On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very >> carefully. > > > No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people > quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. > I prefer it that way. I certainly don't write for your benefit, and it allows me to counter your nonsense with my blather without getting into long drawn-out blather contests. > > > 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. >>> >>> >>> No, he adjusts the power. >>> >> >> See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an "out." > > > Anything is "conceivable" but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother > worrying about it. > You just suggested he adjusts the power, and in all but the January demo, he claims it's constant. He's clearly being dishonest if he is doing as you claim he is. > > So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud > have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of > vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct: > > "This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not > produce wet > steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry > steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is > very simple and very basic physics." > Ah yes, the forbidden power region theory. You should submit that to the Nobel committee. The ecat cannot possibly produce 2 kW of power, even in passing, because then the output would have to be a mixture of steam and water, and that's impossible, because cooking pasta produces dry steam. > However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to >> reach, from an engineering perspective . . . > > > Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on > the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming > through, and the temperature drops several degrees. > So, it goes from 5 kW (complete vaporization) to 600 W (below boiling) in a heartbeat. Some trick, that! > What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum >> power. > > > Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam > which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating > because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it > goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water. > Once the ecat outer walls reach constant temperature (during the power up phase), the power only goes in to keeping them hot, which is to counter whatever is lost through the insulation; not much by the way he is touching it. > > Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at > location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure > is negligible with this device. > Some pressure is necessary to produce flow, and for the vertical part of the ecat. That's enough to explain the higher bp. The perfectly flat temperature is far better evidence that it is at the bp, than the absolute measurements of temperature and pressure. > As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all > you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature, > atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all > the water was vaporized. > You're taking your physics from someone who learned it cooking pasta? > I have already said far too much on this subject. > And so much of it is completely wrong.
