On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Horace wrote: «What you say might be true if the public tests were
reasonably well done. They weren't. There is thus no reason to
believe closed door results were done any more competently unless
sufficient information is published to make that determination.»
This is not the case. There was nothing wrong with the experimental
setup, because they were done in open manner that Rossi invited
independ scientists to do the measurements, but non of them thought
that calorimetry is necessary. Even Mats Lewan failed to do this
although he had all the resources to do proper calorimetri. Also
Lewan had careful preparatio, unlike Kullander and Essén, who did
not know what to expect. Actually I asked less than a month ago and
Lewan still thinks that calorimery was not necessary and his method
was sound.
All the opinions in the world can not change the fact that water was
probably coming out of the device in large mass proportions, whither
or not the device produced some nuclear heat. If a large proportion
of the water, by mass, came out as liquid then the calorimetry was
ineffective.
That Jed's "expert" was not expert at all that he would have expert
knowledge from E-Cat. He just stated general and obvious fact that
all water boilers on Earth produce dry steam, because there is now
such physical concept as "wet steam" in steam physics that is
anyway relevant with E-Cat. Expert was just asked does he think
that steam was very wet and he replied that it was not wet steam
because wet steam is not stable physical state of water in close to
normal pressures. (Frankly I still wonder who was the first crack
potter who introduced the concept Wet Steam, because it is
physically inaccurate concept. At least if someone could provide a
reference that descripes experimental setup that produces wet
steam, because no one here at vortex has ever seen wet steam, but
they just assume it.)
If you want to see wet steam as I have described it, as generated by
the peroclator effect, just take the hose off the demo device when it
is in equilibrium in the operating range showed here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/KrivitFilm.pdf
which is around 748 W in, and water flow of 1.94 gm/s at 2°C. Keep
your body protected lest you get scalded! Oh I forgot, you are not
actually Rossi ... or are you? 8^)
If there is no nuclear heat produced then the steam flow should be 83
ml/s, the water flow out the exit 1.89 ml/s. This output is steam
which is about 2% "wet" by volume. It will likely *not* be wet in
the form of suspended water droplets to which Palm referred,
however. Almost no energy is going into providing 83 ml/s steam,
only 120.6 W out of 748 W, while 627.4 W goes into simply heating
the flowing water to boiling. If nuclear heat is present then the
water out will be less but the ejection velocity will be much higher.
Point is that you are wrong along with Krivit that we would not
have any means to do calorimetry retrospectively.
The measurements required for even an amateur level of calorimetry
were not taken. The products that went into the hose went down the
drain. This leaves us with guesswork at best.
Please review my last post. Also you should review the report for
December test and ignore what Levi did calculate and make your own
proper calculations. If you cannot come up with method of
calculating enthalpy in creative way, then it is your problem. But
you are in the situation that no expert knowledge does help you,
but you need to come up something creative. Although, being
creative is not that easy.
In summary, Rossi is completely innocent for lack of calorimetry.
He did not have any influence on enthalpy measurements, because
measuring enthalpy was task assigned for independent scientists
such as Levi and Lewan.
Who is determined to be at fault is irrelevant to the extent it can
not change the fact the Rossi demonstrations proved nothing because
the calorimetry was so flawed. Calorimetry on the what came out of
the output port was not done, nor was that output even observed
visually. My calculations show that water came out even at power
levels where large amount of nuclear power might have been generated.
Rossi's assertion that the steam was "dry" is thus simply wishful
thinking, without any physical evidence.
—Jouni
Ps. I agree, that 18 hour test gave probably too high power output.
It is probably off the mark by factor of two. There is simple
physics that 130kW output would have lead into core melt down,
because stailess steal is not fast enough heat conductor.
I agree with Jed:
On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I
think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based
on those demos would be insane, in my opinion.
Investors should clearly exercise due diligence before spending any
money on something like this with the expectation of fairly quick
profits.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
