Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It
likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C.
I think with this new method this is not so important.
With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a hidden
place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry.
There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam
and metal.
This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than
required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through insulation
losses). The excess energy has to go into heating the steam.
If more energy is supplied, this will not give false overunity results.
It is absolutely unnecessary to know the temperature inside. It is
absolutely sufficient if we know the input and the final output.
So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more.
The pressure is above air pressure always.
We can assume no such thing. The water shown coming out of the exit
port at the top was clearly not at 130°C. The pressure clearly was
not high. The pressure appears highly variable, indicating the
possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism.
If water at 130° comes out it will immediately start to boil and
vaporize until it is cooled down to 100°. Therefore we can assume, that
the water that finally comes out of the hose is at 100 degrees.
When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately
start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees.
This did not happen at the top exit port in the video.
I think this process is very fast and happened already at the pressure
reduction valve.
It did happen, when they finally opened the input valve. Steam and water
came out. This valve is at the bottom water level and at the coldest
level. So if the water where 100° or colder then there wouldnt have been
any steam.
Of course you can assume this is a tricky fraud, but this is impossible
to prove via internet. Only time and Rossi can answer this question, I
cannot. Therefore I dont assume fraud or tricks, because this is
impossible via internet.
Best regards,
Peter
