On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua apparently wrote: > > >> > Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. >> > Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all >> > his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating >> > the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant >> > at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased >> > the temperature of the steam substantially. >> > > This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water > converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore, > the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what > it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not > ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per > second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, > during most of the test. > I get all of that. But you said: "The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW." And yet, in January it produced less than 12 kW. That is inconsistent. But it's worse than that, because of course, you will argue that the device does not have to be consistent, and the 18 hour test shows it can give 17 kW, so it should be able to produce less. It's worse, because the 18-hour claim was that the power varied between 15 and 20 kW, and in 18 hours, never went below 15 kW, and even went as high as 120 kW. Yet in the January demo, Rossi claims it produces 12 kW (or 12.4 or whatever) without variation for 40 minutes (actually it was stable for only 18 min). Can this be the same device. It looks implausible to me; perfectly stable one day and wildly erratic the next. In fact the claims of the 18-hour test suggest he was using something else entirely; maybe a coal-fired blast furnace for all we know.... > > No, he adjusts the power. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You > can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump > is at the same rate the whole time. > This appears to be consistent with all reports, although, it is possible to change the flow rate without changing the pulse frequency, by adjusting the stroke volume. > You can tell they measured the flow correctly because they used a weight > scale, which is the most reliable method. > But we have to believe their measurements, and these would be the simplest to misrepresent. And in the Krivit demo, he reports the flow rate on the video in the middle of the run, before it is weighed at the end. There seems to be pretty compelling evidence that the reported flow rates are exaggerated in several of the tests. The most compelling is when the flow rates exceed the maximum delivered by the pump they use, even when the frequency is *less* than the maximum the pump can use. Esowatch gives chapter and verse. In short, I accept that the flow rates are constant, but I am skeptical of the reported values. Large misrepresentations would be difficult, but if you take out the factor of 7 Rossi gets by claiming dry steam, it only leaves small, plausible misrepresentations in flow and power, and/or small chemical energy in the ecat to explain everything observed.
