Rossi's device would have to be modified to make the concept of a tube-within-a-tube workable, but IMO a system based on this concept would be more likely to fool an investor than a system based on a hidden power source.
Harry from: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, April 13, 2011 2:48:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tarallo Water Diversion Fake 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 warming curve. > >On 04/13/2011 02:25 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: >I think it is a great way to fake it. >>harry >> >> >>> >>>From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> >>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>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 >>> >>>
