It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of the reactor. No? Harry
From: Joshua Cude <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM >Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement > > > > > >On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> >wrote: > >At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: >> >> >> >>>I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up >>>to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of >>>power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly >>>bring the temperature below ignition. >>> >>First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to >>me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's >>assume that. > > >They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. > > >Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend >much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if >the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there >appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the >ratio. > > >> >> >>To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction >>generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You >>need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. >>> >> No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." > > >I agree, but they certainly claim it does. > > > >Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the >temperature behavior. > > >It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power >as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its >own. > > > >Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, >increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which >the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the >conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point. >> > > >The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the >reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the >temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What >am I missing? > > >>There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be >>generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction >>chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining >>temperature. > > >If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the >same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature. > >>I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that >>the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would >>be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only >>a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being >>only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band >>heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then? >> > > >The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures >of the leads for it. > >
