Our reader Carlo Ombello tried to respond with a detailed comment based on the same available data, but New Energy Times obviously didn't publish it, as it would have unmasked yet another of Krivit's lies. I will, here it is.
Your calcs are pathetic. First of all, if you try and use numbers from someone else's report at least try and read it properly and thoroughly. Second, if you care for your reputation, give to what you write some double or triple checking.
Put times/amperes/voltages from Lewan's report on an Excel spreadsheet and you will see that the energy consumption of the electrical resistance throughout the day was an overall 8.78 kWh (or 31.6 MJ), between hrs 11.52 and 15.53. This alone should suggest you that there is something terribly wrong in your calcs. Basically, the device stored heat for hours and later managed to spit all of it (31.5 MJ, you state) out with no losses! this alone would be a big step for mankind.
But let's go on. Mats Lewan calculated 38 MJ output, instead of your 31.5 MJ figure. Where does your number come from? But who cares, let's stick to your discounted figure. Let's check something else.
You importantly choose to ONLY consider the output of the device during the self-sustaining mode (between 15:53 and 19:22) and to "FORGET" to calculate it for the hours before. Let's for simplicity take into account the data available between around 13:48 and 15:53, say 2 hours, just those two and nothing else. During such time there was a consistent temperature difference of at least 3°C between inlet and outlet of the secondary circuit, while the average was over 4°C. So as a minimum, over those 2 hours prior to the selfsustaining mode, there was an additional energy output - released to the secondary circuit - of around 4.5 kWh (or 16.1 MJ) to be added to your original calculation. If we were to consider the average temp difference over those two hours (over 4°C, instead of just 3°C), we would instead have around 6.6 kWh (or 23.7 MJ) extra.So, as a minimum, 16.1 + 31.5 = 47.6 MJ out (between 13:48 and 19:22, no waste heat during the test and no output figures prior to 13:48!), to be compared to 31.6 MJ consumed by the electrical resistance throughout its use. There is an extra 16 MJ, which is also extremely conservative and based on available data. If we consider Lewan's 38 MJ figure and add the 23.7 MJ average I gave above, we already are around 62 MJ output vs 31.6 MJ input...
How do you like this, Mr Krivit? What should anyone think of you and of what you write? What's your agenda? Why don't you care to check facts and choose instead to make up numbers you like?
Krivit offered not to attribute the information contained therein to me.
After I discovered the leak, I gave him the references to my (Internet) source so he would not need to. He could check the facts for himself (as I had already done). Under his code of ethics as a journalist he is obliged to do this I believe. Otherwise reporting degenerates into potentially unreliable hearsay and gossip.
Without advising me, and contrary to the offer made, Krivit proceeded to published verbatim my/our exchanges. After publication, I asked Krivit several times to remove the offending material which he has declined to do."