# 7[kg/h] of steam through a 10[mm] hose. [5 kW]

• A few days ago I watched again the old video where Steven Krivit interviews Rossi in Italy:

It is probably the event that started the controversy between the two men.

Krivit commented the “test” a long time ago with this:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/n…1/37/3713appendixa9.shtml

The recent article on popular mechanics also reviewed the subject:
http://www.popularmechanics.co…on-20-whos-scamming-whom/

I had never done the numbers of Krivit myself because the dispute is not one of my favourite subjects. But I remembered that the “test” had been criticized not only by Krivit, but also by others (there were other Youtube videos ridiculing the event): Rossi declared that the peristaltic pump was pumping 7 kg of water per hour, which was going out as steam, and then showed the steam flowing out of a hose at a very low rate.

I thought, wait a minute, 7 [kg/h] are about 2 [g/s]; at 100 [C] those 2 grams should be a fairly large volume that would cause a much higher speed in a 10 [mm] hose.
Then I did the numbers, which anyone can do in a minute, and probably thousands have done.
PV=NRT, so the 1.95 [g/s] correspond to 0.108 [mol/s] of water, and a volume of about 3,300,000 [mm3/s]. This volume is the minimum volume possible for steam, because at more than 100 [C] it would be even more.
The hose had a diameter of about 10 [mm], which gives a cross section of 78.5 [mm2].
The exit speed from the tube should have therefore been:
3,300,000[mm3/s] / 78.5[mm2] = 42,000[mm/s] = 42 [m/s]=151 [Km/h]! (in Imperial Units it is roughly 94 [mph]). It is practically the same result of Krivit.

Having steam flowing at 42 [m/s] out of a hose is something that could create problems in a laboratory.

Well, the speed shown by Rossi and Levi can be estimated to be at most 0.4 [m/s] (I do not particularly like Krivit, but agree with him in this case as well).

Then a series of questions come to my mind:

What was wrong? Rossi was absolutely sure about the 7[kg/h]. Levi and Focardi were present and listening to the declarations of Rossi.

My intuition tells me also that a speed of 42 [m/s] would generate an impulse on the tube that would most probably run the hose loose out of the hole in the wall …

I would imagine that what was coming out of the hose was water and steam, so that the majority of the 2[g/s] was liquid.

In fact at 11:05 Rossi took the hose and (“just a moment, just a moment …"), before extracting it, he carefully raised it and waited a few seconds as to let the liquid water in that part of the hose flow out unseen behind the wall; then Rossi with a quick gesture (a bit too quick to look natural …) turned up the hose end immediately after it exited the hole, and and then kept it straight vertical as to prevent any further water flow.

Then Rossi talked about the visibility of dry steam. His steam is very hot ... It was more than clear from the visible turbulence that the exit speed of the steam was VERY low.

Was the e-cat not actually working when Krivit recorded the video?

I know this is VERY OLD stuff, and has probably already been discussed at length, but can anyone please help me understand what happened?

• In his calculations (Part 2) Rossi considers the water temperature with 1/10th of Celsius precision, and then uses a single value for the cp, which changes significantly between 25 and 100 C. Rossi should have calculated the difference in the enthalpies …
• Rossi, while describing the e-cat says that the water is evaporated in the chimney. Actually exchanging about 5 kW (corresponding to heating 2[g/s] of water from 25 C to 100 C and evaporating it) on a small surface like that of the inner jacket of the module shown (just guessing the size), would cause a violent boiling, so that the steam should have come from the boiling at the jacket surface and not from a smooth phase change in the chimney.
• Why is Rossi insisting in using Wh/h instead of simply saying W?

The post was edited 2 times, last by Andrea Calaon ().

• It is only if you are cheating that you need a 10 [m] long hose to hold warm water and a glory hole in the wall to dump it in.

If you are not cheating you use a 1 [m] hose that you stick into 10 [dm3] of cold water in a coolbox, wait 5 [min], measure the temperature increase, calculate energy absorbed by water [kWh/h], divide by electric input [kWh/h] and find that COP = 0.92 [].

As simple as that is is. Not more complicated at all.

• The 10m hose is playing the role of cooling radiator. So the water has the time to cool down before going out.

The steam shown by Rossi isn't dry steam otherwise you couldn't see it. It was wet steam. There is condensation inside the hose.

This is weird calorimetry.

• Arnaud, if Rossi wants to show steam, isn't it rather stupid of him to condense most of it before showing the little that is left?

No, the long hose is not for cooling, it is for holding unvaporized water until it can be discretely disposed of though the hole in the wall in the next room.

The post was edited 1 time, last by H-G Branzell ().

• Rossi flushed out the content of the hose in the wall's hole before showing the steam. You are right that he was stupid to show the steam as he did! Rising more questions than answers. Rossi made a second show case with a gas or liquid to liquid exchanger. I don't remember if it was more or less conclusive about excess heat.

• Calaon asked "Why is Rossi insisting in using Wh/h instead of simply saying W? "

The electricity companies charge us in 25c/ kWhr.
Their standard unit of energy is kWhr.

I personally find the Whr and kWhr a clumsy unit to deal with,
because the standard physics unit is W.s or Joules.( but in Lenr it seems to be eV)

I have seen Rossi's approach used in school textbooks to emphasize the
fact that power is energy/time and the process of multiplying Wh/h by h to get energy.