On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 1 minute after turn off, boiling was mostly stopped. T1 99.7 ~ 99.8°C > (marginally hotter than before turn off, because the metal pot was still > hot). T2 98.7°C > > 2 minutes after turn off. T1 99.3°C, T2 97.7°C > > 7 minutes after turn off. T1 97.0°C, T2 94.1°C > > 13 minutes after turn off. T1 94.2°C, T2 91.0°C > > As you see, 2 minutes after turn off, the temperature was already > measurably and consistently lower than with boiling. > > I mentioned that Julian Brown reported the temperature of the eCat remained > at boiling for about 2 minutes with the power turned off. Let us assume the > thermal mass of the eCat metal is roughly the same as the 1.6 kg pot. As you > see from these numbers, it is a little hard to judge a 2-minute > heat-after-death test. If there was no power going into the cell and no > anomalous power, I expect it would have stopped boiling, but the temperature > may not have fallen enough to confirm this with confidence. If it stayed at > boiling temperatures for 5 minutes with no input power you could be certain > there is anomalous heat. > So many mistakes.... so little time. It is nice that you take the time to do experiments, but you should consider doing some that are relevant. Set up a little cell with an electric heater and pump water through it with power 2 or 3 times the boiling threshold power, and then turn it off and see how long it takes to go below boiling. Make sure the warming up gradient is similar so you know you have a similar thermal mass, and wrap it in insulation, just like Rossi. You may have to go to the hardware store, and do some plumbing, but at least the results will mean something. The problem with a pot is that to maintain boiling, you need only enough power to cover the losses. And if you are epsilon above that threshold, then it would take no time to stop boiling when you shut the power down. In an ecat, to maintain boiling you similarly have to cover the losses (which in this case include the water being poured down the sink. If you are epsilon above the power necessary to start boiling, then again, it would take no time to stop boiling when the power shut down. But in the ecat, before he does his heat-after-death illusion, he gooses the power. So, if the ecat is at 150C to just maintain boiling, he might goose it to 300C. Now, it has to cool back to 150C before boiling stops. According to his and your claim, the power is 7 times the boiling threshold, which would require much higher temperature still. Judging from how long it takes to cool from 100C to ambient when the ecat is shut down, this could easily take several tens of minutes. In the pot, since water is not pumped through, the power required to maintain boiling is much lower, and increasing it by a factor of 2 or 3 would not take as big a temperature change (of the pot), if you could even identify when that was. That is to say, increasing the power would go into an increased outflow in the pot (but not in the ecat), and so the temperature doesn't increase as much, and it would therefore cool off faster. More importantly, there is no indication you even tried to increase the power above the level required to maintain boiling, so the experiment means nothing. And finally, the ecat is heavily insulated; not so the pot, which will therefore cool off by convection. As much as you like to boil water on a stove, it is not the same as an ecat, and your experiment is irrelevant.
