Jed, Agreed. The 18 hour test, assuming the observations we are given are fact, would be conclusive.
I made the comment about someone "flushing the toilet" to demonstrate that some of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure. There was no continuous monitoring of flow rate, and this was not a fixed-displacement pump. It is not an effort to discount the test as a whole, but to merely demonstrate the problems that arise when measurements are replaced with assumptions. I could've said that while Rossi and Levi were watching the temperature rise, Focardi thought that it would be a good time to fill the hot tub. It's lack of official reports and data that raise doubts to the 18 hour test. It effectively lives as an anecdote. Assuming the numbers supplied were true, and not tarnished by fraud or slight-of-hand, they do show remarkable energy production. Some skepticism is healthy here. Most skeptics will be satisfied by a properly documented, sufficiently long, single-phase test by a neutral third-party (hopefully a few of them with controls). Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: >Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: > >Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short >> time. > > >About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this >equipment, at this flow rate. > > >Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and >> that would be for a long time, relatively. > > >They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones >I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50. >("Sub-meters" are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler >room for one boiler.) > > >However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short >> time. Gremlins? >> > >Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and >something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply >entities unnecessarily. > > > >> What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof >> of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables. >> > >There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet >temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time >to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to >the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That >cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after >the transient. > >- Jed
