Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 07/07/2012 7:25:43 AM PDT by Kevmo
Did you miss the first line in my post?
16 kWh=16kJ/sec
I don't care how many hours it ran, I just wanted to see how much "excess energy" was produced per second.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually intended to type KW instead of KWH,
I thought 1 kW was 1 kJ/sec? If you want to divide 233 kWh by 57600 seconds, you'll see the H2O2 needed is even less.
Your choice of experiments was pretty much misleading, as this experiment is the ONLY one in which an H2O2 "fake" will work. I have to wonder if that choice was deliberate.
I asked you and Kevmo to provide me with the info for an experiment, any experiment. You both ran away.
Kevmo pointed me to a thread about possible fakes.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2730401/posts
The January 2011 had enough detail and it was the first one I saw. Are you sure it's the only one where H2O2 will work?
I think you will find that H2O2 WILL NOT WORK for the tank-fed experiments (4.9 g/s flow instead of 833 g/s, outputs of 12kW and 16kW respectively).
I didn't see that one in Kevmo's link. You have a link for those trials?
"16 kWh=16kJ/sec"
"I thought 1 kW was 1 kJ/sec?"
All of which proves that you don't know the difference between a KW and a KWH.
"I asked you and Kevmo to provide me with the info for an experiment, any experiment. You both ran away."
LOL. You've been on these threads a long time, and have been told repeatedly that all the experimnents and demos are available at LENR-CARN.org. What more information do you need.
"Are you sure it's the only one where H2O2 will work?"
Yes.
"I didn't see that one in Kevmo's link. You have a link for those trials?"
See above about LENR-CANR org.
16kW for an hour is 16 kWh. Which is 16kJ/sec.
Which could easily be generated by very dilute H2O2.
It's not more energy by orders of magnitude than could be generated by any possible chemical reaction.
Sorry, Dudley, but that is NOT what your original posting said. Why not admit that you were just sloppy about the units??
But such honesty seems beyond the capacity of you skeptopath trolls.
"Which could easily be generated by very dilute H2O2. It's not more energy by orders of magnitude than could be generated by any possible chemical reaction.
No, actually it couldn't...for that specific experiment. The reason being not the potential available energy from the H2O2, but because of the impossibility of feeding it into the E-cat by any plausible mechanism.
Now, go back and "test" the amount of H2O2 for any of the OTHER demonstrations. I gave you all the info needed (mass flow rate and power out). Not that I should have to, as you "should" be capable of looking them up yourself.
I was converting to kJ/sec, which I did, correctly. So whatever makes you happy.
No, actually it couldn't...for that specific experiment.
It absolutely could.
The reason being not the potential available energy from the H2O2
My enthalpy calc showed that the idiotic claim, no possible chemical reaction could provide the energy needed, was idiotic. Idiotic by orders of magnitude.
but because of the impossibility of feeding it into the E-cat by any plausible mechanism.
Enthalpy says nothing about the mechanical means of a possible cheat.
Enough, troll. Since you’re incapable of honest discussion, I see no reason to continue. You’re just another skeptopath.
LOL!
Here's one last try to get through your idiocy......
You're beating a strawman. The question isn't whether a specific chemical contains enough energy to do a "fake", it is whether that chemical could have plausibly been used to do a fake in a specific set of circumstances.
In the case of the specific experiment you're trying to calculate for, the answer is no. I've told you that, Kevmo has told you that. Repeatedly.
Consider an LENR system that only puts out a watt or two. Obviously some chemicals (and probably many) can put out that much energy. So the real question is "could that/those chemicals plausibly be part of the specific system being examined". But when that system runs for months on end (see the demo at MIT), even though putting out only a few watts, it eventually reaches an output that no chemical system could have produced IN THAT SPECIFIC DEVICE.
Enough, troll. Since you’re incapable of honest discussion, I see no reason to continue. You’re just another skeptopath.
***Due to the ongoing harassment, trolling, stalking and even getting LENR threads pulled, I’m going back to an old experiment I tried here on Free Republic, to set up ‘scientism’ threads under more polite guidelines.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?q=1&;page=511
When I engaged the mod about setting up LENR threads under these guidelines, I got a bunch of stalkers going after me, and then a whole bunch of our posts were deleted. It will take a learning curve on the part of those who prefer antagonism over the pursuit of science, but I think it’s worth it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.