On Nov 8, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
Again, I don't know of anyone being allowed to see the insides of
the 30x30x30 interior box.
1. Levi and the people at Defkalion say they saw inside.
Levi and Defkalion people saw inside the 6 Oct E-cat? I thought
Defklion and Rossi had outs.
If they saw inside some other device at some other time then that is
irrelevant.
Levi has been an inside guy from the beginning has he not? I see no
difference between him and Rossi in regards to this issue. For that
matter Defkalion is or will be selling similar devices, true?
What is important, obviously, is access by independent observers.
Lewan says you can see more than the photograph shows. There is no
sign of concrete.
There was undoubtedly no sign of eagles or of diamond rings or elves
or many other things either, or for that matter Ni or lead. The
phrase "see more than the photograph shows" can mean anything.
BTW, the final large heat pulse before power cut-off could very well
be due to water flowing into the 30x30x30 box through a hole. There
could be two major slabs, one large and long (and to the left of the
wiring input port) with lower thermal conductivity, and one short
one with higher thermal conductivity material (to the right of the
wiring input port). The water access port would provide access of
the water to the larger left slab. Access of water to the smaller
higher thermal conductivity slab would be the result of removal of
the signal generator signal.
Just to be clear, not that it is very important or relevant, I did
not use the term concrete to mean ordinary concrete made with sand
and rocks. Ordinary concrete has poor thermodynamic properties
compared to Portland cement. If you see me use the term concrete
please assume it is one of my many typos. I actually mean cement.
Cement delays the heat pulse too long. Ceramics or fire brick
delay the post power cut off heat pulse to a time closer to the
observed data.
2. In previous tests observers dumped out the water from the vessel
after the run and measured the volume. There is no space
unaccounted for in the vessel. There is no place to put concrete.
These are meaningless words. I specified *inside* the 30x30x30 cm
inner box. What happens outside that box is obviously immaterial.
Why would you bring such a red herring into the discussion?
3. The previous cylindrical reactors were easy to see inside of.
There was no concrete in them. It makes no sense to claim that the
previous reactors were real and this one is fake.
This is nonsense, and yet another red herring. You are digging
pretty deep to respond! 8^) The calorimetry for those devices was
entirely different. They were not designed by Rossi to demonstrate
"heat after death". The obvious flaw in the demonstration of those
devices is the output was never observed - it was simply sent down a
drain.
Furthermore, you claim that output power is not measured accurately
but this is incorrect. This analysis shows that the temperature of
the cooling loop thermocouples was correct to within 0.1°C:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%
20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx
Take a look at this photo again:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg
There is a good possibility the thermocouple did not even touch the
metal of the steel nut. Why would anyone with any experience at all
leave the mess of ragged insulation around the thermocouple? It
looks to me the thermocouple was probably exposed primarily to the
air temperature under the insulation. At any rate, any one with
nominal experience should know to place the thermocouple down the
rubber hose a bit to avoid thermal wicking in the metal.
No one has challenged this analysis. Besides, even if this is
incorrect and half of the input power is being stored while the
electric power is turned on,
What do you mean half the input power is being stored? It is all
being stored (except for leakage through the insulation) until heat
shows up at the heat exchanger.
the overall output profile is still correct, and output greatly
exceeds input. In other words, in the storage scenario, you lower
the output curve to half of the input, while power is on, and then
measure the area of stored energy, and compare it output energy
during the time power is on, and afterwards. The area of the latter
greatly exceeds the former.
All you are saying here is the output energy is larger than the input
energy. We can not know that without good thermocouple readings.
This is not inferable from a measurement. This is a rehash of old
well trodden material.
Storage cannot explain these results.
Sure it can, if the thermocouple readings are not reliable. Most
importantly, simple passive storage can explain the bumps in the
power out curve after power in is cut off. What it can not explain
is the response of the E-cat interior thermocouple to the the
miniscule power from the frequency generator, without active control
being involved. There are feasible explanations for active control
that do not involve fraud. However, it is also true active control
provides an excellent mechanism for managing and releasing stored
energy in any manner desired.
- Jed
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
