Perhaps someone can provide specific reference to a statement by one of the participants in the E-Cat demos that the water flow was maintained during the heat-after-death tests.
Joe Catania: Your post below is what you should have started with: 1) It contains a detailed explanation of your reasoning, which gives us enough information to understand the basis of your argument. 2) There are no personal attacks in it. We are talking two completely different scenarios for the heat-after-death test. You are assuming that the water flow was turned OFF, and I think most of us are assuming that the flow was unchanged from the power-on operation. I think the whole point of the 'heat-after-death' test is that water flow is still going on during that part of the test. -M From: Joe Catania [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the metal may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi and I believe Defkalion. If the flow is turned off or is only 1g/s it looks like 15 min can easily be justified. Also even if it 2g/sec steam can still be produced since metal surfaces will still be at 100C. If there is steam wetness it will appear that more steam is being produced than really is. But as long as there's heat transfer from metal at >100C to 100C water there will be some steam produced (maybe not as much as at power off but some). I took Levi to mean some steam was produced for 15 min and I accepted he used his judgment to determine when that ended. So its very possible that all he may have been observing was thermal inertia. On the other hand, if there's something else going on- some other heat source, as looks to be evident in K&E demo then the thermal inertia source may coincide with the anomalous source. For instance if the hydriding reaction is what is causing the increased slope to temperature rise in the K&E graph you might get ~1MJ of hydride caused heat being released (~200,000J/mol and ~1 mol/9g). The reason I wanted to be understood about the thermal inertia is that good calorimetry will need to take it into account. I believe it has already been posted to Vortex that time history is important- this is roughly the same. It will be difficult for us to determine the exact goings-on in Rossi's device even armed with this since we don't know if he keeps the flow on (I'm guessing he does), what the rate is (Rizzi may be right about it being at least halved), the steam is not thoroughly dry, and we don't react have details of the reactor construction. I have to say that from the K&E report it seems Rossi might not even be aware that the hydriding that occurs in metals when packing hydrogen into the lattice is not the chemical hydriding that K&E quote the enthalpy to but the physical hydriding which releases much more energy. So now its not clear if that was detected at all. If Rossi understood physical hydriding and merely hired Levi as an independent, University associated researcher to try to detect the "self-sustaining nuclear" reaction that would be observed upon cutting the power he may have baited Levi and hinted that there might be such a phenomenon relying on Levi's innocence to report continued steam production. From watching the interviews with Levi it seems he is not aware of thermal inertia or physical hydriding that contribute to this "extra steam" and may have been forced to attribute it to a successful cold fusion demo.
