On Sep 1, 2011, at 10:24 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
Here is what all the opinions in the world cannot change: liquid
flow test proves that the machine is producing 12 to 16 kW of
excess heat. Period.
Again, where is the data for this test.
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm#Rossi18HourTest
(with links to NyTeknik)
And do not tell me this data is incomplete. It is all you need to
know, contrary to what Lomax asserts.
Well, that apparently is all you need to know. I need to know more.
[snip]
My first reaction is: did it not occur to anyone in 18 hours to
reduce the flow by a factor of 10 so as to get more reliable
numbers? The restriction would not have to be precise. Everything
depends on the flow meter anyway. It would just be a matter of
turning the faucet down, or inserting a flow restrictor. This does
not negate the ou results however.
This quote strikes me a strange: "He [Levi] confirmed that the
reactor chamber, supposedly containing nickel powder, the secret
catalysts and hydrogen gas, had a volume of around one liter."
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGreportonhe.pdf
Other reports refer to the reactor chamber as being about 50 ml.
Photos seem to confirm this. This must have been a special device
for this test.
It was interesting, with regard to "heat after death" computations,
that "30 kg is due to lead".
Lewan states (quotes without quotes?): "Initially, the temperature of
the inflowing water was seven degrees Celsius and for a while the
outlet temperature was 40 degrees Celsius. A flow rate of about one
liter per second, equates to a peak power of 130 kilowatts. The power
output was later stabilized at 15 to 20 kilowatts." Jed uses 3000 L/
h, or 0.83 liter/sec. Not that a 20% difference is significant.
The above comments are not germane, but just seem noteworthy.
Since we don't know the geometry of the device, we don't know where
and how the output thermometer was located. If it is in a metal
well, it is possible that it was heated slightly via the high thermal
conductivity of copper between the resistance heater and the
thermometer.
It is an obvious question with regard to the heat excursion as to
whether it might have been due to a momentary hose kink, or a
momentary drop in city water pressure. We don't know how often the
flow meter was read. If the "surge" lasted one tenth the time
interval between flow meter readings then the apparent flow reduction
would be 10% while the thermometer was registering a 40°C jump,
leaving the impression there was a huge power output when there was not.
It seems to me surprising there was no follow up public test using
this protocol. The test was run in February. You would think there
would have been some attempt to capitalize on these improved results.
It is of interest that a 5°C rise has no commercial use, while a 50°C
or even 20°C has much practical use - preheating water fed to a
building heat pump.
It is notable that no control efforts were mentioned. Perhaps they
were done, but there is no mention. If I had a test like that I would
have been all over it after a few hours run time looking for ways I
might be fooling myself. I would have tried a thermal pulse to check
calorimetry. I would have measured the flow by independent means,
e.g. weighing a timed bucket. I would have varied the flow rate, and
inserted a separate thermometer in the hose output. An 18 hour run
provides a lot of time for thinking about what is happening and
taking steps to confirm the observations.
There was talk of analyzing the fuel. Nothing seems to have come of
that.
It seems strange the device operates continuously at such a low
temperature. This is inconsistent with the concept of quenching the
reaction by introducing cold water, or by controlling the reaction
using auxiliary heat.
This test, as reported, is indeed very interesting, but not totally
convincing as presented.
It would be a failure to exercise due diligence to invest large
sums of money, without independent tests, in a project where the
key data in the public demonstrations, the calorimetry, was so
flawed.
They are not flawed. This is a figment of your imagination, just as
the objections to Fleischmann's experiment were. Repeatedly
asserting that something is flawed does not actually make it
flawed. If the calorimetry had been flawed the second test with
cooling water would have revealed this. It is fundamental to the
scientific method that if you suspect there may be a problem you do
a second experiment with different instrument types of different
procedures to either confirm or disprove the results. That is the
only way to settle the issue. Arguing, hypothesizing and debating
get you nowhere. You do a test. Levi et al. did a test. They proved
their point. There is nothing more to be done, nothing left to
argue about, and nothing more to be said.
- Jed
I can at least agree there is nothing much further worth saying. The
calorimetry issues will soon be resolved if NASA is doing the
measurements.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
