After seeing Harry's comment, I finally went and read the proposed
mechanism. I have a couple comments on it.
* It's totally ruled out if the effluent is observed to be steam and
the output temperature is claimed to be roughly 100C. Whether wet
steam or dry steam, if it's coming out as steam, then the outlet
temperature is at least 100C, and the placement of the temperature
probe is irrelevant. During the first test, back in ... uh ...
January?, the effluent was observed to be steam during at least
part of the run, and this effect couldn't have been an issue.
Assuming all tests of the E-cat are operated basically the same
way (and, if they're faked, they're all faked the same way), we
should probably conclude that this effect is never an issue, and
its possibility can be ignored.
* With that said, the proposed mechanism is not that different from
Swarz's ad-nauseum-repeated claims of stratification in vertical
flow calorimetry, and,/ if the water isn't being heated to
boiling,/ it could conceivably happen /by mistake/. (If the probe
were placed in the effluent pipe outside the reactor, that
possibility wouldn't exist.)
* Finally, if the probe is actually in a backwash, dead zone, or
side channel, isolated from the main flow, then that could explain
an interesting feature of the temperature plot from the recently
uploaded paper on this: From 20 to 40 C, the temperature goes up
/linearly/, with slope apparently unchanged at 40 C. That
shouldn't happen -- the line should nose over, with the slope
decreasing smoothly as the water temperature increases, because
maintaining the internal temperature gradient as the water warms
must siphon off energy needed to keep warming up the device. That
should be the case, /unless/ the reactor is starting up
immediately, and its heat output is ramping up exactly in parallel
with the warming of the water.
As noted in my "annotated" copy of the graph (previously posted),
if the heater's sourcing 300 watts at 20 C, and the slope of the
warming curve doesn't change, then by the time it's at 40 C, it
must be sourcing 450 watts. There's an extra 150 watts coming
from someplace ... unless the flow rate /at the probe/ is nearly
nil, in which case the temperature of the water /at the probe/
doesn't affect the heat needed to maintain the slope of the
On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
> I think it is a great way to fake it.
> *From:* Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Sent:* Tue, April 12, 2011 9:22:17 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake
> I rate this fake as preposterous. Has this person done any tests
> to prove that it can be done in the first place?
> If you include every half-baked notion that "skeptics" come up
> with, you can easily prove that the earth is flat, evolution did
> not occur, and Newton's Laws are wrong. You need to be a little
> more selective.
> - Jed