At 01:34 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
In the document you wrote:

"For FUTURE WATER versions we need:

Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)"

Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than that can go into the machine.

For the January test it would have eliminated the possibility of any hidden power coming from the Control Unit.
For future tests it would actually give a HIGHER power multiplication factor.

> Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours
> Observers estimated average power as 16 kW.

Power multiplier =  16 KW / 80W = 200
                            16KW / 20W = 800

If half of that went into driving the electronics:

                             16KW / 10W = 16000

So this is to the non-fake advantage.

Of course, the excess power is a less dramatic number:

16KW - 80W  or 16KW - 10W makes no practical difference to the results.

"Sealed unit, to prevent drawing air as a fuel."

It is sealed. There are no visible holes, according to Levi and other people who have seen it close up. You would need large ventilation holes to sustain combustion at ~12 kW. My home water heater puts out 12 kW. The flames and ventilation holes are quite large, and you can easily see the flames. I expect that a 130 kW reaction in a 1 L volume would be incandescent, so if there were holes, you would notice.

To TEST it you'd either have to seal it, or at least run a smoke test over the whole surface and see if it sucks in air or expells combustion products.

I draw the distinction between "not NOTICED" and "tested and NOT FOUND".

Anything which is not TESTED must be ruled in favor of the FAKE.

This is a useful exercise, but bear in mind that during the February 10 run the machine produced more than 1000 MJ. That is as much as 26 kg of gasoline (39 L). The only active material was the mystery substance inside the 1 L volume. No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more energy than gasoline, and of course gasoline requires oxygen, so as a practical matter this is far more than a chemical reaction can produce.

As I said, the only candidates which are not ELIMINATED are Beryllium/Air and (probably -- I haven't calculated it yet) Beryllium/Oxygen.

Levi concluded that this test eliminates any possibility that it is a chemical reaction. I agree with him.

I agree with his informal statement. I'm just putting numbers to it, as an upper bound.


Reply via email to