The appended response appears to be nonsensical. Perhaps it is due to
a language barrier?
The calculation provided appears to be meaningless. It appears to
*assume* a priori a free flow of steam, i.e. no percolator effects,
no pressure or flow variations. Also, it would be more professional
if physical units and descriptions were actually provided for the
input values, which amount to assumptions.
Actual pressure *measurements* inside the vertical column, not
calculations, are required. Note that the type of pump used, at least
in the initial experiments, varies the water input pressure
significantly. It pumps with a loud "clack-clack-clack" noise in the
demo experiment videos. The water is pumped in surges. That is a
perfect set-up to initiate water spray or bubbling percolator type
effects.
I would also note that my comments were in regard to the January-
April tests, which involved supposedly large powers, about 12 kW.
I made generous allowances on the size estimates for the hose. It
should indeed radiate less than estimated. However, do you not see
that the *less* energy the hose radiates the less water output from
the hose can be accounted for due to condensation inside the hose,
the *more* that water has to accounted for from another source, and
therefore the *worse* the estimates of power out are?
I see this kind of discussion as relatively meaningless, because no
amount of talk can replace sound calorimetry. This discussion is
just talk from the peanut gallery.
What I take as most obvious and not just talk is that it is less than
diligent to invest in a free energy scheme without having independent
professional calorimetry on the energy inputs and, especially, the
energy outputs. Further, as anyone knows who has been in this field
long, it is essential to measure a complete energy balance, not just
track power.
It is nonsensical in the extreme to simply run the output down a sink
drain. It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would
invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and
inexpensive science being applied.
As I said last April, this is a case of a lot of hoopla and maybe
money changing hands, when the basic science applied to the main
claim, excess heat, is laughable. The science applied to that issue
is less than amateur. Personally, I don't see any sense in wasting
much time even discussing further, because the evidence is so shabby.
The whole thing looks like a big joke at this point. It looks like a
Barnum and Bailey act, "the greatest show on earth!" That's what I
said in April. Apparently nothing has changed. I still see no point
in further discussion from here in the peanut gallery. It is a far
better use of time to merely wait until the end of the year and see
what develops.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
The pressure of the hose is too small, in another thread I wrote
this :
"Considering a stream of 10m/s, 1.5g/s out of the hose, with, 5cm2 of
area, the pressure inside above 1atm the chamber is
P=F/A=(1.5*10(-3)*10)/5*10(-4)=(1.5*10(-2)*10(4))/5=1.5*20=30N/m2 or
and increase of 3*10(-4) atm."
It cannot raise water more than 3 milimeters. That sort of rubber, I
made some calculations elsewhere, does not radiate more than 25W per
meter. The steam must be dry to be pumped out.
A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by
volume of
gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by
controlling
the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat applied to
the chamber.
Active controllers exist in the Rossi device.
