[ duplicate from parallel discussion } Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat.
I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario that Rossi found that increasing the electric power input to the heating resistor, deep inside the active core of his reactor, still outside the 50 cc stainless steel chamber, full of nanopowder Ni and a catalyst, at some high level of power produced dozens of explosions, which he attributed to runaway LENR, converting N 62 and Ni 64 to Cu 63 and Cu65, with, if I recall his most recent interview correctly, 0.1 to 0.5 Mev gammas, easily shielded by a few cm of Pb, from intermediate radioactive isotopes with half-life up to a maximum of 20 minutes. I visualized with increasing input electric power with time of operation, increasing thermal conductivity resistance from the stainless steel chamber and the heating resistor (probably something like NiCr wire inside a high temperature insulating ceramic), due to decreasing heat flow transfer rates. 1. In the chamber, even 1 % mass of the 2 gm/sec input water flow being boiled into steam would produce 34 cc/sec steam, enough to bubble and froth the water in the chamber, steeply decreasing its ability to conduct heat by radiation, conduction, or complex convection -- so at some point of increasing input energy, the complex situation will reach and pass a trigger point of instability, leading to steeply increasing heat retention, temperature rise, melting of the metals, explosion of the resistor, complex chemical reactions from O2 dissolved in the city input water, H2 in the Ni nanopowder, Fe, Cu, Cr, Ni, the catalyst, and the resistor ceramic components, the Pd shielding, and finally the exterior insulation and Al, and atmospheric O2 and N2 -- do we know the actual volume inside the reactor, the witch's cauldron for the witch's brew? 2. The failure of the heating resistor would allow sudden transient added electrical arcing and shorting of the power supply, feeding the reactions and sustaining very high temperature chemistry -- which thus is a promising target for precise measurements. 3. The preliminary buildup of water, froth, mist, and steam within the 3 m of black opaque output pipe will increasingly impede the exit flow, facilitating a transient standstill in the device and setting the stage for thermal explosion. 4. Gradually over time, and more quickly just prior to explosion, mineral scale from city water will build up on the interior surfaces of the reactor, especially the hotter resistor and stainless steel reaction chamber, decreasing heat transfer. 5. Over years of solitary, tenacious, blind effort, Rossi would have evolved a setup that allowed a stable demo with hours of operation, fixed water flow, constant electric input, stable 100 deg C output flow temperature, and an output at the end of the hose that could be attributed to nearly complete vaporization of the water flow in the device, thus justifying a claim of 7 fold excess heat. In lieu of so far unconvincing evidence for nuclear reaction radiations, transmutations, or isotopic shifts, or of control runs without the catalyst, or videos of the flow in a transparent output pipe, it is for me reasonable to assert this scenario as both plausible and commonsense enough to justify asserting that the Rossi device will be famous as a case of contagious scientific delusion. It is important, for the safety of intrepid experimenters, to publicize this possible thermal explosion scenario. In mutual service, Rich Murray [email protected] 505-819-7388
