Jed, Don't miss the fundamental argument of heat storage. Great care was taken to insulate the E-Cat, and keep heat from escaping. If you think that this is impossible, I have an experiment for you. Make a scalding hot 1/2 cup of coffee. Put it into a Thermos. See how long it takes to cool. Repeat the experiment with a larger volume of coffee. People are saying that 20 liters of boiling water in a container specifically designed to hold heat, surrounding large hunks of metal exceeding 124C (after all, they must be hotter than the water to heat it) has stored energy. Rossi, in one of the videos or his blog (can't remember) said there was about 20 liters of water. At .91 s/g flow rate, it would take more than 6 hours to replace the water in the E-Cat. Think eye-dropper of cold water into a scalding hot pot. You come across as demeaning when you dismiss these arguments for "violating the laws of physics." The only temperature increases that you are seeing are on the secondary, which necessarily must be incorrect. More than likely, HH is right, and the changes seen are the results of slugs of hot water overflowing the E-Cat.
The measurements at the secondary MUST BE incorrect. If the measurements are correct, the E-Cat would run dry and the temperature would have to rise. > Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 07:40:21 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Please stop making unsupported, physically impossible > assertions about stored heat > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > jed, if the power were used to, say, run a thermoelectric heat pump, > cooling one side of the pump, and heating something that was otherwise > internally insulated, then heat WOULD go up after power is removed. > (Just saying, if I were going to fake something, that's what I'd do. ) > > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Colin Hercus wrote: > > > >> If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C > >> is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well > >> insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give > >> the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a > >> scam > >> is possible based on primary temperatures. > > > > People here keep saying this but there are fundamental physical reasons why > > this is impossible: > > > > 1. Nearly all the heat added to the system clearly emerged from it before > > heat after death began. if that were not the case, the temperature would not > > have risen, and the cooling water would not have removed so much heat. you > > cannot have the same heat emerge from the system twice. > > > > 2. When the power is turned off the temperature declines rapidly as seen at > > 15:26 and again at the end of the run 19:43. > > > > 3. The temperature rises after the power is turned off. Stored heat cannot > > do this. > > > > 4. The temperature fluctuates. Stored heat can only decline at a fixed rate. > > > > This is a physics form. If you are going to make assertions which are > > contrary to the known laws of physics you should at least acknowledge that, > > and try to explain why you believe this is an exception to the laws of > > physics. I also think it is appropriate to do this before you publish > > accusations of a scam. > > > > The accusation that this is a scam should not get a free pass, and not be > > subject to a rigorous analysis based on the laws of physics. > > > > Honestly, if you think that stored heat can act this way, I think it is > > incumbent upon you to perform an experiment to demonstrate it. I have > > asserted that laboratory grade handheld thermocouple meters can measure > > temperatures between zero and 100°C to within 1° reliably. I did not just > > assert this, I tested carefully many times, and I can upload sample data to > > show it. People who make these claims about stored heat should be willing to > > upload data showing how stored heat being released in a stable system with > > no changes to the flow rate or other conditions can suddenly increase the > > temperature. > > > > - Jed > > > > >
