@Mats Lewan now says that for him the most convincing test of Rossi's device was one that he himself measured on October 6 2011. Well - Mats certainly has better test methodology than Penon - the ERV!
Mats – I’ve read your report. I’d like to apologise. Your test methodology is pretty good and far far better than that of Penon – the ERV – who famously did not record any details of the equipment he used, even when its results disagreed with the readings from a kWh meter.
I could nevertheless pick a few minor holes in the electrical measurements – but I’m not going to. A 100% error here is not significant.
Here is how I think it was done. The subtle indicators from the report are as below:
"Water temperature at the input and the output of the secondary loop was measured with thermocouples attached on the metal connections at the heat exchanger where the hoses were attached (see video) and the difference in temperature was used together with the value of the waterflow to calculate the output power."
The problem is that the TC temperature is not the water temperature. There is no reason to think the water heats up to equal the heat exchanger temperature – in fact at high flow rates in particular this is unlikely. The deltaT is small which means it is difficult for you to check in any other way what is the real output temperature of the water, although I guess a thermometer in the collected 1 litre buckets when the water is flowing fast would help. (You need several to ensure you are really measuring water that was flowing fast through the heat exchanger – I don’t assume speed stays constant).
To get a COP of 10 (and maybe even believe it himself) all Rossi needs is a heat exchanger where the casing is hotter than the water inside.
"At start:Total AC current 142 mA. Over all AC voltage 229 V => 32W
During SSM: Overall current 544 mA. Voltage 230 V. => 130W"
We don’t know how the power changes during SSM of course, because you are measuring it at start and end with maybe one more measurement. But if we suppose these readings correct throughout there is at least 100W going into the device to keep it hot during SSM. (You might want to multiply that by 2 due to electrical issues which generally I’m not going to address here, because I don’t think that is the main issue).
“Water from a tap was fed to the secondary loop of the heat exchanger. The heated output water was led through a long hose to a well outside the building.”
OK, so can I ask, when you measured water flow rate, where were you? The main issue here is that water flow rate could be reduced during SSM. The e-cat has a high heat capacity so it is the average flow rate that matters. Could this not have changed? Having the water output in such a different place from the main equipment makes it very easy for the flow rate to be increased when you are outside measuring. Even if Rossi goes with you, he can increase the flow rate before he leaves the building and decrease it after he returns.
(5)Comments about steam. That is irrelevant. If steam is generated and condenses there is no heat required so the whole steam thing is a distraction which makes it seem as though this device does something useful. In reality it heats up water by a few degrees (or much less than that) depending on the water flow rate in the heat exchanger and possibly other variables you do not control. (It could be for example that the water flows mostly through parts of the H-E that are much colder than the part measured with TC).
I can’t tell what went wrong in this test. there are too many possibles:
(1) At least 100W appears to be going into the device when it is off. That could be significantly higher due to electrical issues. also, that could change when not being checked. Why was the input power so much higher at the test end (when this would help keep it hot during SSM) than the test start?
(2) the test is designed so that you can only check the flow rate when out of the building…. enough said!
(3) The determination of water temperature coming out of the device is not safe because the heat exchanger temperature will not equal the water temperature.
Overall I think the SSM comes from power in during SSM and flow rate change. The device has very high specific heat capacity so would naturally stay hot, especially with a little power top-up. The COP when active comes from water temperature different from TC temperature and possibly flow rate change and possibly electrical measurement issues (relatively small factor).
You see there is quite a choice. You might have additional info that could narrow it down.