Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
> Set up hot plate and adjust input to 600 W. Watt meters, combined with > integrated kWh metering, can be obtained relatively cheaply. Place a > covered pan on the burner until water boils. The pan lid will be too hot to > touch. The steam can drive a whistle to make a loud noise. Proves > nothing. > It proves the water is at boiling and not lukewarm. > The input water came from a container exposed to a very warm room > temperature for at least 45 minutes before the active test, so was actually > maybe 27 °C. > That is incorrect. 20 L of water at 15 deg C in a plastic container does not heat up that quickly. In 1 hour it does not heat up measurably at all. Try it and see. I have done this often when cleaning the pond, reserving 5 L buckets of water with fish in them, in hot weather outside. (Also I doubt the room was that hot in January, in Northern Italy.) > Also, the actual flow rate has been questioned. > Questioned by who? For what reason? Lots of people have questioned lots of things, but there is no rational reason to doubt the flow rate. > Now we hear the input power was unstable, fluctuating between 400 and 800 > W, so was actually probably 600 W. > Actually that is not what the power meter showed in Fig. 5 of the Levi report. That was Celani's mistaken impression. > Further, the water in the device was in effect pre-heated for 45 minutes > by 1000 - 1500 W. > The preheated water left the device a few seconds after it entered. The only thing that stays in the device is metal, which has specific heat ~10 times lower than water, so it cannot retain much heat. Your analysis is wrong. The doubts you have raised about the calorimetry are invalid. It was not the best calorimetry possible, but it was good enough, and there is not the slightest chance the outlet pipe could have been too hot to touch without excess energy (or without some sort of trick with hidden wires). - Jed
