Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jed, you *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. > You have already bought into the hype. Think critically, scientifically. > > What if the total energy out is actually equal to the total energy in? In that case, in the Feb. 10 test, when input power was 80 W, the water temperature would have risen only 0.02°C. It did not do that. It rose 5°C during most of the test, which proves the machine was producing 16 kW, and 31°C during an 18-minute segment, proving the machine was producing 130 kW. I do not *assume* here the power outputs claimed were actually achieved. I assume that industry standard methods of calorimetry work, and that the specific heat of water shown in the textbooks is correct. Why do you doubt these things? I believe it is up to you show these methods do not work. > Maybe some minor amount of heat is added by a radioactive element. You > don't need a very big barrel to see *that* now do you? > A very minor amount of heat will cause only a small rise in temperature. > If you input over a kW and then 400 watts you can get some steam out - > continuously. Big deal. What does that prove? Nothing. > Since you know the flow rate and the heat of vaporization of water, it proves how much heat is coming out. Concerns about wet steam were invalid -- as I mentioned. > The methods I provided work especially well long term. They can be > "restarted" at any time in the experiment . . . This would be more difficult and problematic than you imagine. I have spent many weeks working with large volumes of dangerously hot water in barrels. You probably have not, so I suggest you take my word for this. As I said, it could be done once during the run, but only in parallel with a standard steam test. When they standard water flow calorimetry it would not work and would not be needed. - Jed
