2011/9/15 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>: > > The claims made for months that all the water was being converted to steam > has been utterly crushed! > > Krivit was clearly right on his seven points. >
True, but his seven points had nothing to do with Rossi, but it was all to do with Levi and Galantini, who measured completely irrelevant variables, because they did not understand what was necessary to measure. Rossi knew exactly how much energy E-Cat was producing. And as I have studied it, I also know quite accurately total energy produced by all demonstrations. Here is some homework for you to do: Here are two graphs. Just from these graphs (ignore Test2), could you please work out the numbers and calculate what is the total heating power of E-Cat within these time intervals. Assume that 16:55 E-Cat is full of cool water, and water inflow rate is ca. 15 kg/h. A) from 16:55 (power turned on) 17:25 (first kink in the graph) B) from 17:25 to 17:35 (diminishing derivative) C) from 17:35 to 17:50 (second kink in the graph) D) from 17:50 to 18:00 (the beginning of flat temperature) E) from 18:00 to 18:05 (kink in the flat temperature line, power off) F) from 18:05 to 18:20 (sudden temperature drop) Some questions to ponder. Why temperature rise was constant during the A-period? Why temperature graph was saw like during timeperiod C? What was the temperature during period E? And why did temperature drop drastically after the end of time perioid F? Power graph (Test1) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwEjduFixI/AAAAAAAAE1M/lv4Osmoyro4/s1600/report5.png and corresponding steam/water temperature graph http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/AAAAAAAAE1E/TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg If you can answer these questions, please do. If you cannot answer these question, please do not claim that your criticism is anyway rational. > More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, > the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical > has been created, the basis for the "calorimetry" of the public demos, is > now shown to be without basis in fact. This is Mats Lewan's and only Mats Lewan's idea. Rossi does not think so. And it would not make any sense to ANY engineer anyway, because such a state where "all water is converted into steam" is not physically stable state of the system. System is no in equilibrium. This only shows that you do not understand much about engineering. Frankly I am disappointed your ad hominem filled and extremely insulting message, as it is only based on your lack of understanding what was happening in the Bologna. But one hint for you that do not look what Mats Lewan said, but look only raw data what he provided. Then calculate yourself, if you can. Of course you need to be creative, what might be problem for you, because no-one has has not cooked the data so that it is easy to digest. > The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer than the > water that pulses out with it is irrelevant. True but, this just shows, that you and Krivit does no nothing about the steam physics, because you are misusing concepts and you are inventing new definitions for physical concepts. > The > important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being converted to > steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the prior "calorimetry" claims > were. > That does not have nothing to do with Rossi, because those silly claims were made by Galantini, Levi, et al. scientists, who did not know anything what they were doing. Galantini even misread his instrument as he thought that it measured the pressure where the probe is inside. This clearly shows, that he did not know anything what he was doing. You are mixing the claims made by Rossi and the claims made by independent scientists. Rossi has not done any claims, but he has just left independent scientists to measurements as they please. Too bad that they did not have much idea about calorimetry. But as I am looking you, Horace, they were not in bad company because neither does you have much creative ideas how to make calorimetry. E.g. your criticism about steam sparging test, was clearly shown to you that it is not from this world, but it was your misunderstanding of proper methods. > Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult > regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self > deception. What do you mean by equilibrium? If you are referring that all water is evaporated, there is no such thing. Only stable state of equilibrium is when E-Cat is producing less heat than cooling water can absorb. If you know anything about boiling water reactor technology (you may make a case study with Fukushima BWRs) then you should know, that there is always liquid water present. This is the basics of any steam technology and this has been always the case with E-Cats. The fact that you do not know too much about BWRs and calorimetry does not mean that things are more clear to Rossi, who has made water boilers quite many decades. > None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. > Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality > input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. Public does not need to know anything before October. Those who want to know and does posses some rudimentary ability to analyze the raw data, they can say with high probability what was the Your argumentation is completely silly, because you fail to understand that there is required only to hide 3 liters of ethanol to fake results. Why this is for you so difficult to admit? There is far easier methods to do fakes than rely to that you will hire incompetent scientist. > Since the public is being kept in the dark, the months of fluffy bluster > does, however, tip the scales more strongly toward a negative verdict. Put money where your mouth is. How much money you are willing to bet? If you do not invest money for your opinions your opinions are worthless. –Jouni
