The flow rate was stated as measured at 292 ml/min, or 17.5 liters/
hr. If it actually was 7.6 liter/hr then that is either fraud or
major incompetence on the part of someone.
I think there is little doubt the assumption of steam dryness is not
warranted, for the reasons discussed here earlier. See:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg41849.html
Please examine the supplied table. It shows that steam that is 1.4 %
water droplets by volume carries away only 5.04 % as much heat as
anticipated. That margin of error is far less than that specified at
100% humidity for the probe used, even if its use were valid for this
purpose.
I don't think the steam dryness measurements were carried out at all
times in all experiments. This could explain a temperature probe
where the humidity probe might be thought to be. No problem! It is
of no use to repeat a useless measurement.
The water reservoir sets on the floor, exposed to ambient conditions
for at least an hour. The assumption that the input water
temperature remains at 13 °C is nonsense. Full calorimetry to
determine power and energy balances are totally essential to evaluate
the demonstration.
What I find disturbing, is that, provided the energy is chemical in
origin, a similar test scaled up to 1 MW will work just like this
test, for a while. Only good calorimetry and long running tests can
provide proof of a nuclear source of energy.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Feb 11, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:
Response to the query fwded by Rich Murray (appended):
I think the only people who can answer your questions are people
who attended the demo, the best person being Levi himself. But I
agree that the pump is suspicious. It looks exactly like the J5
pump you refer to, that has a max flow rate of 2 gal (7.6L) per hr.
In fact the only pumps that company makes that exceed 2 gal/hr
could not be mistaken for the one in the photo. So, the only
possibilities I can think of are that (i) the reported flow rate is
wrong, (ii) there is another company that makes an identical-
looking pump with a higher flow rate, or (iii) they have modified
the pump to deliver a higher flow rate.
You're also right about the probes, but it's possible in that case
that the RH probe was simply not in place when the photo was made.
In any case, it's not clear how measurement of relative humidity is
related to steam dryness -- they are not the same thing. One could
certainly establish the relationship using wet and dry steam off-
line, but no such measurements are reported or claimed. So, as I
have said before, I have no confidence in the claim that the steam
is dry.
If the flow rate is wrong, and if the steam is as wet as I think it
is, there is no extra energy left to explain, and the Rossi show is
over. It seems a little odd though: would they connect the hydrogen
bottle just for show?
From: Franco Mattei <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:00 AM
Subject: Bologna 14-jan-11 test on Rossi E-cat
To: [email protected]
Dear Rich Murray,
I follow with interest the debate on Rossi’s catalyzer on vortex-l.
I see that you are very careful in analyzing the data from the
14-jan-2011 experiment, so I would like to know your opinion on the
following aspect.
I don’t know whether or not the E-cat really produces such a lot of
excess heat.
I am not a CF expert nor a professor, I am still studying.
I hope it does, so we can solve all our energy problems, especially
here in Italy.
But I have a doubt.
Looking carefully to the jpg photos that can be downloaded from this
website
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/bolognia-14111-cronaca-test-
fusione_14.html
,
there are a couple of small incongruities, with respect to Prof.
Levi report:
1 – the water pump appears to be very similar to LMI series J5,
but this model delivers only 7.6 L/H
(see
http://hawkins.thomasnet.com/viewitems/lmi-metering-pumps/series-
j5-12vdc-electronic-metering-pumps
);
2 – the RH-probe for vapor analysis,
that I presume is the rod emerging from the top of the catalyzer,
looks to be much longer of HP474AC model
(see http://www.fattore.fi/33%20EXTECH/Extech%
20ilmaVIRTAUSmittarit08.htm ).
It looks more similar to SPC C-45-0500 BEX probe
( see http://www.fattore.fi/thermopari.html ),
but this last is for temperature only (up to 1200°C).
What do you think?
Am I wrong?
And, if not, how much important could these differences be for the
result of the Bologna test?
Thank you and best regards, Franco
