On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 31-8-2011 0:01, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
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.
This is false. If the flow is 3 ml/s then any input power above
1617 W will provide a flue temperature at boiling point. If no
one measures the output of the hose, but rather assumes dry
steam, then the apparent power is over 12000 W.
Just a reality check to see how thick a (VDE-approved) single
copper wire you need at least to transfer 12 kW of power through.
Copper resistivity / m =
0.0175
wire thickness theoretically possible "approved (norm)"
Imax (A) 230V
1 phase
A (mm2) D (mm) R/m (Ω) Imax (A) Pmax (W) Pmax (W)
8.0 3.19 0.00219 53.33 12267 53.00 12250
As far as I can see from the photos of the Rossi reactor, the wires
to the heating resistors are a lot smaller than the 3.19 mm
diameter (= approx. AWG 8 !)
Kind regards,
MoB
You have missed the point entirely. An electric power input of 1617 W
will look like 12000 W if the flow is 5 ml/s and no one bothers to
see what is coming out of the hose and exit port. The outlet
temperature will remain stable at boiling point. This flaw in
Rossi's "calorimetry" was hopefully clearly demonstrated by
Cantwell's experiment and my analysis here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Cantwell2.pdf
You don't have to actually input 12000 W electrical because the
calorimetry can be off by an order of magnitude. If the flow rate is
5 ml/s then 1617 W will provide fake results, if a flow of 0.3 ml/s
is used then 970 W will do. If the flow is 0.83 ml/s, as calculated
by Mattia Rizzi for one run, then 268 W will do to fake the 12000 kW
results. The problem is the need to measure the flow and all other
key variables at all times
In Cantwell's case, where the power was 800 W, water should overflow
at *all* flows under 3 ml/s. Looking for this overflow has been
avoided by Rossi (and Cantwell.) In short you don't need to provide
a lot of power if you don't look at the water output. If Rossi is
so sure his device produces dry steam then he could simply
continually track power in and remove the hose to demonstrate that no
water is pouring out of his device by the percolator effect I
hopefully explained clearly here. He could simply use a transparent
hose section. He could do actual calorimetry on the stuff going to
the hose. Rossi and associates should not (have to) resort to using
a relative humidity meter that even the manufacturer even says is not
capable of measuring steam quality.
If enough power is provided to heat the flowing water to at minimum
boiling point (way less than 12000 W in all cases demonstrated), and
a relative humidity probe and flue thermometer are your only windows
into what is happening at the exit port, then you have no means to
determine within a wide margin what the thermal output actually is.
Without quality measurement and integration of the the power input
and thermal power output, in order to compute an energy balance, no
assertion of excess heat can be made with reasonable certainty.
Power within the stated capability of the controller and power leads
is sufficient to simulate large (kW order) heat flows, depending on
the water flow rate.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
