On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some > strange assertions. > > > http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/**fragelada/resurser/cold_**fusion_krivit.pdf<http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf> > > "Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely > since the > losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it would heat the room > perceptibly." > > It would heat the area around the e-cat, and people who have observed the > tests tell me that it does. Tell you? Which people? Why is it not mentioned in any of the reports or the videos? In the January video, the ambient temperature is recorded and you can see from a frame capture on esowatch that it is constant from before the experiment begins until after it is shut down. And from Levi's report, you can see that it is quite cool in the room, at 17.2C. It's not clear where the ambient temperature is measured, but the only connections to the computer come from those two probes (input water, output steam), and the power. So, probably the ambient temperature is measured in the handle of one of the probes, quite near the ecat. So, there is no indication that the area around the ecat is significantly warmed up. > However it would not heat the room if the thermostat is nearby the reactor. > On the contrary, it would cool down the rest of the room, in winter with > central heating or in summer with central air. > The ecat is in the middle of the room. That's an unlikely place for the thermostat. In fact, in Krivit's video, there appears to be a thermostat near one of the doors, quite a distance from the ecat, and not by the door that the hose goes through. Anyway, the idea that the rest of the room would cool would only apply if the heating and cooling capacities were greater than 5 kW, and I doubt it's true in either case. 5 kW heating for that room is highly unlikely in Bologna, where the coldest mean temperatures are above freezing. On Jan 14, the high was 4C, and the indoor temperature of 17.2 C (before the experiment) suggests modest heating capacity, and that it was probably going full strength. This is also consistent with the steam radiator that appears in the video, which looks like about 2 kW in size using the radiator sizing guide at colonialsupply.com. The adjacent rooms seem to have electric space heaters in them about 1.5 kW each. Significant heat from the ecat (5 kW) would certainly have heated the room under those conditions. It is also very likely that the room has no air conditioning, considering on the day Krivit was there the ambient temperature was 30ºC, and the steam radiator can't supply cooling. There doesn't appear to be any forced air, nor any windows to the outside. The high on that day was 27C. A 5 kW heater in such a room without air conditioning on such a day would heat it by much more than 3C. (The temperature does climb in the room during the experiment, according to the computer screen, but it is over a few hours in mid-afternoon, in a room with no evident air conditioning.) > It is a big room and I doubt that 5 kW would make much difference. That > would be the equivalent of 3 U.S. electric room heaters. There are large > offices with more heaters than that under people's desks. Maybe, if the offices are in tents pitched in Alaska in winter. Each of those heaters would require its own 15 A circuit, and offices typically supply no more than one such circuit for every few desks. A 5 kW heater will heat a 4 by 6 foot sauna to 100C. 5 kW heaters are used to heat large machine sheds. The observers would not fail to comment on that level of heat. > I have one myself. That's probably a violation of fire laws but anyway, > they do not make the offices warm. Also, the aggregate office equipment and > lighting in a large office or grocery store consumes a lot more than 5 kW > but those places are not noticeably hot. > The room in which the ecat is demonstrated is not that big. There is room for 2 or maybe 3 desks, and office computers typically consume 150W. Lighting for such a room would be maybe 500W florescent, for a total of 1 kW or so. At the very most, double that, and still it is less than half of the claimed power of the ecat. > > Anyway, Ekstrom is wrong. Most of the heat is going down the drain, as > steam or hot water. > You're confused. That's what Ekstrom is saying. He's saying there is no way, the hose and ecat can dissipate more than a few hundred watts, so most of the power is going down the drain. The problem is, to look at what is going down the drain, it is not more than a few hundred watts itself. It was *Rossi*, who after evidently agreeing with Ekstrom that what is coming out of the hose represents very little power, said that the hose is dissipating 5 kW of heat. He actually claims it's more than 5 kW, meaning what comes out of the hose must be negative power. Rossi's response to Ekstrom does not make sense.
