Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 1 minute after turn off, boiling was mostly stopped. T1 99.7 ~ 99.8°C (marginally hotter than before turn off, because the metal pot was still hot). T2 98.7°C 2 minutes after turn off. T1 99.3°C, T2 97.7°C 7 minutes after turn off. T1 97.0°C, T2 94.1°C 13 minutes after turn off. T1 94.2°C, T2 91.0°C As you see, 2 minutes after turn off, the temperature was already measurably and consistently lower than with boiling. I mentioned that Julian Brown reported the temperature of the eCat remained at boiling for about 2 minutes with the power turned off. Let us assume the thermal mass of the eCat metal is roughly the same as the 1.6 kg pot. As you see from these numbers, it is a little hard to judge a 2-minute heat-after-death test. If there was no power going into the cell and no anomalous power, I expect it would have stopped boiling, but the temperature may not have fallen enough to confirm this with confidence. If it stayed at boiling temperatures for 5 minutes with no input power you could be certain there is anomalous heat. So many mistakes so little time. It is nice that you take the time to do experiments, but you should consider doing some that are relevant. Set up a little cell with an electric heater and pump water through it with power 2 or 3 times the boiling threshold power, and then turn it off and see how long it takes to go below boiling. Make sure the warming up gradient is similar so you know you have a similar thermal mass, and wrap it in insulation, just like Rossi. You may have to go to the hardware store, and do some plumbing, but at least the results will mean something. The problem with a pot is that to maintain boiling, you need only enough power to cover the losses. And if you are epsilon above that threshold, then it would take no time to stop boiling when you shut the power down. In an ecat, to maintain boiling you similarly have to cover the losses (which in this case include the water being poured down the sink. If you are epsilon above the power necessary to start boiling, then again, it would take no time to stop boiling when the power shut down. But in the ecat, before he does his heat-after-death illusion, he gooses the power. So, if the ecat is at 150C to just maintain boiling, he might goose it to 300C. Now, it has to cool back to 150C before boiling stops. According to his and your claim, the power is 7 times the boiling threshold, which would require much higher temperature still. Judging from how long it takes to cool from 100C to ambient when the ecat is shut down, this could easily take several tens of minutes. In the pot, since water is not pumped through, the power required to maintain boiling is much lower, and increasing it by a factor of 2 or 3 would not take as big a temperature change (of the pot), if you could even identify when that was. That is to say, increasing the power would go into an increased outflow in the pot (but not in the ecat), and so the temperature doesn't increase as much, and it would therefore cool off faster. More importantly, there is no indication you even tried to increase the power above the level required to maintain boiling, so the experiment means nothing. And finally, the ecat is heavily insulated; not so the pot, which will therefore cool off by convection. As much as you like to boil water on a stove, it is not the same as an ecat, and your experiment is irrelevant.
Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot. I wrote: 3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C, marked in 1°C increments Correction: -10 to 110°C Regarding the heat-after-death event that Brown observed, I am assuming -- or pretending, really -- that the power measurement was drastically wrong and there was enough input power to make the thing boil. That is not actually possible. Power meters are reliable. In both the Brown and Krivit demos, the input power is not high enough to allow boiling because much of the power goes to heat the eCat metal which radiates into the room, even with that insulation. In the Krivit demo the boiling threshold was exceeded by 200W. There is simply no way 200W radiates through that insulation. You are dreaming. You are making things up to cling to your belief. In real life, the temperatures close to boiling alone prove that there is anomalous heat, but to humor the skeptics we will pretend you can heat water inside a metal container without losses. I didn't see the details of the Brown demo, but Brown says he goosed the power first. So that would have produced boiling with just the electricity. Anyway the pretend scenario is that a couple of kilowatts of heat go into the cell because the input power is mismeasured. It boils. The power is turned off to demonstrate heat after death. Brown is not sure how long; roughly 2 minutes. Either because there is anomalous heat, or because there is so much heat left in the metal, the temperature does not fall significantly. Or, at least, Brown did not notice a persistently lower temperature. This may or may not indicate anomalous heat. As I said, it is a shame Brown did not write down temperatures, duration, the change in the mass of cooling water shown on the weight scale and other observations, and it is a shame he did not think to ask Rossi to leave the cell in heat-after-death mode for 5 minutes. Well, if it was 2 kW, 5 minutes would not have been enough for a convincing demo. It has to cool from whatever ecat temperature corresponds to 2 kW back to the ecat temp corresponding to 600W before the water temperature starts to drop. Judging by the rate of heating and cooling in the little data we've been privy to, 5 minutes would not be nearly enough, regardless of your gas stove and pot nonsense experiments.
Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
200W from the hose and 200W from the e cat structure, at lest. 100Watt to heat the water 0.3g/s. So, if the output looked like a 800W steam from a stove, we have 500W of excess power. Could be more, but probably Rossi didn't want to harm Krivit, just show that steam was being made.
Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: 200W from the hose Maybe. and 200W from the e cat structure, at lest. I don't believe it. Rossi never claims it, and this 200W would figure in his power calculation (the losses in the hose don't), and he never takes account of it. I'll go with 50 W tops from the ecat. 100Watt to heat the water 0.3g/s. Rossi claimed 2 g/s, corresponding to 600W. But I also suspect that was misrepresented, although maybe not by that much So, if the output looked like a 800W steam from a stove This is a pretty lame observation to base such a revolutionary claim on. The visual estimate of power in steam is very subjective. I would say, what comes out of that hose is consistent with much less power than that; maybe 200 - 300 W. we have 500W of excess power. There is enough wiggle room in all those estimates to get zero, and anyway 500W is pretty weak soup after Rossi announced 10 kW reactors.
Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot. I wrote: 3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C, marked in 1°C increments Correction: -10 to 110°C Regarding the heat-after-death event that Brown observed, I am assuming -- or pretending, really -- that the power measurement was drastically wrong and there was enough input power to make the thing boil. That is not actually possible. Power meters are reliable. In both the Brown and Krivit demos, the input power is not high enough to allow boiling because much of the power goes to heat the eCat metal which radiates into the room, even with that insulation. In real life, the temperatures close to boiling alone prove that there is anomalous heat, but to humor the skeptics we will pretend you can heat water inside a metal container without losses. Anyway the pretend scenario is that a couple of kilowatts of heat go into the cell because the input power is mismeasured. It boils. The power is turned off to demonstrate heat after death. Brown is not sure how long; roughly 2 minutes. Either because there is anomalous heat, or because there is so much heat left in the metal, the temperature does not fall significantly. Or, at least, Brown did not notice a persistently lower temperature. This may or may not indicate anomalous heat. As I said, it is a shame Brown did not write down temperatures, duration, the change in the mass of cooling water shown on the weight scale and other observations, and it is a shame he did not think to ask Rossi to leave the cell in heat-after-death mode for 5 minutes. - Jed
