Thanks for converting the file. It may have been saved in Excel 2007 without "compatible mode."
As to the methods you discuss: Method 1 is great if you can trust the power in, secondary flow rate, and the thermocouple readings. - Even though the power in was only spot-checked, I feel good about it. The secondary flowmeter was fine, but should have been recorded regularly (not a deal-breaker). The secondary thermocouple placement was awful, not in contact with the water, placed somewhere (we only have Rossi's finger) close to the center of the manifold, in the same air cavity as the hot side, where supposedly dry steam is condensing. This is a HUGE power difference over a span of inches. Methos 2 is great if you can trust the water flow rate in, which is not recorded, and is neccessarily lower than Rossi has claimed. But you also would have to know that all of the incoming water is vaporized. This is not possibly with the data provided, without accepting the information from the secondary. You cite the temperature as evidence, but the temperature actually contradicts full vaporization. All of this has been explained succinctly ad nauseum, so please do not ask for any details on it Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 18:02:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past . . . That is in Microsoft Excel format. I will try converting it to Acrobat. But, I must say that your allusion to "the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement" is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a circular argument. I do not see what you mean. Method 1 is the flow rate and temperature difference in the cooling loop. Method 2 is the flow rate of the fluid coming from the reactor, with the assumption that the fluid was all vaporized, which is reasonable given the temperature. I do not see how one can be dependent or contingent on the other. Method 1 would work just as well even if the fluid coming from the reactor was not vaporized, or not close to boiling. - Jed
