At 02:10 PM 7/17/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
From Joshua:
>> OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson;
>> My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the
>> volume of water entering the reactor core could vary.
> Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
> Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
> his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
> the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
> at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
> the temperature of the steam substantially.
Again, I suspect my original premise would indeed be mistaken if the inflow
of water always remained fixed throughout the January demo. So far, no one
on this list seems to have felt motivated enough to either verify or falsify
if this really was the case.
Rossi has frequently made calculations that assume constant water
flow. If he knows that the flow is not constant, that would be
deceptive. But he has not stated how the flow he selects is chosen.
The observers who checked water flow likewise seem to assume constant
flow, they seem to have checked it once. If the sound of the pump is
constant, a certain noise being made every pump cycle, it could be
reasily assumed that flow is constant, but the problem with possible
valving in the E-Cat, or possible partial obstruction that wouldn't
be blown away by the pump pressure (limited to 3 atm?), reducing
flow, isn't addressed.
It would be easy to do, but would require modifying the way the
water/steam leaves the E-Cat. Long hose <> good calorimetry.
Verification of steam quality and lack of liquid water overflow,
close to the chimney, far better. Or other measures, as suggested by Jed.
The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a
seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and
intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would
possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because
he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every
single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree
that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring
uncharted territory.
Those habits exist for a reason. Patent issues, for example. To each
his own, though.
From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. He might have
performed adjustments based on an intuitive feel as to how the reactor core
is currently behaving . He's probably very familiar with how the contraption
behaves under a number of circumstances. Well... let me put it this way. If
I were Rossi, that's what I might have done. The point being *IF* one
accepts the possibility that Rossi's eCats do indeed generate a lot of
excess heat one would realize that it would be very bad for the "engine" to
run out of radiator fluid in the middle of a demonstration. You would then
end up with a seized up totally destroyed engine... or in Rossi's case a
potential melt down, and irrevocable permanent damage to the reactor core.
Regardless of whether one wants to believe such accounts are true or not, we
have been told by Rossi that there have been meltdowns in the past as he was
trying to figure out the right recipe.
Sure. However, if he's adjusting the water flow, he's either being
deliberately deceptive or allowing blatant errors to pass by.
Remember, he's got no obligation, at all, to not be deceptive, until
and unless he's selling something where he's decieved the buyer. We
are accustomed to, in the field of cold fusion, with scientists, who,
we assume, adhere to standards of scientific ethics. Rossi isn't a
scientist and he has no such obligation, no matter how much some of
us might rant and rave about it.
If he wants us to believe him, he'd behave differently, I suggest;
therefore I conclude that he doesn't care if we believe him, and he
may even be pleased that he's being so broadly rejected. If he were a
simple scammer, by the way, he'd not behave this way, most likely.
My very tentative conclusion from all the evidence and considerations
is that there is excess heat, all right, but the amount is not
determinable from the demonstrations, the Levi test in February being
the most convincing and, of course, there weren't very many
independent observers there, if any. And even the Levi test has
possible problems.... But I'm depending for that overall judgment on
circumstantial evidence, much like Jed and Ed Storms. I absolutely
don't blame anyone for being skeptical about this, I simply urge
caution on all sides.
It would indeed be useful if someone could clarify if the water intake had
always been fixed throughout the entire demonstration... or not as the case
may be.
It is obviously assumed. There is, I think, some example of shutting
down the reaction by greatly increasing the flow rate, I think that
has been reported, but that isn't what you are looking for. I don't
think it has been verified.
In any case, I have no need to make excuses for Rossi's work habits - good
or bad. If Rossi's claims turn out to be true, then they are true. If not,
they aren't.
Sure. Is, is. By the way, true claims can be accompanied by
absolutely atrocious behavior. What poor behavior does is impeach
credibility, but it does not negate the claims, per se, it merely
pulls the rug out from under common assumptions of credibility.
I've suggested that it is very hazardous for cold fusion researchers
to enthusiastically promote Rossi as having found the great "it"
which we've been waiting for for twenty years. Maybe. Maybe not!
What's the rush?
