1) I am not discussing if it was some excess heat the problem is its control. In order to achieve some degree of control, Rossi has sacrificed some basic parameters, reducing performance- power from 12-15 kW to 2-6 and O/U from 200: 1 to 6:1 (actually less than 2:1 as value of the energy, electric energy being more costly than raw thermal energy. He has obtained progress based on regress and evolution associated with involution. There is a huge difference between a generator of energy and a real energy source. Rossi claims he will sell his products soon, actually they are not usable yet, they are technologically immature.
2) The stem valve answers almost instantantaneously to any change in the heat released at the outlet of the E-cat while the heat exchanger has a greater inertia and delay. However you can work with a small temperature difference cooling water outlet -inlet (3-6 deg C) with the exchanger and this is a "fine" source of errors. I have worked with both and I know the difference, in this stage of development it would be fine for Rossi to know what happens - very fast. I hope he is doing some more relevant test for his personal use. 3) It is a zero risk that Rossi would invite me to the Oct 28 test, but I would think a lot if to take the risk. I strongly dislike the idea of this collective test- multiplicative scale-up, as long as the individual E-cats are not perfectly disciplined and obeying any order of he experimenter. I have seen and studied many accidents in the industry and I know that it is not good to give Nature a possibility to show that it is sometimes step-mother. 4) I hope Rossi's mystery Customer is an engineering company and I wonder how "he" has accepted an less-than-one-day experiment for 28 Oct, for an industrial product in-spe it is decent to make an one week test at least. Why not first optimize individual E-cats? A lot of work, tens of parameters, great opportunities to innovation. I may be in deep error but I think Rossi's management of technology is also very immature. Let's see what have the Defkalion engineers accomplished. Peter On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> 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 > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
