At 10:46 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost*
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in
the E-Cat will rise.
Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point.
That's an error, I'm sure. Raise water to the boiling point. It does
not vaporize. To vaporize it requires additional energy. Okay, okay,
some water will vaporize below boiling, but it carries away heat as
if it were boiling.
Two issues are being mixed here.
Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this
water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in
temperature will occur.
No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and
it wouldn't be.
So, I have boiling water in the E-Cat, under some level of back
pressure because the steam must escape through the hose. You are
saying that the water in the E-Cat is cooler than the steam? How does
that happen?
Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over
a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As
long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to
the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low
enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same.
It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the
boiling water which flows out.
Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would
obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature
gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter
water near the outlet.
Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this
be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool
flowing water as you claim?
As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the
knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it
boiling while hot water flows out.
When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with
steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work
with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise
the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When
it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in,
you can't do that.
Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you
talking about? Further, we have no evidence that power is "increased
or decreased" in the later demos. It was changed in the January demo,
it seems. There is no way of observing the water level in the E-Cat,
to determine how much to increase it or decrease it. In the Kullander
and Essen demo, the temperature increases until it hits boiling and
it's nailed there. No feedback is possible on that temperature. If it
happened later, great. But we weren't provided with that data.
This is the result you see in the data from several of the
high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The
temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing.
Is the temperature constant there? "Overflowing" can cover a range of
conditions, there would be overflow with boiling and overflow without
boiling. If an experiment is controlled to keep the temperature "just
below boiling," that could easily be done, with feedback from the
coolant temperature. That's not done here, but that only means that
the experiment has been taking into the "boiling" range. Not that it
has gone to dry steam. With dry steam, no overflow, the temperature
would again start to increase unless somehow the chamber is kept full
to the same level. By mysterious means.
Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you
insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also
better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some
occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right,
as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said.
We agree that increased flow rate, no boiling, is clearer. In that
case, we don't have much of an issue with vapor/liquid ratio.
Given that a huge issue with Rossi is the *level* of the results, the
deficiencies in the demonstrations are quite important. I've pointed
out that, in the extreme, the deficiencies could erase the apparent
excess heat. I'm not claiming that this is likely, but that it's
possible; it might take more than one artifact. Or more than one fraud.
At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is
better in many ways.
Seems better to me.
Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run
in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the
input power for "a while." I asked him how long is a while? How many
minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It
is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down the duration.
It is hard to estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and
the temperature should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I
say this because the specific heat of iron and copper is about 10
times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass, and an
immense amount of energy is removed by boiling. Boiling stops
quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove.
Just about immediately.
If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that
would be proof of anomalous heat. I did a test boiling 2 L of water
the other day in a pot with a glass cover and a K-type thermocouple.
Less than a minute after cutting off the heat the boiling stopped,
and 5 min. later the water temperature was down several degrees and
the headspace down ~5 deg C. That was the case even though the metal
pot was pretty heavy and of course much hotter than boiling temperature.
No, the pot will be very close to boiling, quite likely, the heat
transfer to water being quite efficient. Remember the Dixie cups used
to boil water over open flames? Metal conducts heat better than paper!
It is a shame Brown did not observe heat after death for 5 or 10 minutes.
Rossi claimed Brown was only there for "thirty seconds." That's not
at all consistent with him being invited. How would you feel if
invited for a conversation, you travelled to Bologna, and after
thirty seconds you were told, "conversation over, go away! now!" No,
Rossi is extremely incautious in what he says. I'm not going to say
he's lying, because he might believe his nonsense.
