As I understand the MFMP testing process... The flow of water will be set through the heat exchanger to insure that the input water flow into a bucket is equal to 60C. The weight of the water will be recorded and then dumped whereby the filling of the bucket will start another cycle.
The total volume of water will be determined as the sum of the weight of all the 60C heated water that was produced through N cycles of bucket filling. The N cycles will be large enough to ensure that a chemical process could not generate the total heat required to sustain N cycles of 60C heated water.. As a double check, an electric resistance heater will heat the same total amount of water that had been heated to 60C and the amount of power feed to the electric resistance heater in the first method will be compared to the power consumed by the reactor. There should be an agreement between the actual power consumed by the differential method of heat measurement of dummy based verification method and the calculated power derived from the first method being from the flow based calorimetry process of the first method. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > >> Well that's not exactly true... there is an overlooked detail here which >> should be clarified . . . > > > If me356 can make it work, he must know something no one else knows. No > one can make Ni-H produce 8 kW out 1 kW input. If me356 can patent his > method, even if it is very similar to previous patents or public domain > information, it will still be unique, patentable and worth $1 trillion. > > > >> The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be changed- as of >> now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the book - >> wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making the wet-steam scam >> into an art form. To have any credibility - this test must not involve >> steam at all. > > > They plan to use a heat exchanger, which will eliminate this problem. The > method I described, sparging the steam in cold water, will also eliminate > this problem. Sparging will accurately measure the enthalpy from any > mixture of wet steam, dry steam or hot water. It is a lot simpler than a > heat exchanger. The limitation is, you can only do it for 30 minutes or so. > If you want a long-term test to prove the excess heat goes beyond the > limits of chemistry you have to use some other method. > > I recommended they start with sparging because it can be done quickly and > easily. If it shows excess heat they should do the heat exchanger method. > If it does not show any excess I would pack up and go home. > > - Jed > >
