At 03:42 PM 7/18/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:
[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.
It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. I was living for a time
in an industrial building near here. They had a fire suppression
system, built many years before, with sprinklers all over the inside
of the building, and a huge water tank underneath the parking lot,
and a pump to maintain water pressure that would come on
automatically if there was any drop in pressure. As it happened,
there was some kind of backflow leakage, and this system would turn
on at about 5 AM when the local water supply suffered a common drop
in pressure, there would be backflow and loss of pressure, so the
automated system would turn on. The fire alarms would turn on and
everyone would have to leave the building, the fire department would
show up and we wouldn't be let back in until the fire department
verified it was all clear. It got very old after a while.
Water systems can suffer substantial changes in pressure from changes
in flow. If the water flow was full-on, as apparently it was,
basically the maximum they could get to come out of a tap, this would
be particularly sensitive. The possible effect of this? Unclear.
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.
I think the analysis is correct.
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".
That's what I'd think, but we don't know what temperature that would
be. We are only seeing the cooling chamber pressure. Of greater
interest would be the reactor temperature, which I'm practically
certain Rossi is monitoring. Controlling this thing by only looking
at coolant temperature would be asking for major oscillation, too
much thermal inertia.
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.
We can speculate until the cows come home. What's become clear to me
is that excess heat has not been *clearly demonstrated.* It looks
like, sometimes, there may be some. Excluding fraud, of course. It is
"how much" that is quite unclear.
