Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> No boiler would be tested with absolute maximum possible flow rate, raising > the temperature only five degrees, with the measurement being taken inside > the boiler, instead of external to it. That is incorrect. I have seen people do boiler tests with small Delta T temperatures. Maybe not 5°C, but small. > I think a difference of 10°C to 15°C would be better. >> > > Actually, a difference of about 60 degrees would have been even better. With an ordinary boiler no one ever uses such a high temperature difference. You can't. Boilers for potable hot water don't go above 45°C, as I mentioned yesterday. That is not safe. A 60°C would mean the high temperature is around 80°C. A large flow water at that temperature would be dangerous to work with. As I reported, this can cause serious injury in 2 to 7 seconds. Also as I mentioned, temperatures above ~35°C tend to degrade the accuracy of the calorimetry. I don't know if these people know what a "valve" is. They used a tap, which is a valve. > What happened there is entirely unclear. The 130 kW calculated power showed > up at the beginning. Okay, so what is unclear about that? It showed up for 20 minutes and then they reduced power. I would have reduced power too. > Now, what I'd have expected would be that the reactor might have been > started up as it was, and while there was the relatively high heat, coolant > flow . . . What you "would have expected" is not a particularly useful guide to a mysterious reaction of this nature. The heat is manifestly steady and predictable -- the numbers show that -- but the mechanism is unknown, so I do not see how you can have expectations. The thermometers were not placed in the Rossi boiler itself. They were >> placed just outside it, which is where they are placed in a regular boiler >> test, in the boiler rooms I have seen. >> > > You are depending on Rossi's descriptions of the internals. No I am depending on what I see in the photos, and what people who looked inside the reactor told me, for crying out loud. If the inlet thermocouple was "inside the reactor" it would not show tap water temperature. > I don't know if you've realized it, but Rossi has no obligation to disclose > those internals, and nobody has verified any of them. Yes, they have. By taking the thing apart and looking inside. It is not complicated inside. > There was practically no power input to the E-cat during the 18-hour test > (after startup). There was, as described, no way to control the cooling > water. So how was control established? I don't follow. You don't control the cooling water. You leave the flow rate unchanged in a test of this nature. The reaction was stable after the heat excursion. > At these temperature differences and flow rates there is no way heat might >> have wicked directly to the temperature sensors. >> > > Famous last words. "no way." You are thinking of the cartridge heater. What > about the band heater? It is far from the thermocouples. > Okay, what *stable* temperature was observed? A 5°C Delta T, according to everyone who was there. If you don't believe them, then you wouldn't believe time-sequenced data either. > Where is the data? We have no plot of temperature. You don't need one. The temperature was stable for 18-hours. Granted it would be nice to see one, but it is not necessary, any more than it is for a conventional boiler tests. There were no significant fluctuations so a plot is not necessary. > We have no record of all the measurements, i.e., many temperature > measurements. They said they kept an eye on it and it did not change much. That is how an inspector does a boiler test. That is an old fashioned way of doing an experiment, but it is perfectly valid. It this had been a glow discharge experiment that would be ridiculous. We have an estimate of stable temperature from someone who was not there all > the time. > All of the time they were there, the temperature was stable. I gather they used a video camera to monitor the data when they were not there. > What we have is a sketcy report, obviously of interest. But Levi has not > published the data, nor any formal report, and it seems he has no intention > of doing so. Yet you want to rely on this report? > I "rely" on this report plus a bunch of other reports, plus eye-witness accounts by Celani and other people I trust, plus many other studies of the Ni-H system. Overall I would say the evidence is extremely strong. It is better than the evidence for many weaker cold fusion claims that were measured with better instruments but at lower s/n ratios. I would prefer to have more data and better reports, as I have said many times. > That's right. Which is why, for any scientific conclusions, we require > independent confirmation. Levi, Celani and E&K are independent of Rossi. This is pretty good verification, if not replication. > I rather doubt that Levi is a fraud, per se. Rossi, I abandoned my reserve, > convinced that I've seen strong evidence of manipulation of appearances. If Rossi is a fraud Levi would discover that in 5 minutes. Any technician or professor would. Levi spend a month poking around with the machine, running it in many different modes include heat after death. Do you really think Rossi could play tricks for a month, with such a simple device? This notion that you could hide a secret source of heat or a fake thermocouple is nonsense. I doubt you have seen any evidence of manipulation. Anyway, I suggest you refrain from discussing it unless you have documented proof. It is not a good idea to make public accusations of fraud. > I don't know if it's occurred to you, but Rossi has managed to convince a > lot of people who continue to defend him. Apparently you as well. > I just said "he makes it look suspicious" and "he makes himself look like an inept crook." You call that "defending" him? What would you call an attack? That's an awfully low standard for defense. If I tell people "Abd sounds like a nutcase and I have heard he beats his wife, but hey, he's probably an okay guy despite that" would you thank me for defending you? > You seem to have, like some others, a black and white view of this. > > 1. Rossi is a fraud. > 2. Rossi's reactor is real. > > Jed, the first statement is true. It does not negate the second statemetn. > They could both be true. Perhaps, but if the reactor is real, why would Rossi bother to engage in fraud? It makes no difference whether the thing produces 1 kW or 16 kW. No one cares about that. So why would he bother to make it look like it is producing more than it is? There is no motive to commit fraud if the reactor is real. The accusation makes no sense. - Jed
