I have a device into which I can put 1.4kW of electrical power and I get out of it 4.4kW of heat. A 'zero mass' of chemicals appear to be consumed during the process, no detectable mass differences.
According to what I have read here, and using Rossi-logic, I should therefore assume it must be nuclear, because chemical means just can't generate that much power on unmeasurably small amounts of chemical mass.
True, or false?
More energy out than in - must be nuclear!!!
The answers to the question are not working with the question...
So I voted "false".
I think that it can very well be chemical because the mass of the reaction products would most likely be the same as the combined mass of the reactants. Unless you have some exhaust where something exits the system.
That was not the question in the poll however.
Actually, the fact that the mass stays the same, would suggest that it is not nuclear in nature.
So I voted "false".
I think that it can very well be chemical because the mass of the reaction products would most likely be the same as the combined mass of the reactants. Unless you have some exhaust where something exits the system.
That was not the question in the poll however.
Actually, the fact that the mass stays the same, would suggest that it is not nuclear in nature.
Re: More energy out than in - must be nuclear!!!
My split unit gets double that amount.chrismb wrote:I have a device into which I can put 1.4kW of electrical power and I get out of it 4.4kW of heat. A 'zero mass' of chemicals appear to be consumed during the process, no detectable mass differences.
I never considered it being nuclear
It's an air conditioner.Skipjack wrote:Ok, that makes it a little less obvious.All chemical substances going in come out unchanged. They can go back in again as many times as you like. No detectable mass is left in the device, no detectable mass is consumed from the flux coming out.
Want to share some more information about the setup?
I don't think I have been necessarily misleading. Misdirecting, perhaps. I put electrical energy in and I get more heat energy out than that. I did not mention anything about any other parts that were getting cold and drawing in ambient heat.
Point is this - phase changes can drive heat engines. There is no implicit assumption that such a thing must be nuclear just because more heat appears in one medium than electrical energy driving it. This seems to be [another] point missed, vis-a-vis Rossitron.
It is interesting to note that the rates of energy consumption/emission given in the Rossi demonstrations is of the order of what you might expect by a Carnot cycle of a heat pump operating around ambient. This should also flag up something else - if he is putting in 'good quality' energy [that can do work, namely electricity] but is getting out 'low grade' energy [that cannot do work, namely heat] then an observer should be looking very precicely at the figures to determine if NET WORK can be gained. NET HEAT is only useful if it is orders of magnitude more than the driving power, or otherwise VERY hot. No evidence of either for the Rossitron.
Point is this - phase changes can drive heat engines. There is no implicit assumption that such a thing must be nuclear just because more heat appears in one medium than electrical energy driving it. This seems to be [another] point missed, vis-a-vis Rossitron.
It is interesting to note that the rates of energy consumption/emission given in the Rossi demonstrations is of the order of what you might expect by a Carnot cycle of a heat pump operating around ambient. This should also flag up something else - if he is putting in 'good quality' energy [that can do work, namely electricity] but is getting out 'low grade' energy [that cannot do work, namely heat] then an observer should be looking very precicely at the figures to determine if NET WORK can be gained. NET HEAT is only useful if it is orders of magnitude more than the driving power, or otherwise VERY hot. No evidence of either for the Rossitron.
Actually, I mentioned it and did the numbers. After all, he was working on thermo-couples in his prior business, no?chrismb wrote: Point is this - phase changes can drive heat engines. There is no implicit assumption that such a thing must be nuclear just because more heat appears in one medium than electrical energy driving it. This seems to be [another] point missed, vis-a-vis Rossitron.