On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed E-
Cat photos.
What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation
fins, external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate
water and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing
suggests and not inside the reactor core as you suggest.
Nonsense!
That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in
doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility
ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited
water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam
emissions. The source and destination of the water/steam is of
course the outside box, and then the top vent. You assertion that
you can determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the
nonsense.
The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and
not from the reactor core as you suggest.
You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you
not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis?
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer
box through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of
which I determined by photo analysis?
This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet
fitting on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the
Higgins drawings suggests)
Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left
front.
and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core.
This you have no way of knowing.
See attached photo.
From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the
reactor core to supply H, heater power and RF energy.
There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for "frequency generator"
input.
Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical
reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of
the reactor core as Higgins suggests.
Of course there is room. The problem is the fins were not observed
there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being
discussed.
AG
On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am
very disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also
appears no one has read my paper at all:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
especially the sections "T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION" and "VOLUME
CALCULATIONS", wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2
in my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing
the inside of the "30x30x30 cm inside box" that supposedly houses
one to three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you
please, Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when
I said no one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring
to the roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this
for some reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the
30x30x30 cm inside box the "reactor", though it clearly is much
more than "the reactor". It is a reactor housing that supposedly
keeps the reactor dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1
inch water sealed conduit pipes connect which carry water, main
power, and the "frequency generator" power from the outside to the
stuff inside the box.
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The
50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant,
except when water levels and temperatures are simulated.
It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen
the photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This
reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.
Here are the important facts:
1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It
was not opened.
2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what
was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior
structures that might be important, such as
holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were
the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.
3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the
exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top
are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box.
4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles,
fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring,
hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not
opened.
5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside
box, together weigh 98 kg. Clearly the inside and outside boxes,
pipes and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98
kg. The boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of
the 30x30x30 cm box and its interior contents is very high.
I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints.
I think Bob Higgen's diagram at:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php
is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm
interior box. The fins are not as big as shown. There is only
one set of fins, on top. The thermocouple is much longer than
shown and likely rests against the edge of the inside box, and
probably on the flanges of the inside box, which are not shown.
The gaps between the inside box and the edges of the outside box
are too large in proportion. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box
dimensions include the flanges to which the top panel is bolted.
This only leaves a few centimeters gap (5 cm on the ends, 3 cm on
the sides, excluding the flanges) between the inside box and the
outside box. See the sections of my paper referenced above. I
should note here that I am working on an update of those sections
based on an improved photo analysis.
Here are my best numbers so far:
Width of E-cat inside box: 30.3 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm
Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
<index.jpg>
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/