This exercise has me confused. Are you making an attempt to demonstrate that it is possible to make a scam ECAT? That would of course be instructive since Rossi has never run an ECAT for an extended period of time as a single unit. I suspect that we should consider that he is telling the truth about only populating 1 core within the large case for the October 6 test. If you calculate that three times the excess heat energy would be generated with the same input when all 3 cores are installed, then a fake unit is much more dificult to achieve. What are we to assume? Do you think that Rossi is totally dishonest?
I wish you good luck with your endeavor. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 3:12 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress On Nov 7, 2011, at 5:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner <[email protected]> wrote: I continue to plod along on a simulation of prospective E-cat designs to fit the 6 Oct 2011 Rossi test results. I have simulated various combinations of materials for thermal storage and have found that a couple slabs of ordinary Portland cement with a heating resistor sandwiched between them seems to fit the properties of the E-cat fairly well in terms of heat storage dynamics. I don't get this. What is the point of this simulation? I see no point in debating this with you at all at this point. It it very time consuming, and I prefer to spend the time productively. I still am not at a point where I can even write the paper or the simulation results much less debate results. Nevertheless I'll give you one response and then go back to work on it. It cannot explain the salient facts about the reactor: If you spent an hour or so looking at what I actually provided instead of generating arm waving non quantitative babble then you might gain some understanding. * There is no slab of cement in the reactor. People have looked inside and seen no such thing. There is no record I know of showing anyone having access to the inside of the 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm interior box. The slab report shows a probably *insufficient* mass (for fire brick) of 48.4416 kg. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptR4 A Slab Report for Portland cement follows: Slab Report i Width Sp.Ht.Cap. Therm.Cond. Den. Description (nwidth) (J/(g K)) (W/(m K)) (g/cm^3) 1 120 1.550 00.29 1.506 Portland Cement i Width Thm. Mass Therm.Res. Mass Description (cm) (kJ/°C) (°C/W) (kg) 1 12.00 47.11551 2.460125 30.3971 Portland Cement ===== ======== ========== ======= 12.00 47.11551 2.460125 30.3971 Totals You can see cement only requires 30.4 kg instead of 48 kg, to provide a thermal mass of 47 kJ/°C vs 51 kJ/°C. A significant portion of concrete mass requires replacement with something like aluminum or iron to bring the thermal resistance down to where it needs to be and bring the mass up to where it needs to be. Cement requires even less mass than fire brick because it has 3 times the specific heat of iron, and 50 percent more than fire brick. The device weighed 98 kg. The metal boxes are sheet metal. You think a couple sheet metal boxes, a few pipe fittings and the bolts weigh 98 kg or even 50 kg? To me this makes no sense. Plus the reactor would weigh far more than it does if there was concrete in it. You ignored the numbers I provided. The slab provided actually may provide too little mass. Certainly Portland cement (as opposed to the fire brick actually shown) would have too little mass. It would take a gigantic slab to vaporize 60 L of water, much larger than the reactor. There is no evidence 60 L of water was actually vaporized. This is just an arm waving number without substantiation. No one knows the actual amount of water vaporized in any of the tests due to bad calorimetry. * There is no power going into resistors for 4 hours during the self-sustaining run. If you look at the run data you will see that I used exactly the same power input profile provided by Mats Lewan. The only thing unusual, and wrong, is that I used a starting temperature of 100°C. This has only a small effect on the energy profile, and will be eliminated when I model volume stored, water temperature, etc. * The entire reactor starts at room temperature. There is no way you could hide a very hot object inside it. No insulation is good enough to keep the surface from being quite warm. When people pick up the reactor to prevent weight scale they would feel it is hot. * All of the heat added to the reactor initially is measured and it is far less than the heat that came out. There was no dependable measurement of the heat that came out. So this is not prospective E-cat design. It is not a way to simulate the performance of the E-cat. That depends on exactly what the Pout thermocouple was reading on the heat exchanger. I do not understand what you are getting at here. Yes indeed. Apparently you do not understand. I think this is due to invalid a priori assumptions on your part, especially in regards to thermal dynamics. You think the output temperature curve can only decline after power is turned off. This is clearly not true. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
