On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat <[email protected]>wrote:
> Note temps were recorded every 2 seconds and the quality of the produced > steam was measured to contain 1.2 to 1.4% water. Present were: Rossi, Levi, > Kullander, Essen, Leonardi, Focardi and Bianchini so I accept the data as > real. They used a relative humidity probe to "measure" steam quality. It is neither designed for that purpose, nor capable of performing that function. Those numbers are meaningless, and we have no better idea of the steam quality in that experiment than in any of the others. If steam quality were that easy to measure, why do turbine engineers perform calorimetry on steam to determine its quality? The fact that those present were satisfied with a measurement of relative humidity disqualifies them as expert observers. The claim of dry steam a few minutes after boiling is reached has exactly the same problem as in the megacat demo. It means the power transfer must magically increase 7-fold in about 3 minutes, even though it took 17 minutes to increase the power one-fold, or about 35 times the rate of transfer increase. In this case, the power after ignition is claimed to be about 10 times higher than the electrical heat, but they also claim ignition happened at 60C, which means we can see how fast the power is increasing *with* the ecat running, and it's not nearly fast enough to reach full vaporization 3 minutes after boiling. It's true that the reported electrical power is not enough to even reach boiling in this demo, so that suggests some heat production in the ecat. On the other hand, the input power is somehow not monitored in this experiment. It is only measured at the beginning. It would have been rather easy to increase it by a factor of 2, which would have been enough to take the system to the boiling point. In this demo as in others, they monitor the temperature every few seconds, even though the temperature is not expected to change during a 7-fold increase in power. But they don't measure the steam flow rate (speed), which *would* be expected to change during this claimed power increase, and would provide some support for the claim of dry steam. The incompetence is just amazing. Of course, sparging the steam would have been even better. > For me this is better proof that Rossi does have a working and stable LENR > reactor than the 6 Oct or 28 Oct tests. It is probably the best one that was done, but can be explained by a small misrepresentation in the power input. But even if you accept the data, and if the ecat is producing its own heat, it only needs about 300 W to explain all the observations, not 4.4 kW as they claimed. That means that the amount of energy (about 6 MJ) is perfectly consistent with some kind of chemical energy produced by the ecat.
