Dear Abd, I have posted this answer at my blog: In an other message re. the same issue you wisely have stated: "There are lots of questions, and we simply have way too little data to answer them."
I think this is valid too in this case. There were some start-up problems both in the first-repeated trigger) and in the second experiment- great thermal peak- drowned in a lot of waster. After that the experiments were down scaled from cats to kittens, including the plan for the 1MW demo- here the number of generators has increased > threefold. An aside-two natural questions here: 1- the probability of troubles varies with the n-th power of the number of combined cats, what's the value of n? 2- what's the maximum number of E-cats in a clutter, already thoroughly tested? I think this has to go stepwise. There are some problems with the high art of E-cats control and we will know they are solved when the devices will be fully automated and will happily work with zero input after an easy and very short-start up. Why steam experiences are better for control than water cooled ones? My instinct of engineer says that the problems of control are more dfficult for a greater temperature gradient- from the hot core to the cooling agent. in a case of steam this gradient is only approx 2/3 of that for water. That means that a really perfect experience should work with water cooling exactly as you say.It will be more convincing and much less vulnerable to the wickedly creative attacks of the skeptics Peter On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]>wrote: > At 11:14 AM 5/27/2011, Peter Gluck wrote: > > > My former post at the Ego Out blog about how to NOT buy an E-cat in the >> sack has >> revealed the existence of many problems for the startup and development of >> this device. >> > > I'll agree. There are lots of questions, and we simply have way too little > data to answer them. > > I think E-cat skeptics and E-cat believers could jointly work out a >> PERFECT EXPERIMENT >> this could terminate a lot of lenghty disputes >> >> < >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html >> > >> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html >> >> >> Nothing new or original here- but a CALL to action.. >> > > The problem is that there is nothing in it for Rossi, at this point, to > hold any more demonstrations until he's got that 1 MW plant built. If he > falls short on that, if the deadline starts slipping, a motive for a better > demonstration might appear, but not until then, I'd say. > > The obvious thing to do, in a public demonstration, is to increase the > water flow so that the water doesn't boil, as with the February > demonstration, only this time it would be observed by others than Levi and > Rossi. Then the observers would examine the E-Cat, presumably everything > except the contents, all the connections, the water hoses, etc., and there > would be sweeps, as done before, for electromagnetic radiation, calibration > of energy input, searches for any hidden connections or power sources > outside the device itself, etc., and the demonstration would be for long > enough to rule out all chemical storage or battery-like effects, given the > size of the E-Cat. That should be by a large margin, because what if Rossi > *actually discovered* was a new -- but possibly impractical -- energy > storage mechanism. > > $2000 for an E-Cat that can generate 3.5 kW for six months .... that's 15 > MWh, working out to 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. Nothing spectacular about > that, Massachusetts is running about 15 cents right now for residential, but > if refueling is only $1000, 6.5 cents per kWh might be interesting! The > cheaper the refueling, the more sense this makes. With improvement in > manufacturing and volume -- there is no sign that material costs will be > truly high -- it might get very cheap. > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
