Jed, I should have used more careful wording in my post and the title is misleading. I am thoroughly convinced that a lot of excess energy is produced by the ECAT device. I made a poorly worded attempt to explain the large immediate peak in calculated output power when the device is deactivated, which seems to defy explanation. You and I apear to be in agreement that the thermocouple readings are not the main indication of performance.
I wish to repeat my statement so that it is not misunderstood. There is a significant amount of excess heat generated by the ECAT. My theory explains the strange measurement behavior observed when the device is deactivated. I suggest that the large peak in true output power at deactivation does not occur. I think that a plot of the actual output power would be smooth and slowly falling at that point in time. I am pursuing the correlation between the T2 readings of the ECAT and real power delivered to the heat exchanger. For this to make sense, it is important to understand any mechanisms that might obscure the true power and energy detection. The Excel simulation that I developed strongly supports the contention that there is no overflow of water through the output port of the ECAT. There must be a logical reason for the false secondary thermocouple reading peak at ECAT turn off that does not include water pulses or overflow from that port. Also, I think that many other inacurate and non sensible measurements associated with the poorly constructed test configuration can be explained by my theory. I will be happy to answer any questions concerning the thoery which may arise. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 10:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT Peter Gluck <[email protected]> wrote: And a reason more to use a simple steam water mixing device (valve) to condensate steam in the place of this finicky heat exchanger- There is nothing finicky about the heat exchanger. It is an industrial product. It is simple, reliable, predictable and well characterized. Let us not complain about aspect of this test that are perfectly okay. There are enough real problems. The only problem with the heat exchanger was the placement of the outlet thermocouple, and you could place that incorrectly with a steam mixing device too. Actually, it turns out that the placement does not matter, but it would have been better to use the 2 open slots on the meter for 2 more thermocouples placed downstream. (There was no need for a redundant measure of the inlet temperature. It was tap water.) as I have suggested months ago, Rossi has ignored this idea, complexity is part of his game. A heat exchanger is no more complex than a steam mixing device. Rossi wants to test these machines at steam temperature. Perhaps what he wants is a high temperature, and steam is easier than pressurized water. Many cold fusion device work better at high temperatures. He is the expert, and if he thinks it is best to use high temperature, we should not second guess him or criticize him. It does not add to the complexity much. The system as configured in this test is still simple. Also, it produced irrefutable proof of massive energy generation. People here have been trying to refute it but so far none of the arguments holds water. Someone said the water may not have been flowing into the reactor during the 4-hour self-sustaining event. That is a classic case of a "skeptical" claim even crazier than the craziest cold fusion claim. Everyone could see the pump was working and condensed water was flowing out of the reactor. The total amount exceeded what the reactor can hold, and the water had to be coming from somewhere. At this point, I would say the people who do not believe these results no longer have a leg to stand on. They are waving their hands and focusing their attention on trivial aspects of the test, while they ignore the elephant in the room. They need to stop talking about minor issues with thermocopules. This discussion about "close contact to the metal" and "chemogalvanic or electroosmotic voltages" is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it is irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather. You could pull the thermocouples out and throw them in the trash and we would STILL be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THERE WAS ANOMALOUS HEAT. The thermocuples could be completely wrong in every respect -- the numbers might be painted on the meter screen! -- but the result would still be compelling. Forget about the thermocouples! Forget about using a steam mixer instead of heat exchanger. None of that matters. Focus instead on the fact that water flowed through the reactor replacing the entire volume of water twice (approximately), and the reactor was radiating a lot of heat for 4 hours. Yet it remained too hot to touch right to the end. Without heat generation it would have fallen to room temperature after 1 hour, never mind 4 hours. If you dispute that, you do not understand elementary facts about nature that people have known for thousands of years. Horace Heffner's analysis, which I linked to in the News section, is also focused on irrelevant details instead basic physics and common sense. This analysis is wrong. - Jed
