/snip/ Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. /snip/ Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. As for the internal volume of water, Rossi was quoted as saying 20 liters, and some approximations have exceeded 30 liters. Using the measurements at the secondary, we may be able to deduce how much time it took to fill, back-calcuate the flow rate, and then use the September test to approximate how much the pump output slowed in the presence of the increased pressure. To further complcate things, if the assumpitions of a check valve are correct, the heat at the secondary does not demonstrated overflow, but merely that some steam generation has produced enough pressure to compress the check-valve spring, and the heat exchanger is seeing heat for the first time (this could happen with a half-full E-Cat). In short, we cannot make any reasonable assumptions of the input flow rate. The ONLY meaurements were those taken at the drain, and they certainly contradict Rossi's proclaimed flow rate. All of this was discussed ad nauseum, and in frustration, YOU claimed that the input flow rate didn't matter at all, and that "even if the flow rate is zero, there's still evidence of anomalous heat." Please don't ascribe your own silly assertions of zero flow rates to other people.
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >Jouni Valkonen wrote: >> Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly >> against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. > >I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum. > > >> Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such >> as heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into >> reactor. >I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, >saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that >it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that >might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been >dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the >vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate >that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was >replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, >as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that. > >There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may >reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any >weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that >the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the >parable here: > >http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html > >ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you? > >SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry, >and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet. > >ME: Okay, but it is way up there. > >SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot >error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it >could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be >on the ground. > >Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it >might be zero. That is preposterous. > >Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the >one they are critiquing. > > >> For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. > >I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or >anyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they >would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff. > >> PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all >> demonstrations have been too short, including these private >> demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. > >As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of >the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing >they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with >flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits >of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year >or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than >chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The >point is already proven. > >- Jed > >
