Alan J Fletcher wrote:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php
I've added the October experiment to my tables.
So far I've put in two values : the 90 liter total volume, and the 30
liter "internal" volume reported by Lewan.
After they finish taking apart the reactor they will report the
approximate volume of the inner cell, which is the only item they are
not allowed to open up. These are experienced professionals so they can
recognize the components. They will know that these are pipes, wires and
so on, not chemical fuel. As I mentioned they would instantly recognize
a pair of 5 kW electric heater elements attached to a 10 AWG wire.
So, in your final analysis you should add a third value: the volume of
the internal cell.
You should also take into account some of the real world considerations
that I mentioned such as the need for a burner.
In my opinion, if you do not take into account these practical
considerations (such as the fact that a professor knows a wire when he
sees it), and you do not use the volume of the cell only, your analysis
will be meaningless. It will have no connection to practical
engineering-based reality. It will serve no purpose, since we know that
actual chemical fuel systems that produce 3 to 5 kW must include
canisters and burners and the like, and these things are large objects
which anyone will recognize at a glance.
I am talking about the PRACTICAL limits, not the theoretical limits
ignoring all real-world hardware restraints. There is no point to
speculating how much fuel you might hide if 1.1 kg of gasoline could
hang motionless in midair without a tank, and if it was invisible, it
did not produce a stench, and you could burn it without any equipment
and without consuming air. That is so far removed from reality that only
Robert Park or Murray would see any value in it.
- Jed
