Alan Fletcher <a...@well.com> wrote:
> A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know > whether it heated up AT ALL. > Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. > 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. > You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. > The "loading" power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over > 100C > But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was "loaded" and then unloaded, *the temperature would have to drop*! > -- 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. > For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what "loading" or "storing" heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were "stored" in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. > I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. > Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about "stored heat" that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
