On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joshua- this will need some discussions but I think eventually we can establish a Perfect Experience Protocol for Indiviual E-Cats- that is satisfactory both from the points of view of engineering and of the sane bureaucracy of standardization. i am opting for fully quantitative and not for "common sense" experiments. They are not exclusive. Quantitative measurements can always be made, but making it common sense would be the most effective, because it wouldn't involve trusting experts. So if it is only quantitative, then the people who make the measurements must be verifiably arms-length. The problem with this might be finding respectable people who would stoop to this sort of a carnival show. > For your information ( I don't know if you read my Ego Out blog- anyway here the following points were proposed: > 1- in case of steam experiments NOT to measure the temperature or dryness/wetness but the enthalpy- i.e total heat of the steam, Sure, using a large tub of water I suppose. But it would also be a big improvement to adjust the flow rate to get the steam to exceed the boiling point by 10 or 20C. Then the dryness would be quite clear. Or, you could measure the flow rate of the output fluid. That would be a very direct measure of the steam dryness. > 2- the minimum duration of the experiment 72 hours, I'd prefer a minimum total energy that exceeds the weight of the device in gasoline. Even better to exceed by a factor of 10 or more, but that would take too long probably. > 3- water heating experiments prefered 2 problems: To get a lot of heat, this requires a lot of water. Using a high flow rate like in the 18 hour experiment removes any visual confirmation from the experiment. I think boiling water can still be useful if it is boiled away from a reservoir through a stack say, so only dry steam can escape. > 4- as far it is possible, after startup to work with zero input Yes. This is critical, in my view. ** *> Now your ideas*:- > - Stirling Engine- I think not a practical idea- which commercial type would yoiu buy/recommend?- If the device can sustain itself on its own heat, and safety can be ensured with cooling water, then a Stirling engine would not be needed. But if Rossi insists he needs input electricity for reasons he cannot divulge, then he needs to generate the electricity with the device for an ideal demonstration. If it is not practical to do so, then I would argue, as I have elsewhere, the device will never be significantly more useful than a heat pump. It might be difficult to design, and I haven't looked in to existing commercial engines. But this is old and well understood technology. An efficiency of 10% should not be difficult to achieve. Compared to the potential of replacing fossil fuels, this is a trivial thing. > -Your Point 3. is common sense experiment, rather qualitative and using ice water is an useless complication, the ice-water ratio cannot be established and maintained- please do not insist!. Not a complication at all. You only need a little ice to make the water temperature clearly near the freezing point. In the power demonstration, the ice would not be melted by the ecat, but only float in the input reservoir. The additional 20C also increases the temperature difference and therefore the power needed. > Experiment made by engineeers NOT by Hausfrauen But observed by journalists and people on the internet via youtube. Icewater is harder to fake (not impossible of course) and easier to read than thermometers. > I protest angrily- a f....g experimrent done without thermo-, flow-, volume- meters is not serious, sorry! A demonstration of an atomic bomb would be serious and effective without any quantitive measurements. Of course quantitative measurements are more useful, and I have no objection to using them as well. But this is a demonstration of a factor of a million above chemical energy density. Like the bomb, it should be possible to make it obvious without meters. > -Chemical vs nuclear vs some ZPE- unanswerable without a complete chemicl isotopic analysis of the spent Ni fuel or exhausted Catalyst. We can speculate a lot but without data it si just am intellectual exercise (Rossi has used a more precise expression) > I don't understand the use of the E-cat in a mode analoguous with a heater immersed in a hot tube/reservoir. Look up hot tub on wikipedia, and check out the second picture. The water circulates through a wood-fired heater, and it is gravity driven. No external power is needed even to pump the water. Likewise, the water from the hot tub would circulate through the ecat. This is in the first place a water-heating experiment with no steam complication. But could be taken to the next level to boil the water to get a 6-fold increase in demonstrated energy.
