On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/6/25 Horace Heffner <[email protected]>:
A tea pot has no means to overflow. Water is not continually
added. It is
also not designed like a percolator, with large confined boiling
compartment, and a narrow short chimney.
It does not require much engineering to modify tea pot that it
supports adding water during boiling...
Sigh. OK, if it is that easy then heat a tea pot with a 600 W burner
and flow 2 cc/s of cold water a minute into it for few hours. Let us
know how it turned out! You don't even have to modify the tea pot,
just provide a fixed flow rate of water into the pot and a 600 W
burner, or use a variac to achieve 600 W input. Alternatively, if
you have an X watt teapot, flow (X/600)*(2 CC/s) water into it for a
few hours, and see what happens. You don't even have to flow at a
uniform 2 CC/s. You could just add the correct amount every few
minutes or so from a glass. For example, if you have a 1200 W
electric tea pot, you would add 4 CC/sec or 240 CC/min, or 720 CC per
3 minutes. A 3 minute egg timer might be of use. Make sure that
when the (hot) water overflows it does so safely. You may have to
insulate the pot to get an accurate reproduction of what I am talking
about.
But you got the design of E-Cat wrong, because chimney is wider than
actual boiling area near reactor core. Therefore it is not percolator
like setup, but more like a teapot. We now this because it produces as
dry steam as tea pot. If you say that E-Cat acts like a percolator,
then you need to have better and detailed knowledge about E-Cat, but
you have none. Therefore your discussion is just plain speculation and
it does not have any basis on facts.
–Jouni
Take a look at the interior of the E-cats, as they were at one point:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VIn_mQi1H-M/TZ1ZIpKD4-I/AAAAAAAALAE/
xo1T4ZRm41o/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg
Now look at the YouTUbe video of the E-cat as demonstrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
You can see that the large top chamber is no longer present in the
unit under test, that the hose comes out not far up from the
horizontal part. Of course even this does not matter, because, as I
said, if the thermal power drops below 600 W then the thing will
eventually overflow water. An overflow of water means the estimates
of heat output can be off by a large factor. There can in fact be no
free energy, no nuclear energy, provided whatsoever. The only way to
determine the energy produced is to do calorimetry on the steam/water
output. That has not been done, or at least not reported.
Since there is no serious technical content in your post, I'll now
just repeat my prior statements.
Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See:
http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html
A transparent U-trap just past the current steam exit might prove
informative.
Rossi's main claim of utility is excess heat. Yet no one has made any
effort at even very basic calorimetry measurements on the output.
It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a
dime in this technology without even the most basic and inexpensive
science being applied to the most important aspect - calorimetry on
the output.
Despite my dismay at the calorimetry, or lack thereof, and lack of
due diligence (on the part of investors), I should note that I have
made an effort to understand how Rossi's results might be real. For
example:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg44845.html
I still hope beyond all reason that Rossi's methods are real and
useful. If not, this could be the worst thing that has happened in
the field of LENR. LENR is clearly very real, if not useful yet. I
think everything is still purely a matter of speculation though
regarding Rossi's results, for those outside Rossi's inner circle. It
is thus best to simply wait and see what unfolds.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
