On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Take a look at this video, simulating steam production at 1200W with a > 4m long hose: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVwINedGR_Q > > It does look like the swedish's magzine video, NyTeknik, including the > weird sounds, around 1200W: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM > > What do you think? > > 1. Lewan claimed 2.3 to 2.6 kW (of which 300 W is needed to heat the water to the boiling point). So at least 2 kW would have been going in to the steam formation. In Krivit's case, more than 4 kW go into making steam. 2. The steam from this video looks like a lot more steam to me than Lewan showed, especially more than what was shown when Lewan's camera first pans into the other room. The steam or bubbling seems to increase substantially while Lewan examines it, and Rossi is off-camera. And the steam is certainly far more than observed in the Krivit video. 3. The new video uses a heating element underneath the pot, not inside the water. The heater is clearly visible in the video, which means a substantial fraction of the heat will not have made it into the water. Best case for Rossi: The levels of steam are similar, and the efficiency in the stovetop video is 100%, Lewan is exaggerating the output power by a factor of 2, and Krivit (or Rossi in Krivit's demo) by a factor of 4. Medium case: The efficiency of the stove heating is 60%, the steam in Lewan's and Krivit's video is 60% as much as in the stovetop video. Then the steam in the ecat demo videos represents about 400 W. In Lewan's case, given the input 300W is consumed to raise the water to boiling, that would represent 400 W excess, a factor of 5 lower than Lewan claimed. In Krivit's case, the input 800 W exceeds the power needed to raise the water to boiling by 200W, so that represents about 200W excess, a factor of 20 less than Rossi claimed. Most likely case: The stove efficiency is 60% and the steam in the ecat videos is 60% as much as in the stovetop video, and the flow rate or input power are misrepresented a little. In Krivit's case, if the flow rate is lower by a factor of 2, then only 300W is needed to heat the water, leaving 500W to produce steam, entirely consistent with what is observed. In Lewan's case, if the power is increased to 700 W, then subtracting 300W to heat the water, leaves 400W for steam, again consistent with observation. Of course the numbers are guesses. But the video clearly demonstrates that the output power is without question exaggerated in both the Lewan and Krivit demos. Considering the input power could have easily been raised to more than 1 kW, it demonstrates that plausible misrepresentations can explain all the observations, without invoking exotic nuclear reactions. But we should all agree that this situation is profoundly silly. That experiments in someone's kitchen with a roll of masking tape, a cooking pot, and a garden hose can raise questions about a demonstration of a revolutionary new source of energy, should give everyone pause. Surely someone so brilliant to find the solution to the world's energy problems, should be able to design an airtight demonstration of it, that the galloping gourmet can't dispute.
