On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> 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. > Right, but the Levi report shows it was at 400 W for less than 15 min. Before that it was 1.25 kW. Then when the water temp started dropping, it seems, someone quickly cranked the power up to 1.5 kW. Levi himself says the average power was about 1 kW, but from the chart, that sounds low. > > 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). > With 1 kW, you can raise the temperature of the water at 300 mL/min about 50C to give 65C or so, definitely too hot to touch. So, your analysis is wrong. But even if the temp was 100C, indicating some excess heat (beyond the electrical input), it was not so large that it couldn't be provided chemically without tricks or wires. (Much higher power could be provided simply by sabotaging the scale that weighs the hydrogen; considering people were not paying attention to tape stuck to the bottle, that sounds pretty easy.)
