On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Look, suppose for the sake of argument you are right. Suppose the steam is > much wetter than Galantini thought. It makes no difference! It cannot be > so wet there is no anomalous heat. > But a small amount of anomalous heat is much less persuasive, because it requires smaller misrepresentations of power in, flow rate, or less amounts of chemical heat. The steam can certainly be so wet that no nuclear reactions need to be invoked. That's why Rossi claims dry steam. In most of the tests, the water temperature would not exceed 60°C if there > was no anomalous heat. > In *one* of the tests. Not most. The E and K test. In the Krivit test, the claimed input was enough to exceed boiling; in the two Lewan tests, it was enough to get within a few degrees of boiling, and in the January test, with the max flow rate of the pump, the input was enough to exceed boiling. > You can throw away all of the enthalpy from a phase change to steam and the > results are STILL massively positive. > No. They're certainly not. In the one case, where the input was not enough to reach boiling, the required power was all of 300W. That's not massive in this kind of experiment. And in that experiment, the power was not monitored. And we have evidence of Rossi with his hands on the power control. So why on earth do you care about this?!? I cannot understand this mindset. > Because without it, all the observations can be easily explained by smallish misrepresentations, and/or some chemical heat in the ecat. > It is as if you watch Orville Wright fly for 20 minutes and then you say > the flight was invalid because they used a derrick to launch. > You can't just make up arbitrary comparisons. It is more like if Wright was airborne for 5 seconds out of the derrick, and claimed he was flying. > > Even if you are right, it proves NOTHING. It means NOTHING. All these other > assertions about how Rossi's steam tests and flowing water tests might be > wrong and how Rossi, Levi, Krivit cannot read a digital weight scale are > blather and a stupid waste of time. > If it is so obvious, why are so many people still skeptical? Why is it necessary for you to spend time arguing, if it's so obvious. The thing is, if the claims were real, it would be very easy to make it obvious. Rossi has not done this. Anyone who has done tests of this nature will know that the temperature of > 101°C proves there was steam > No one is denying there was steam. It's a question of how much steam, and how much water. and you can add in the heat of vaporization to get a reasonable > approximation, the way Rossi did in Krivit's video. > No. He assumed the steam was dry, which is almost certainly wrong. It is probably no more than 5 or 10% steam by mass. > If the meter was wrong or there was some other fundamental problem, the > second test with flowing water would proved decisively that there was no > heat. > As I said, if the claims were real, he could prove it more obviously, like with flowing water, and no phase change. So, why was the really decisive demo done in private? > Furthermore, Defkalion has spent millions developing this technology, and > the Greek Ministry has already subjected their prototypes to testing. The > machines passed the first round of tests. So there is no question this > technology is real. There is a mountain of evidence proving that. You are > quibbling with one tiny part of that evidence. > Right. The only part that has been made public. If Defkalion is so far along, why are they showing the public second rate demos? > You are wasting your time fretting about this!!! It makes NO DAMN > DIFFERENCE. > Relax. It does make a difference. The question of wet and dry steam makes a factor of 7 or 8 difference in the required power. That's a DAMN DIFFERENCE.
