On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
As I showed numerically, it was not reasonable that no water was
ejected in the prior demonstration tests unless the tests were run
at precisely the right input power (from electric plus LENR) at
all times to just boil all the water yet not raise the steam
temperature. Not likely!
Quite likely. Any cook knows how to keep a pot from boiling over.
Not a good analogy because cooks don't have a constant inflow of
water. They don't have to regulate heat with long duty cycle
regulators. It is not boiling over but rather water overflow that is
the issue.
This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to
insulate the barrel.
That is not necessary. Just use a lot of water and keep the test
limited to around 5 min. As long as the overall water temperature
does not go much above ambient you don't have to worry about heat
losses.
Five minutes is not enough to run a complete test. Momentary power
measurements are highly flawed for determining total energy in vs
total energy out for a dynamic system.
Of course the thermal mass could possibly be mostly lead (at 0.14
kJ/(kg K)), but on the other hand it could be mostly Mg ((at 1.05
kJ/(kg K)). We don't really know. Even if it is mostly lead, and
driven to 200°C, it will still hold more than required to bring
the 6 kg to boiling. Since the amount of steam was not actually
measured not much more energy has to be supplied to provide some
steam.
At least half of it was boiled.
Well there is enough energy storage to boil the 6 k of water you
specified. You seem to be presenting a moving target, bobbing and
weaving. 8^)
Lewan tells me the the boiling did not decrease noticeably during
the heat-after-death event.
Well, an unknown quantity of steam generation did not change
noticeably. How very scientific!
Furthermore, the entire experimental run before that heat-after-
death event was highly exothermic. There was no time during the run
when heat might have been stored up.
That depends on the actual water flow.
On the contrary the machine should have cooled down several hundred
degrees. It should have been covered with frost, like a canister of
butane firing a grill. (Boyle's law is readily apparent in Atlanta
outdoor grilling weather.) The heat came out as quickly as it went in.
It is very likely that stored heat will not come out as quickly as it
"went in". The thermal resistance to the bulk of the storage is
likely higher than from the heating element to the water. It takes a
dynamic model to understand the heat flow when input conditions occur.
With 2.5 kW going in it would have been barely boiling, less than
0.7 g out of 3 g for the overall run.
Hard to say, not knowing how much water ran out of the machine
directly, or what the flow rates were.
After the power went off, the metal would have quickly cooled down
to stop all boiling.
Calculation please!
I doubt it would have boiled at all with only 2.5 kW. Even with
insulation the box, the pipes and other components would have
radiated so much heat, only hot water would have come out. Anyway
the major heat loss path was from the fluid, not through the
insulation.
- Jed
Do we actually know what the input flow was, or the water outflow
was, after the power was shut off?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
