped. That was not deep enough to sparge it and condense it all. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
These tests would require direct fraudulent action by Rossi. Bad calorimetry (ignoring water overflow) is insufficient to explain the power. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166567.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+19+April+2011.pdf Energy calculation: Conservative value of inlet water temperature, T2: 22.5°C Boiling temperature: 99,5°C ΔT= 77K Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/(kg x K) Energy required for heating water, Wheat = 321.86 kJ/kg = 89.41 Wh/kg 4.12 kg/h water flow If the data is correct, only 368 watts are required to bring the water to its boiling temperature. They measured 36 watts from the controller, and 354 watts with the heater on. That leaves 318 watts for the heater(s). That most likely corresponds to a blue box power level of 1. When Mats measured this test, it was merely 1.35A through the load. In the October 6th test with the same blue box, a power level of 5 corresponded to 7.2Amps through the load, and a power level of 9 corresponded to 11.9A through the load. If the input is not constantly monitored, Rossi could easily raise the power level from 1 to 10 and provide enough power to vaporize the water flow. http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf Energy calculation: Inlet water temperature, T3: 20°C Boiling temperature: 99.5°C ΔT= 79.5 K Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/(kg x K) Energy required for heating water, Wheat = 332 kJ/kg = 92 Wh/kg 4.12 kg/h water flow If the data is correct, only 379 watts are required to bring the water to its boiling temperature. They measured 65 watts from the controller (I wonder why this is so much higher than the controls took 9 days earlier?), and 378 watts with the heater on. That leaves 313 watts for the heater(s). That most likely corresponds to a blue box power level of 1. If the input is not constantly monitored, Rossi could easily raise the power level from 1 to 10 and provide enough power to vaporize the water flow.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment is hardly the one to do it, for several reasons: 1) If half the liquid is escaping the hose as steam as ransom claims, then there should be a flow of gas at the output close to 1 L/s. There is no way the gas coming out of that hose represents 1 L/s. This has been discussed at some length, and there are youtube videos showing what it might look like. As I argue in the comments, anyone with a 1 kW electric kettle can verify for themselves what 1 L/s steam formation underwater looks like. Lewan's video is not even close. 2) One possibility to account for the extra liquid is simply in the form of very wet steam; i.e. entrained droplets. The water is clearly boiling at the bottom of some sort of chimney, and the steam that forms will dominate the volume, and move through the hose much faster than the water, and entrain a good deal of it as a mist. Rossi could easily design his chimney to promote this sort of mist formation using a nozzle, or even some kind of ultrasonic mister. It is certainly in his interest to do so. 3) Lewan was careful to monitor the fluid input, but the power input was not monitored, and this is the run that Rossi was famously caught adjusting the power input. So we really don't know what the power input was. At least not all the time. 4) Even if half the water was converted to steam, that amounts to 4000 Wh of energy, less the 1100 Wh input for 2900 Wh net, or about 10 MJ. That's impressive for the size of the device, but it was not inspected, and represents only a fraction of a liter of chemical fuel. A longer run would have made the need for nuclear more obvious. I recognize that not all of these factors are self-consistent. That is, (1) claims the evidence for the power output is not there, and so the possibilities of the power being present in (3) and (4) are not consistent with (1), so there may be only partial contributions from each of these points. However, it is clear that the experiment is a long distance from unequivocal evidence for heat from nuclear reactions. And importantly, if Rossi was making heat from nuclear reactions, it would be easy to be unequivocal in demonstrating it.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Also, if the water was in the mythical state discussed here in which it is 90% liquid and 10% vapor, the liquid portion would definitely fall into the bucket. The only way it could not have reached the bucket would be if it was vapor, as far as I know. An ultrasonic mister puts liquid water into the air without producing vapor. (The droplets evaporate later, and this will happen more quickly if they are already at 100C.) Notice it was not sparging when the camera first looked at the steam pipe in the bucket. The steam was escaping and the condensate flowing down into the bucket. After that Lewan put the hose under the water but a lot of steam still escaped. The problem was that it was not enough to account for 1 L/s of escaping dry steam.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone know what really happened there No one, except AR, *knows* what is happening. All is speculation. I would recommend the advice of Buffalo Springfield: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5M_Ttstbgs What a field day for the heat . . . The truth will eventually out and everyone, for now, is spinning their wheels in the sand. T
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Ransompw is desperate to justify his faith in Rossi, but this experiment is hardly the one to do it, for several reasons:SNIP I understand and agree with all the reasons but the problem I see is accounting for the water. But how much water? I can't really tell what Lewan measured. I guess I will look again for it. An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. However, Lewan did not inspect under the insulation. So if Ransompw read it right, where did 5 liters go if not steam? I am still not sure what experiment Ransompw was referring to. I asked him and got a tangential answer. He did express an interest in joining the email list so I gave him the link to the instructions. Maybe he'll clarify the issue for himself. Not incidentally, I find the amount of insulation used on the running older E-cats somewhat strange. If this is a 6X output/input device with robust heat generation in the kilowatt range as Rossi claims, is a little loss by radiation and convection to the surroundings that big a deal and if so, why? I'd would have liked to see a stripper E-cat perform... nude. Ah well... Rossi won't likely use those again.
Re: [Vo]:Reviewing Lewan's test of April 2011
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: An ultrasonic nebulizer is certainly possibly but it's a bit far fetched. A bit? How would the water from this reach the end of the hose without forming drops and becoming an ordinary flow of water? I would say that is impossible. - Jed
