These tests would require direct fraudulent action by Rossi. Bad calorimetry
(ignoring water overflow) is insufficient to explain the power.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166567.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+19+April+2011.pdf
Energy calculation:
Conservative value of inlet water temperature, T2: 22.5°C
Boiling temperature: 99,5°C
ΔT= 77K
Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/(kg x K)
Energy required for heating water, Wheat = 321.86 kJ/kg = 89.41 Wh/kg
4.12 kg/h water flow
If the data is correct, only 368 watts are required to bring the water to its
boiling temperature.
They measured 36 watts from the controller, and 354 watts with the "heater on".
That leaves 318 watts for the heater(s). That most likely corresponds to a blue
box power level of "1".
When Mats measured this test, it was merely 1.35A through the load. In the
October 6th test with the same blue box, a power level of "5" corresponded to
7.2Amps through the load, and a power level of "9" corresponded to 11.9A
through the load.
If the input is not constantly monitored, Rossi could easily raise the power
level from "1" to "10" and provide enough power to vaporize the water flow.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3166569.ece/BINARY/Report+test+of+E-cat+28+April+2011.pdf
Energy calculation:
Inlet water temperature, T3: 20°C
Boiling temperature: 99.5°C
ΔT= 79.5 K
Heat capacity of water is 4.18 kJ/(kg x K)
Energy required for heating water, Wheat = 332 kJ/kg = 92 Wh/kg
4.12 kg/h water flow
If the data is correct, only 379 watts are required to bring the water to its
boiling temperature. They measured 65 watts from the controller (I wonder why
this is so much higher than the controls took 9 days earlier?), and 378 watts
with the "heater on". That leaves 313 watts for the heater(s). That most likely
corresponds to a blue box power level of "1".
If the input is not constantly monitored, Rossi could easily raise the power
level from "1" to "10" and provide enough power to vaporize the water flow.
