Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of a
guess. Why dosen't Rossi verify syeam quality. A simple steam velocity would
verify steam quality yet I see no attemp being made to do so. An error in
flow rate has already been noted and there is no way the steam could be dry.
Coupled with the fact that Levi has attested to 50% of steam being condensed
in the hose and we have that power is probably not even 1/4 of what Rossi
says. How can steam be condensing at 50% rate in the hose when the heat
transfer through the hose isn't sufficient. This makes me nervous and
suspicious of the calorimetry. Rosii's cavalier dismissal of important
issues like steam quality. His insistance that relative humidity will
measure it, his refusal to measure quality, and a seeming lack of knowledge
of the enthalpy of hydride formation and thernal inertia are screaming for
independent calorimetry (preferably not flow calorimetry). Even with 50% of
steam condensed in the hose the velocity of steam from the hose should be
noticeably higher than is observed. I must conclude that he has nothing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
Horace Heffner wrote:
As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was typically
~300 ml/min I believe.
Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after death
observation?
How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into
the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be like
trying to do it without measuring the temperature.
It does correspond roughly to 12 kW boiling power. Of course, it could
also mean water was pushed out of the top of the device during the run
merely giving the appearance of 12 kW output when it is assumed all water
is boiled.
If that happened, the temperature would drop. You can see that easily.
For that matter, if you cannot tell when there is steam by the
temperature, the method would not work at any time, under any conditions,
whether there is input power or not. The data would be meaningless; all of
the results would be in error. This error would have been revealed during
the 18-hour flowing water test, as Rossi and I have pointed out many
times.
The input power is 80 to 400 W, which is small fraction of the output
power, so cutting it off entirely has little effect on the total output.
Obviously, reducing overall output from ~12 kW to ~11.2 kW will not stop
the thing from boiling!
A calorimetric error mistaking 400 W for 12,000 W is out of the question.
The worst flow calorimeter imaginable would not produce such a large
error.
I am curious as to how the steam was observed if the hose was in the
drain. If the steam stopped then water pouring out of the hose should
have followed immediately if the 5 ml/s pump rate was maintained.
If the steam was stopped, the temperature would drop immediately. There is
a constant flow of water into the cell. It takes little time to replace
all of the water with cold water. If the only source of heat was
electricity, two things are certain:
1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt. You
can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an ordinary wire.
2. Boiling would stop within seconds, and the temperature would drop.
It is notable that in the right conditions "steam" will be seen coming
off a hot bowl of soup, or even a cool river. You can't actually see
steam of course, only condensation. Too bad there is no video of this
event.
You cannot tell much about steam by looking at a photo or video. You
cannot discern the quality of the steam. Lomax claimed here that he can
determine the velocity of the steam by looking, but he did not describe
his method. I do not think that is possible.
- Jed
