Hello Steven Vincent Johnson <[email protected]> , Good to receive your warm, wry, alert comments --
like the smiling hanged man in the classic Rider Tarot deck, hair hanging down, hands crossed behind his back, suspended from a tree by a rope to one foot, the other foot crossed over that leg, I am mainly waiting for Rossi himself to come to his senses, do a proper run to show to himself there is no excess heat anomaly, and then promptly share this with complete candor... Any evidence, video, or witness testimony, as to whether Rossi or anyone else held the portable hand display unit for showing the four temperature readouts from the four thermocouples, which someone said put out microvolt signals on wires to the unit -- or is there a record of all settings of the adjustment control before, during, and after the July 7 run on its 1 GB SD card -- since apparently this control can be used to vary the display temperatures by several deg C -- there has already been a plausible critique that Rossi seemed to be adjusting the input power at the blue control console during the demo with Krivit...? I woke up this morning, realizing this was the kind of perhaps impulsive, opportunity of the moment, action that might occur, far simpler than massive heat storage inside the reactor system, or cunning modifications of the circuitry and programming of the temperature control display unit... Anyway, Horace's painstaking and thorough critique, thoroughly vetted and improved in candid discussions on Vortex-L, establishes that the demo has not proved excess heat or heat after death. I notice a trend... and a heroic tragedy much in the tradition of ancient Greek drama... I honor Andrea A. Rossi for his Promethian spirit -- stubborn, driven, solitary, independent, fierce, willful, defiant, human -- may others emulate him -- may his work inspire others within the ragged primitive frontiers of cold fusion explorations to prove anomalies that inspire physicists and all men to create amazingly, productively, for the benefit of all. within mutual creativity, Rich Murray https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=nm#inbox/132e0b96e1fb9396 On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jack, > > Nice to see you are still around. A much clearer version of the graph is > located at the end of my data analysis: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg52405.html > > I sent several versions to vortex, increasingly compressed, before I got > passed the vortex filter. > > A much better clip of the legend is attached. > > The legend tags are: > > red circle - Pin (kW) [power in] > blue diamond - Pout (kW) [power out] > yellow square - Ein (kWh) [energy in] > brown triangle - Eout (kWh) [energy in] > > Ooops! - I see I made a typo on the original graph W instead of kWh. I have > fixed it in the report and the new legend is attached. > > Thanks for the correction! > > The x axis shows elapsed time in minutes. The Y axis shows kw for Pin and > Pout, kWh for Ein and Eout. > > I felt it was important to show these values all on the same graph because > it clearly shows that once hot water is flowing, i.e. power is turned off, > quickly eliminating much steam volume, the excess heat values show up > immediately. Eout only crosses Ein, i.e. COP>1 occurs, only once the > electric power is mostly shut down. > > During the first 130 minutes there is no hot water flow because the E-cat is > still filling up, and still heating up, thus the blue line remains flat near > zero. Once the flow begins the over unity power begins. It is quickly > elevated when the power is turned off. > > Notice the steep decline trend of the blue curve from 350 minutes to 550 > minutes. This corresponds to the nearly drop in T2 (not shown), which > likely corresponds to a drop in the internal temperature of the huge thermal > mass of hot metal inside. It is most notable the experiment was terminated > when that temperature approached 100°C. > > Due to bad calorimetry, there is an "excess energy" explanation for all the > Rossi tests if you think in terms of how the output thermometer can be > affected by thermal wicking - an old problem discussed many years ago with > regards to metal thermometer wells in CF cells. > > The thermometer attached to the heat exchanger is right next to the > water/steam input to the heat exchanger. There is an insulated thick metal > heat conduit from the steam inlet to the Tout thermometer. When steam goes > into the heat exchanger it does not have enough specific heat to provide a > large false reading on the Tout, which is maintained at a lower temperature > by the competing cold water flow. However, when power is cut back, and pure > nearly 100°C water is pumped to the heat exchanger from the E-cat, that > water has the thermal power to drive up a large false temperature reading on > the Tout. This explains why there is an upward temperature movement almost > immediately every time the electric power is cut back. The steam quickly > abates, leaving only a water flow due to the pump. The Tout thermocouple is > placed directly on the metal and under insulation, not placed in the water, > so this is a perfect situation in which to obtain false temperature > readings. > > There is still enough energy stored in the metal thermal mass to produce a > bit of steam, on the order of 100 W or so. This is enough to generate a > percolator effect which makes the blue line erratic as shown. > > It is notable that if a calibration run were made then this kind of > measuring error, if it exists, would show up as soon as the test device were > full and up to temperature and then the power cut back. > > In the case of the thermometer hidden inside the Rossi device, and previous > devices, they are subject to direct wicking from a large insulated metal > thermal mass which heats up well beyond 100°C. Also, steam present above > the water line in the device, especially in the chimney of the earlier > devices, when the flow is reduced, is subject to superheating to some > degree. The 120°C temperature recorded may just be a thermometry problem - > easily solved by measuring outlet temperature a small distance down the hose > away from the device itself, where the thermometer is not subject to direct > metal to metal thermal wicking. > > It is notable that in this test the primary flow circuit is open. Pressure > should not build up inside the E-cat, unless valves are present inside which > close or partially close automatically near 100°C. However, the water > "condensed steam" flow through the heat exchanger was manually verified, > indicating a significant flow was present, indicating the pressure should > not be high inside the E-cat. Yet a higher than 100°C reading was present > for the thermometer inside the E-cat. That indicates a good possibility that > it is merely a systematic false reading. > > > On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: > >> Hi Horace, 10-8-11 >> >> I don't understand the two attached captions >> for your graph. Would you please put them in >> plain text (ascii) for me? >> >> Also, I would appreciate any explanation of the >> graph you can give me. >> >> Thanks, Jack Smith<rossi106.jpg><r2os106.jpg> > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > > > >
