[snip]
However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not
terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly
showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted
as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example,
by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time.
Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short
time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these
in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing!
_________________
Abd,
They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from
the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow
meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone
flushing a toilet.
I'm only half-joking.
This may have all been covered before, but:
Provided this is not a scam (important caveat), it is best explained that an
operating E-Cat is difficult to keep stable. With the large water flow, Rossi
was running the E-Cat closer to its self-sustaining temperatures. It would run
away at times, and it was merely luck that the nano nickel did not melt and
bring the experiment to an abrupt halt. In Rossi's effort to keep the E-Cat
stable, he runs WELL below the self-sustaining temperatures and pressures.
As J.C. has gone to great pains to illustrate, water at the boiling point is an
excellent medium to absorb energy fluctutations. It's always possible that
A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to "turn the E-Cat
down", - ended up turning it off.
In Krivit's demo (and others) it may have not been working. That doesn't mean
it doesn't work. It means that it may not have in those demos. All demos
should've shown a "kink" in the heating curve, when the E-Cat "turned on".
Rossi may be ignoring valid criticisms, because "knowing" that the E-Cat works,
he can't accept that it might not be working just then.
