On Nov 8, 2011, at 10:35 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical
old power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory
of scam that requires you to prove it.
Not true. It is not I who is making the claims. I merely intend to
show some of the arguments put forth here that the data provided
indicate Rossi's clamis "have to be real" are false. If the data can
be reproduced with a device which produces no nuclear energy, whether
that device actually exists or not, then it should be pretty obvious
the data does not support Rossi's claims. I am advocating for better
testing procedures. The actual existence or not of my simulated
device is irrelevant. The important point is the quality of the
data. I made suggestions in my report for specific ways to improve
the quality of the data. I am not alone in this. Many other people
have suggested numerous similar things over recent months. Rossi's
behavior is potentially seriously damaging the future of LENR
research and the future of billions of people. I think it is
important to speak out about this.
If I say I doubt your theory, that is my right and you have no
right to say "Nonsense" cause you have absolutely no proof of what
you suggest is even remotely true.
I have the right. In fact exercised it. 8^) Your statement made no
sense at all. You wrote: "... water steam occur in the outer box as
the Higgins drawing suggests and not inside the reactor core as you
suggest." The observation that "... water steam occur in the outer
box..." does not preclude in any way that water and steam can occur
in the inner box under limited control. You made an erroneous
inference, a logic error. It makes no sense. You also grossly
underestimate my understanding of the structure of the E-cat in
question.
As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term
reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells?
If you knew anything of my history, or looked at my web site, you
would know I am an LENR advocate and experimenter, and that I accept
that some experimental reports of light water excess heat are likely
correct. I have done some experimenting myself and put forth some
amateur theories:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CFnuclearReactions.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/dfRpt
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflationFusion.pdf
The question in my mind is not whether LENR exists, but rather
whether any evidence exits at all that supports Rossi's claims of
commercially viable nuclear energy production. These are two very
different things.
If not why? If yes then why do you doubt Rossi?
I see Rossi as potentially the biggest threat to the field that has
ever come along. I also think I made fairly clear in my data review
my position with regard to the 6 October 2011 test I have been
addressing of late:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
I think it was the best of the tests so far, but still obviously
inconclusive.
AG
On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
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/
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
