Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2) It will take a LONG time for the e-Cat to come up to temperature. > As far as I know it never takes more than 10 or 20 minutes. No one has ever reported that takes longer than this. The test will be at least 12 hours so warm up time is irrelevant. No form of stored chemical energy can power a device of this size at that power level for that duration. It would take roughly 5 gallons of gasoline to do that. > Only after it's stable, Rossi will begin circulating water in the > secondary . . . > I have never heard of anyone doing it that way. You have to circulate water in the secondary loop before the test begins, to show there is no heat measured; i.e., inlet temperature equals outlet temperature. It never occurred to me anyone would start the secondary loop after the machine warms up, but I will tell them they better do it that way. > , and the e-Cat temperature will drop a little, and then have to stabilize > again. > this will not happen if the secondary loop is on the whole time as I expect it will be. 3) Secondary water flow will be properly measured and regularly recorded, > but input primary power measurements will still be inconclusive. i would > REALLY like to see Voltage and Current (Thru-Line , not clamp-on, measured > from an eCat equivalent of "mains distribution") > They say primary input power we turned off for most of the test. The machine will be run in heat after death mode. so input power measurements will not be a factor. In any case, the output power is reportedly 15 kW and there is no way an ordinary wire could conduct that much electricity, so you can rule that out. > 4) Power gains will be relatively small and will be reliant on > calculations using a "no input" value during the supposed "self-sustaining" > mode of operation to exist at all. > Power gains have been enormous with this device! As I said it will be in self-sustaining mode most of the time. That is the plan anyway. As a result, we will all be cursing the "self-sustaining" mode as an > unnecessary invention that only muddies the results. Many will say that the > hours of "warm up time" should correlate to hours of "cool down" time, and > that residual heat can explain away the maintained temperature. > The warm-up time is a very small fraction of the total running time. It makes no difference since you cannot store much heat in the device of this nature. > 5) Rossi and Jed will say that the test was conclusive (Sorry, Jed) > The previous test with 30 min. of heat after death was conclusive. The only "skeptical" explanation offered here is that the heat was stored in metal which is a violation of elementary physics since metal cannot hold that much energy without melting and there was no endothermic phase. (I put skeptical in quotation marks because this is not actually a skeptical hypothesis. Anyone who believes that is naïve, not skeptical.) [Note: I am impressed that DragonSpeak formats "naïve" correctly.] > **Note: All that we NEED here for a conclusive test is: > 1) Input power properly and completely measured, time-stamped, and flagged > with any Rossi-enduced duty-cycle changes during operation. > Eliminating input power seems like a better method to me. > 2) Secondary circuit water flow with flowmeter measurements, continually > recorded and time stamped > 3) Secondary circuit water flow input temperature, continually recorded and > time stamped > 4) Secondary circuit water flow output temperature, continually recorded > and time stamped > 5) Sufficient operation time to rule out a conventional reaction > Extraneous data will only serve to complicate what should be very > straightforward calculations. > I believe The plans call for points 2 through 5 to be done. 12 hours should be sufficient. The outside observers attending the test will be allowed to look inside the machine and weigh all the components so we will know whether this is long enough to eliminate a chemical source of energy. - Jed
