I am sorry, but I can not actually tell what is your response as compared to the others. You need to make your own statements so I can straighten them out if they are coherent.
I want to mention that you make a great case for the fact that the ECAT system actually puts out more power than the original estimate. The upper limit is not too well defined by the test that was conducted. All the HVAC guy did was to assume that all of the input water was vaporized. He did not actually measure whether or not the level of the water within the ECATs is becoming lower. More power output would make that level drop. The fact that the steam is dry suggests bias toward extra power. So, please use your own words to state your point and I will be able to test it. Thanks. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Vo] : ECAT 1 MW System-Dazzle or Fizzle On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% The temperature is not stable. It fluctuates considerably, as you see in the cooling loop data. The fluctuation is clearly less than +/- 5C. If that is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, then the power is proportional to (620 + 0.5 deltaT). Which means that +/- 5C corresponds to +/- .5 %, or stable within a 1% range. If the output is a mixture of phases, then it would be at the boiling point, and then the small fluctuation would correspond to fluctuations in pressure, which is not too hard to believe. People who believe in the stable do not understand that water at one atmosphere does not get any hotter than ~100°C. Everyone understands that. We're talking about dry steam. Rossi claims the output is dry steam, and dry steam can get hotter than 100C at atmospheric pressure. When you increase power, more water boils but the temperature does not go up. That's only true if the heating elements are submerged. But what would happen if more water boils, is the water level would drop, exposing the heating elements, and causing the steam to increase in temperature. But if you're claiming that the reason for the stable temperature is that the heaters are submerged, and that the water is at the boiling point, then we agree. Yay. If the output is at the boiling point, then how does Rossi know that it is dry steam? If it's at the boiling point, it could be anywhere from 0% to 100% steam. You need some other measurement to determine the fraction of the water that gets vaporized. (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. This question is nonsense. The reaction took a long time to initiate, but once it got going it increased rapidly. ..revealing that you don't even understand the question. I have no problem with the power from the ecat core jumping instantly from zero to 470 kW. But to transfer that heat to the water requires the heating system to get much hotter. There's a lot of thermal mass there that has to get hot, as is observed in the pre-heating stage. How does the heat from the ecat heat up that thermal mass so much faster than the electric heater does. It has about 3 times higher power, but the claim is it heats it up the thermal mass 8 times as much in 40 times less time. How does that work? And it's worse than that, because as more of the water is vaporized, it takes more of the power out, leaving less power to heat the element, so as total vaporization is approached, the heating up slows down. It would almost certainly take hours to reach dry steam if the ecat really did produce 470 kW, which means that until that point is reached, the temperature is at the boiling point. Then the chance that the temperature would not increase when dry steam was reached is astronomically remote. In any case, the fact the temperature *doesn't* increase above boiling, means there is simply no evidence that the steam is dry. Excellent questions. Perhaps Jed Rothwell can address them? No point in asking him. He's been over this dozens of times, and not just with me, but with Lawrence and others. He will never understand these points. In the spring, Rothwell insisted until he was blue in the face that steam cannot be heated above 100C at atmospheric pressure, even though it was pointed out to him that the air he breathes is ~200C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. It wasn't until a "scientist friend" (presumably Storms) took him aside, that he relented. But he still has problems with the concept as illustrated in his response above. It was after this that I realized that one can't put much confidence in his technical analyses, and that he can be supremely confident, even when he is wrong about something taught in grade school. Of course he'll never learn from my posts, because he doesn't read them unless they're quoted. I guess it's the ostrich mentality. Anyone can address them. Not you, evidently.
