On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:02 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Joshua, > > In one of my original posts I stated the fact that, in my opinion, > Rossi's current e-Cat configurations are probably not configured in > such a manner as to generate steam that is much above 100 C. I don't > think the water once it's transformed into steam has a chance to hang > around long enough to increase in temperature all that much. > > You obviously disagree with my opinion on the matter. > No. I don't see it as a matter of opinion. It's a matter of conservation of energy. If the ecat produces 12 kW, and at some flow rate that is enough to turn all the water to vapor, and no more, then if the flow rate is reduced by 20%, and the steam still comes out at 100C, then only 9.6 kW of energy is coming out via the steam. Where does the other 2.4 kW go? I don't think it could dissipate through the insulation without it being very obviously hot (think of a 2.4 kW space heater that size.) Now, some people have speculated that the device is regulated to keep the steam temperature constant, but that seems unlikely too, for a number of reasons: 1) There is no evidence of feedback circuits. 2) The temperature of the *steam* would have to be fed back to the control circuits (which is not evident), or a very accurate relationship between the reactor temperature, the flow rate, and the water temperature would have to be known. 3) There is no obvious reason to regulate it at exactly the level that produces all steam at exactly the boiling point, and an excellent reason to allow it to go to say 110C (to prove it's dry). 4) There are 2 experiments with the larger ecat (Dec 2010, Jan 2011) with very different flow rates, and 2 experiments with the smaller ecat, also with very different flow rates, but in all 4 experiments the steam temperature was pinned to the boiling point. If each of them converted all the water to steam, then the reactor would have to have been regulated to different temperatures in the different experiments, emphasizing that it could be run with higher temperature steam to remove ambiguity. For example, if in the Lewan demo, it had been operated at the same temperature that produced all steam for Essen and Kallander, then Lewan would have observed higher temperature steam, because his flow rate was lower. 5) The 18-hour run was evidently not operated with regulation because the power evidently varied considerably over the experiment, in one case increasing by a factor of 10 or so. But in the end, the basic problem is that unambiguous evidence of dry steam would be dead easy to demonstrate, but Rossi fails to do it. Only the 18-hour experiment, on its face, purports evidence of > 10 kW power. And yet, although it appears to remove the ambiguities people have complained about, the next two demonstrations for the swedes returned to the dubious steam-generating version. Why? > > I'm puzzled, however. You've also expressed the opinion that my > opinions stand on nothing more substantial than vague, unsupported > insults. That was after you insulted me, and it did not refer to your earlier writings on the subject. And now you've deduced that I have a problem winning friends > and influencing people. Actually, I was only striking back because that's what you deduced about me for basically doing the same thing you had done; namely speculating about the other's motivation and behaviour. I was hurt, and so I used your weapons against you. It was cheap, and I didn't mean anything very deep by it. Please accept my apologies. > Why would anybody with so many problems as I > seem to be cursed with be of any interest to you and your opinions? > > I'm puzzled because you give me the impression that my opinions > continue to influence you. > Well now, don't you see how I might ask the same thing of you? We've now exchanged more or less the same insults, and yet you seem to give the same impression. But I'm glad in this post you actually said something about the experiment, and gave me an opportunity to state my (non-rhetorical) case in another way. I really don't expect to be able to convince you of anything, but there are other people who read this who might like the opportunity to see the skeptical point of view.
