On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/15 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>:
The claims made for months that all the water was being converted
to steam
has been utterly crushed!
Krivit was clearly right on his seven points.
True, but his seven points had nothing to do with Rossi,...
[snip]
I did not say it had anything to do with Rossi - other than the
obvious implication that there was no other public evidence there was
*anything* unusual going on in the E-cat, other than the unreliable
estimate of heat out. Rossi himself is a side issue, but it would be
interesting to see what he actually said about the steam quality.
Here is some homework for you to do:
.
I don't accept homework. Also, I don't work for you.
[snip]
If you can answer these questions, please do. If you cannot answer
these question, please do not claim that your criticism is anyway
rational.
.
These questions are irrelevant to my point, merely diversions from
the embarrassing fact no one bothered to even look at the E-cat
output port flow, much less perform calorimetry on it. The people
who said all the water was turned to steam were obviously wrong, as I
already demonstrated through reasonable calculations, even if there
*is* anomalous heat. It seems to me more worthwhile to spend my time
to go back and look at who said what than to waste time on yet
another experiment report where we know nothing of the internal
structure and where meaningful energy balances were not measured.
More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted
to steam,
the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something
practical
has been created, the basis for the "calorimetry" of the public
demos, is
now shown to be without basis in fact.
This is Mats Lewan's and only Mats Lewan's idea.
.
Well, I think looking back at the lists and blogs might prove
informative with regards to who said all the water was converted to
steam.
Rossi does not think
so. And it would not make any sense to ANY engineer anyway, because
such a state where "all water is converted into steam" is not
physically stable state of the system. System is no in equilibrium.
This only shows that you do not understand much about engineering.
.
What nonsense. If you flow water at 1 ml a second into a 1500W
coffee pot you will see all of it emerge as steam and at atmospheric
pressure. It will come to a heat flow equilibrium. The steam will
not be at 100°C however.
Frankly I am disappointed your ad hominem filled and extremely
insulting message, as it is only based on your lack of understanding
what was happening in the Bologna.
But one hint for you that do not look what Mats Lewan said, but look
only raw data what he provided. Then calculate yourself, if you can.
Of course you need to be creative, what might be problem for you,
because no-one has has not cooked the data so that it is easy to
digest.
.
It seems to me more worthwhile to spend time to go back and look at
who said what than to waste time on yet another experiment where we
know nothing of the internal structure and where meaningful energy
balances were not measured.
The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer
than the
water that pulses out with it is irrelevant.
True but, this just shows, that you and Krivit does no nothing about
the steam physics, because you are misusing concepts and you are
inventing new definitions for physical concepts.
.
.
At least I did not invent the idea that only dry vapor is emerging
from the E-cat ports. That is pure fantasy. Not even taking the time
to look is even worse than fantasy, especially after large amounts of
water exiting the port is pointed out as a logical necessity, based
on conservation of energy. Investing in something with the poor level
of evidence provided publically, and expecting good results, is
fantasy. Or, as Jed put it, insane.
Admittedly, I did use the term "percolator effect" to describe what I
expected to see happening at the E-cat exit port, and in the hose
exit as well, where it rises from the floor to the drain, when the E-
cat was operating within the early demo power ranges. That is not
misusing a concept, however.
Meanwhile, I thin you should keep in mind: "The quality of steam can
be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the
proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4]
i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality
of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam." See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality
Steam quality chi is given by:
chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total)
"Mass total" clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality
of 0 indicates 100% water by mass.
The
important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being
converted to
steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the prior "calorimetry"
claims
were.
That does not have nothing to do with Rossi, because those silly
claims were made by Galantini, Levi, et al. scientists, who did not
know anything what they were doing. Galantini even misread his
instrument as he thought that it measured the pressure where the probe
is inside. This clearly shows, that he did not know anything what he
was doing.
You are mixing the claims made by Rossi and the claims made by
independent scientists.
This is just a red herring argument. If Rossi did not make the
claim himself that all the water was converted to steam, and I am not
sure he did not, he stood by while his evaluators (and/or partners?)
argued intensely about the issue for months. Also, I did not say
anything about Rossi himself in the above paragraphs. What I did say
in the above paragraph is clearly true, and that is the issue that is
focus of my remarks.
Rossi has not done any claims, but he has just
left independent scientists to measurements as they please. Too bad
that they did not have much idea about calorimetry. But as I am
looking you, Horace, they were not in bad company because neither does
you have much creative ideas how to make calorimetry.
E.g. your criticism about steam sparging test, was clearly shown to
you that it is not from this world, but it was your misunderstanding
of proper methods.
I still say sparging 12 kW steam into a bucket is a very poor
calorimetry method and unsafe as well. Jed disagreed with this, but
when it came down to his actual experience he used a barrel, which
was what I suggested in the first place. At that point I deemed the
argument circular and inane and let it drop. Also, it merely provides
a point of power data. It does not provide the integrated full run
energy balance data needed to do good calorimetry, especially if non-
equilibrium conditions exist in a test. I must have posted this about
100 times here. This is just common sense.
Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more
difficult
regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better
regime for self
deception.
What do you mean by equilibrium?
I mean the heat flows are all (for practical purposes) constant and
the temperature at each location is (for all practical purposes)
stable with time. Provided these conditions are met, then occasional
point measurements of power may be useful. If caloric input changes,
or electric energy provided changes, then very frequent power
measurements, or direct energy summing measurements are required on
the outputs to accomplish a test energy balance due to the thermal
dynamics. We have seen this problem many times in the LENR field.
If you are referring that all water
is evaporated, there is no such thing. Only stable state of
equilibrium is when E-Cat is producing less heat than cooling water
can absorb. If you know anything about boiling water reactor
technology (you may make a case study with Fukushima BWRs) then you
should know, that there is always liquid water present. This is the
basics of any steam technology and this has been always the case with
E-Cats.
The fact that you do not know too much about BWRs and calorimetry does
not mean that things are more clear to Rossi, who has made water
boilers quite many decades.
None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of
value or not.
Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high
quality
input and output energy measurements prevents the public from
knowing.
Public does not need to know anything before October.
Well, that is true, provided no money changes hands between now and
then and no solicitations for investors are made, that no one is
drawn in by what you admit were highly flawed demonstrations that
have not publicly been acknowledged as such.
Those who want
to know and does posses some rudimentary ability to analyze the raw
data, they can say with high probability what was the
Your argumentation is completely silly, because you fail to understand
that there is required only to hide 3 liters of ethanol to fake
results. Why this is for you so difficult to admit? There is far
easier methods to do fakes than rely to that you will hire incompetent
scientist.
The experiments done don't require faking to be very bad. That
merely requires some of the worst personality flaws of some
scientists - an overconfidence in results, an unwillingness to
challenge results when they were expected and positive, a failure to
listen to advice, an unwillingness to admit obvious flaws in past
experiments, and a preference for arguing instead of improving methods.
Since the public is being kept in the dark, the months of fluffy
bluster
does, however, tip the scales more strongly toward a negative
verdict.
Put money where your mouth is. How much money you are willing to bet?
If you do not invest money for your opinions your opinions are
worthless.
–Jouni
When it comes to the E-cat, I'm keeping my money to myself.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
