- Jed wrote ... ----- Original Message -----
> Okay TIME OUT. Stop worrying about this. Forget about the damned
> thermocouples altogether. Pretend they were not there. Stop obsessing
> over small technical details and Look At The Facts:
> When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the
> surface was around 80 deg C.
> Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The
> surface was still 80 deg C. Whether the thermocouples were properly
> placed or in the wrong places altogether, all of them still showed
> elevated temperatures. This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went
> through the heat exchanger.
> Deal with that! Explain it. You know perfectly well that if no heat
> had been generated inside, every temperature sensor would have equaled
> ambient air or the tap water temperature soon after the power was
> turned off. You can see that from the decay curve after the power
> finally went off. There was a tremendous flow of water going through.
> What else could happen?!?
A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it
heated up AT ALL. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal
eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam
made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple.
But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. > Forget all
about the cooling water outlet thermocouple. Or, if you
> like, assume that it was placed as badly as it could be, so that it
> picked up the steam temperature and the air temperature more than the
> cooling water. Question: what temperature would it be 1 hour after the
> power is turned off? 25 deg C. What would it be 2 hours later? 25 deg
> C. Four hours later? 25 deg C. ALL THE OTHER SENSORS WOULD ALSO BE AT
> 25 deg C. They are not. Lewan would have put his hand on the reactor
> and find it is stone cold. He would hear no boiling. That is not what
> happened.
The "loading" power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C
-- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired
temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of
boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. > Deal with the irrefutable
first-principle physical evidence that you
> have in abundance, and stop fretting about details you do not have and
> will not get.
I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS.
