On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > Joshua Cude wrote: > > There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W >> input. >> > You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any >> steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat. >> > > What are you talking about. You just did the calculation yourself showing > that it takes only 3/4 of that (600W) to bring the water to the boiling > point. If you are putting 800W into the cell, and the only way you are > taking it out is with water, some of the water would vaporize. > > > Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it > radiates from the cell into the surroundings. > The cell is insulated. > The "recovery rate" for the water flowing through will be maybe 50% to 75%. > In other words, only 400 to 600 W reaches the water. > I don't believe it. Then the insulation would be radiating 200W to 400W. Not plausible. But go ahead. Try to make it plausible. Estimate the area and the temperature necessary for this. And if you're claiming 50 - 75 % for any power, then at 5 kW, about 2.5 kW would have to radiate from the insulation. Are you claiming that? > Rossi is claiming these things produce multi-kW, but only a few hundred > watts are enough to explain all the quoted data. > > > You have it backwards. Rossi is assuming the steam is dry, which it almost > certainly is. Based on that assumption he estimates that it produces > multiple kilowatts. He does not start off with that assumption and then work > backwards. *You* are doing that! You assume there must be only 800 W so > there has to be some way to explain these temperatures and the appearance of > the steam, and there must be hot water coming through. > No, I'm looking at the output, at the temperature curves and concluding that dry steam is laughably implausible, and therefore I do not accept the claim of multi-kW output. > > Rossi has spent a lot of time with teapot-shaped flow calorimeters, where > the steam exit is placed well above the hot surface. That ensures dry steam, > as long as you keep the flow rate reasonable. > No. It doesn't. Whatever the fluid is, and regardless of the shape, it's gonna flow through. It does it as a liquid, and it does it as a steam-liquid mixture. There's a pump forcing it through. > > You're saying even those few hundred watts prove a nuclear effect, and > maybe if they ran it long enough there would be something, if all the > numbers were really nailed down with credible observers. But if it's really > nuclear, why is this experiment, just like all CF experiments, in this > pergatory, where it's even possible to quibble day after day? Why is there > never enough power to make it obvious, and better, to power itself? > > > There is enough power to make it obvious! > Even several of the CF advocates here are skeptical, so it is clearly not obvious. > There will be self-powered ones with electric power generation within a > year or so. > And will that be used to power the CF car you predicted would be built before the year 2000?
