I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators. The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions. And E-cats are at the limit- E-lions must have a different internal structure, more complex. Peter
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:28 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > From Jones, > > >> From Rothwell: > >> I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental > >> evidence, not crackpot theories that predict water heaters > >> don't work. If you will not give us a plausible reason why > >> this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 1000 then you > >> lose this debate. > > > This “1000 times” thing is an insane slander with no basis > > in fact, as are these other silly pronouncements that you have > > dreamed up, and that is part of why I cannot take any of your > > “teapot arguments” seriously. That they were off by a factor > > of three, due to the wrong gauge - is what I have said over > > and over. Wet steam is not dry steam, and a factor of 3 is > > not a factor of 1000. > > > > Please, in the interest of your own integrity – move on to > > something more productive than inventing straw man arguments. > > > > When the Swedish experiments are complete, and there is little > > doubt that they will be performed to higher standards - then I > > will remind you of how far off you were to think the Bologna > > demo was accurate. > > I am, of course, emotionally predisposed to want to side with Mr. > Rothwell for the simple reason that, well... who wouldn't want COP to > be higher than what Jones is suggesting - even if Jones' COP is OU as > well. (Just not as much! ;-) ) I fully admit the possibility that my > emotional investment might be hindering me from observing what might > be called the "obvious" facts in a more objective manner. > > With that confession fully disclosed I would like to add a few > personal observations: > > Correct me if I'm wrong on this point but I seem to recall "second > opinions" have been posted here that seem to favor conclusions that > suggest 15kW is not out of the question. For example, See Robin's > calculations: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg45116.html > > > Jones, what personally bothers me about some of the conclusions you > seem to be drawing here is not the actual conclusions themselves, per > say, but the manner in which you are attempting to conclude your > conclusions. Beside the disquieting fact that your "expert" at present > remains anonymous, and as such we cannot ascertain his credentials... > in your last paragraph you seem to be implying that you have become an > unofficial spokesperson for the Swedish board currently investigating > Rossi's e-Cat device. Do you speak on behalf of these Swedes? Have > they personally granted you special coverage that allows you to draw > the conclusions you have been implying? Such support reminds me of a > similar issue that has been hotly contested within the Vort > Collective: It's vaguely reminiscent of Krivit's support of the W-L > theory, after presumably having been granted special access; the key > point being: special access to what. Seemingly speaking on behalf of > the Swedes in the manner that you apparently are doing has a tendency > at least from my POV of raising some questions as to how objective are > you really being here as well. > > All we can really do at this point is wait for the Swedes to present > their findings. Perhaps we can then draw more accurate conclusions. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
