Part 1B On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote:
lomax> We know from Aleklett's previous blog post on this that he personally knows Kullander, the "person" whom Cude so cavalierly dismisses as if he were some shill. From his blog: I said Kullander was on record as being sympathetic, and that is true. And in spite of Aleklett's personal knowledge of and respect for Kullander, he nevertheless does not share his conviction that there must be nuclear processes going on. I am sure that, as his colleague, Aleklett feels a little constrained in his expression of skepticism. I have no such restrictions. > And Cude's comment on Mats Lewan, the Ny Teknik reporter (highly qualified and professional), is simply an evidence-free cheap shot. Not evidence free. The main objections to the E&K demo were about the dryness of the steam. But, when Lewan flies out to Italy to see it for himself, what is his check on the steam? He holds the hose up or lets it bubble in a bucket of water. And it proves that the steam is far from dry because the flow rate is obviously far below the nearly 2 L/s that would correspond to dry steam. There is no measurement of steam flow rate. He checks the power at the beginning of the experiment, but then ignores it, and when he pans his camera back from the hose bucket into the room with the ecat, there is Rossi with his hands on the power device, and a look like he's swallowed a canary. Lewan suggests that the temperature of the steam a degree above the off-line boiling point is evidence of dryness, blissfully ignorant that the increased pressure inside the conduit will elevate the boiling point. When challenged on this in the comments, he said he blew through the ecat with hardly any resistance. Please! A flow rate requires a pressure difference, and simple calculations can verify a degree increase is completely consistent the observed flow rate. These things are not characteristic of someone highly qualified and professional. This is a reporter who dropped the ball, because he already believed in Rossi. And Rossi's probably good at spotting people he's already won over. It's a prerequisite for the job. > In examining a body of evidence and comparing it with reports, it's always possible to find apparent contradictions. It's not always possible to find real contradictions that completely neuter the conclusions. Those are the ones I'm talkin about. > but I'll note that many have been over this evidence with a fine-tooth comb, No one has given good evidence that the steam is dry. And it would be easy to do. That comb is missing a few teeth. > and Cude's interpretations certainly are not as accepted and obvious as he'd like us to believe. "Brief reduction to 400 W"? This is what the physorg.com report has: > The reactor uses less than 1 gram of hydrogen and starts with about 1,000 W of electricity, which is reduced to 400 W after a few minutes. Oh. I'm disappointed in you. You picked the 400W claim to challenge me? You haven't read Levi's report, I guess. Or you didn't look at the pictures. Let's look at the input power and the temperature in some detail, shall we? Levi actually plots a graph of the input power in his report, and if you watch the video, you can get a pretty good picture of the temperature vs time graph -- better than what's in Levi's report. Fortunately, the people at www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer have done so and reconstructed the temperature graph. Here's what happens: The power is turned on at 1250 W at time zero. Then at 29 minutes (more than a few), the temperature reaches boiling point (101C). At 30 minutes, one minute after boiling begins, the power is reduced to 400 W. But oops, they jumped the gun. The reactor probably produces a little heat, and the system has some thermal mass, which keeps the outlet water at boiling even after the power has been reduced, but not long enough, because at 39 minutes (9 minutes after the power reduction), the temperature dips below the boiling point for 2 minutes.Someone must have noticed this, because at 40 minutes, the input power is cranked hard to 1550 W, and the temperature returns to the boiling point. At 49 minutes, the power is reduced to 700 W. The reactor was probably not producing much heat by that time, because almost immediately the temperature begins to drop gradually. At 56 minutes, the power is turned off, and the temperature continues dropping to ambient. > The input power, which is initially used to raise the temperature of the reactor to operating temperature, is scaled back to 400 watts for the remainder of the demonstration, not "for a few minutes." See also http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MacyMspecificso.pdf and other reports on the January demonstration. You are wrong. But you can be forgiven, because the report you cite, and the text of Levi's report make errors too. The power was reduced to 400W for 11 minutes. That's closer to "a few" than the 29 minutes your reference considers "a few". The *average* input power was over a kW. The output was at the bp for 20 minutes, less the two minute dip for 18 total. Levi claims in the text that the output power was 12.5 kW for about 40 minutes. That's either deception or incompetence. And the 12.5 kW assumes dry steam when the temperature is at the bp. So, he's claiming 12.5 kW at minute 29, but less than 2 kW at minute 28, when the temperature is below the bp. Does that make sense to you? An increase of 10 kW in a minute. But not 10.5 kW,because then the steam would have been hotter. Or a decrease of 10 kW when it dips below the bp at minute 39? The shape of that curve -- the fact that it drops below the bp soon after the power input is decreased (especially at the end) -- suggests the power never exceeds, by very much, what's necessary to reach the bp, which means a 6-fold error in the power estimate. When you throw in the possible error in the flow rate, there is no excess left to account for. This is shown graphically at www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Focardi-Rossi_Energy-Catalyzer. The temperature is completely consistent with the input power if the flow rate is wrong. > The January demonstration had some obvious shortcomings, as to possible fraud mechanisms, and other demonstrations addressed these. Only the private experiment addressed the dry steam shortcoming, and that experiment is less than worthless. > It has been pointed out that a fraud could use different mechanisms in different demonstrations, and, in my view, there is no end of this possibility, until and unless fully independent verification is possible. That's nonsense. Demonstrations of 10 kW, and especially of GJ/g energy density should be easy, without independent verification, or disclosure of the contents of the black box. A standalone device that brings 20 L of ice-water to a boil in 11 minutes is 12 kW. Now heat a 1000 L hot tub to boiling, and you've got 400 MJ. That would be impressive, but to really blow chemical sources off the realm of possibility, boil that hot tub dry, and then you're on Oprah. (And I don't mean running it through some hose, so 99% comes out as liquid or mist. Really produce steam from it.) It's easy. Rossi just hasn't done it yet.
