On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Randy Wuller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lewan's 2nd test in april adequately measured the output energy to > establish O/I of over 3/1. Since steam quality and output measurements have > been questioned and used as a basis to argue that the various Rossi tests > failed to demonstrate O/I, it is unique. That calculation also requires an assumption that the steam that escapes at the end of the hose is dry. That is highly unlikely. If in fact, a fine mist or fog was entrained in that steam, to explain the disappearance of water, very little gain is established. The best test is the E&K demo, because in that case, if the numbers are accepted, then it required an energy gain of at least 2, because the input energy was only enough to bring the water to about 60C. But as in the Lewan test, the input power was not monitored, and moreover, the total energy needed to explain wet steam is rather modest, and certainly does not rule out chemical heat. > > While manipulation of input energy, a hidden energy source or chemical > energy were not excluded by Lewan's 2nd test, it did confirm significant > measured output over input. > If the input energy was manipulated, then no, it doesn't, even if you accept that half the water was vaporized. But it's kind of academic anyway if a chemical source is not excluded. That was the point after all. Since the measured energy input was insufficient to vaporize any of the > 11.160 liters of water pumped through the Ecat True, it was marginal, so accepting the input as reported, some energy would be needed from the ecat to produce steam. But, judging by the feeble puff of steam at the end of the hose, not much. and since all the output, vapor and condensed water was collected by Lewan > in a bucket, Vapor and mist and fog were not collected. They escaped into the room.
