It always works out the way you desire when you cherry pick the data. Throw away data that does not match your needs, keep all that does. This is the common way that some science operates.
If you want to be truly honest in your effort, you must explain all of the experimental evidence. And, it is important that you consider the fact that 3 core modules were used in the 1 MW test. The customer acceptance was based upon having 3 cores and thus the results were far more robust. I guess that you are attempting to explain the test in early October by suggesting that there was no active core at all. It might be possible to simulate that since only one core was generating heat. My last conclusion seemed to indicate that the power output was a lot less than the thermocouple data suggested. Try not to be manipulated by Rossi and confused as he seems to enjoy misdirecting us at every possible turn of events. He has done that to me on many occasions. Think of this. One core module supplies 3.4 kilowatts of output in driven mode. In the self sustaining mode it is generally 1/2 that amount. I would not be surprised to see just 1.7 kilowatts under this condition, and that should be easy to simulate with concrete or iron or many other possible materials. But then, with 3 modules of the 1 MW system output power goes up to approximately 10 kilowatts for each ECAT. This will be virtually impossible to simulate in the driven mode where the system puts out 1 MW. You might be able to approximate the self sustaining mode at half that power (500 kW), but it will be much harder. Again, if you expect to convince the majority of us that Rossi is conducting a scam, explain the difficult case. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress n Nov 7, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Berke Durak wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus <[email protected]> wrote: > Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make > very little > steam But that assumes that the numbers are falsified. In the customer's public report, it says : Water vaporized : 3716 l. So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing left to investigate. You have to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss - just call it a scam and move on. -- Berke Durak Anyone who believes that 3716 liter number with so little evidence eserves the E-cat he buys. My work is focused on the 6 Oct. test. I think the 1 MW test too onsensical and data free to be worthy of a technical discussion. Best regards, Horace Heffner ttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
