On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From Jed and Josh: > > >> It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with > >> flowing water proved that the large cell is producing > >> ~17 kW. > > > > If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred > > degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course > > it doesn't prove anything other than that Rossi and Levi > > are capable of making unproven claims. > > Pardon my brief intrusion. > > This is where I differ with Joshua's conclusion. I tried to explain, > unsuccessfully I might add, why in my perception of the events that > the steam exiting the eCat reactor is not likely to be much above 100 > C no matter how hot the internal eCat temperature core might > be...within reason that is. (If memory serves me, I believe the > exiting steam temp was recorded to be around 100.1C - 100.2C.) If > there is always liquid water present in the reactor core, water which > can never reach above 100C at sea level, the nearby gaseous H2O won't > have much of a chance to hang around long enough within the reactor > core in order to absorb additional temperatures above 100C. But this is a pure seat-of-the-pants guess as to how long the steam has to hang around to absorb heat from the walls of the reactor. We know that air passing a hot element in a small space heater, for example, doesn't hang around very long, but still the air heats up. It has to, because the heat from the heater has to go somewhere, and the air is the only option (apart from direct radiation, which eventually goes into the air too). > This > ASSUMES the gas has free rein to exit immediately, which I am to > understand is precisely what happens. The air in a furnace also has free rein to exit immediately, and still it gets hotter. > Ironically, the higher the eCat > reactor core temperature gets, the more water is converted into steam. > After all the water is converted to steam, you can't convert any more water into steam. This means any converted gas will simply exit the reactor core even > faster than before. What it means is that the water is converted to steam earlier in the ecat. Since all the water is already converted to steam, it will not move any faster (except to the extent that it gets hot and expands, which you argue doesn't happen), but the created steam has to pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get hotter. This means the converted gas doesn't have any more > of a chance to absorb additional heat even if the core is hotter, > precisely because it leaves faster than before. > Wrong. It does have more chance to absorb heat, because it has to pass more hot surface after it is produced, and because the surface is hotter. It doesn't leave any faster unless it gets hotter. > It is my understanding, however, that Joshua claims my reasoning on > this matter apparently violates conservation of energy laws. > Yes. Using their figures for flow rate and temperature, if the steam is dry, then about 12 kW is being removed from the ecat in the steam enthalpy. If the ecat is producing 17 kW as Rothwell claims was proved by the 18-hr test, then there is about 5 kW extra. Where does it go? There is no way that the insulation on the ecat could have dissipated 5 kW of power without anyone commenting on it, nor for that matter could any temperature and surface area estimate be consistent with that amount of power. No, if there were 17 kW going in, the water would flash to steam as soon as it entered the ecat, and then the steam would have to remove the heat by getting hotter. If it didn't have the time to heat up to remove the heat, the ecat would get hotter until it got hot enough so that there would be time to heat up. Or the thing would melt down. Or, it doesn't actually produce 17 kW, which is of course the simplest and most likely explanation.
