Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't
seem you want us to agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
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
