On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
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 apparently haven't seen the documentation of the calorimetry for
that test. Eighteen minutes of "excess" heat is meaningless. What
matters is energy balance long term.
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.
Baloney. It is up to the researchers to show the useful methods were
actually applied. Why to they shy away from the one thing that can
be done without looking inside the device, namely measuring the total
energy flow out of the device, which can be done without looking
inside the device? Maybe I missed the documentation of calorimetry
done in some test.
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.
And that is precisely *my* point. A small amount of heat plus 400
watts equals not much thermal power to measure.
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.
This is total baloney.
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.
Ha! Funny! I suppose the ice calorimetry is too dangerous too!
Might get frostbite I suppose. Whatever heat comes out of the
device, it is coming out of a small hose. It is not difficult to put
a Y valve in the hose and diver the flow if things get too hot too
fast. If that happened that would be a good thing. It is nonsense,
however, to *assume* it will happen.
As I said, it could be done once during the run,
It can be done multiple times, and continuously.
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
Dual method calorimetry is always superior to single method
calorimetry. Rossi undoubtedly could have had professional dual
method calorimetry supplied for free.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
