On 11-11-02 04:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely
to me. When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it
falls too far, you throttle it.
This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here. In the test
from last spring, the electrical power level was (supposedly) fixed;
if it wasn't then the calorimetry was nonsense.
Exactly which test do you refer to? What was the date?
Despite my use of the singular, I wasn't thinking of a single specific
test; as far as I can recall, all the "steam" tests done in the spring
supposedly had the same output temperature, to within a degree: 101C
+/- 1 degree. Since I didn't say anything about flow rate or absolute
power level, my comments regarding precision of control applied equally
to any and all such tests.
If there had been one test done, ever, with an output temperature
substantially higher than 110C, it would be a different ballgame. But,
there wasn't; always the temperature is just a hair over boiling. And
the flow rate was always fixed a priori, without reference to the actual
power level after the unit started, which leads directly to the same
conclusion regarding precision of power control (precisely matched to
the flow rate, with power variation after "ignition" much less than +/-
1% ... better, in fact, than +/- 1/10 %).
The one I looked at in the most depth was the K&E test (IIRC), because
it's the only one for which I saw a coherent output temperature graph.
That one, in particular, did not show *any* "hunting", and in particular
showed no positive excursions in the temperature, as one might expect if
the power were being controlled manually by dialing it up or down to
keep the temperature steady at or near 101C.
(The only liquid-phase test I'm aware of which was done last spring was
a private party, Rossi and a couple friends the only ones present, and
I'm quite content to ignore it.)
There were several. I think they are listed here:
http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm
I believe Rossi adjusts the power in all of them except the self
sustaining ones, but that does not make the calorimetry nonsense,
because input power is only a small fraction of output power.
You are assuming that the input water was fully vaporized, of course.
Otherwise the use of the term "small fraction" is somewhat misleading.
It makes the calorimetry inaccurate. Of course the right way to do it
would be to record everything on computer, but that's not Rossi's way,
as we know.
- Jed
