At 02:10 PM 8/3/2011, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
has a lot of entries. It might help to be more specific as to which
installment is most relevant to the point you are making. Is it the
18-hour demonstration?
In context, it would be. Much of that is
interpretation, by an unknown interpreter
(Rothwell?). I now notice that the information
was provided by "a source close to the test" who
gave the information to Jed Rothwell.
Here is the actual information, with
interpretation stripped out. Precise information
about some aspects is missing. If this test was
intended to answer objections about the January
14 test, it's very odd that far less data was
made available than for the January test.
On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U.
Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. These are approximations:
Duration of test: 18 hours
Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.
Cooling water input temperature: 15°C
Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C
Input power from control electronics: variable,
average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours
Conclusion (written by Jed?):
The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml =
4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers
estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C
temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.
The Nyteknik report has 1 liter/second.
There is no actual record of input power
correlated with temperature. No record of
temperature over time. No record of actual
continuous flow. (It's been claimed that a water
meter was used, that's a *very* high flow rate.)
If this were designed as a more conclusive test,
they badly screwed up by using such a high flow,
producing only 5 C temperature rise. Sure 5 C can
be measured with confidence, if the same
thermometer is used, probably within about 0.2 degree.
But a temperature difference that small could be
produced by thermometer placement. If that rise
was produced with the high flow rate and only 20
W of input power, this source of artifact seems
unlikely to me. But maybe, depending on internal details that we don't know.
This is far from a conclusive demonstration, the
largest problem being the paucity of information.
We don't have enough information about the public
demos or tests monitored by clearly independent
observers (such as Kullander and Essen, Mats
Lewan, and Steve Krivit), this one is worse.
My biggest problem with the 18-hour test is
fitting the behavior together with the other
demonstrations and what else we know about the claims.
The E-cat would be completely out of control.
It's operating self-sustained, effectively, or
very, very close to the edge. Consider the 130 KW
excursion that was reported (in the Nyteknik
report on this). This has to be above
self-sustaining temperature, and the cooling is
already absolutely the most they could manage.
Why didn't this thing run away? Actually, it
looks like it did. What stopped it?
The test depends entirely upon the reliability of
those who ran it. What we'd expect from independent observers is *data*.
Boiler test reports are a set of variables found
by long experience to indicate the operating
health of a boiler. There is no way to compare
this report with a boiler test. Looks to me, from
data found elsewhere, this thing nearly exploded.
In fact, the wonder is that it didn't.
If the data is real, not manipulated. Rossi's
unreliability, excused as his "eccentricity," is devastating.
