AG, I think that Horace is giving it a good effort to come up with a scheme to prove it is possible to simulate Rossi's results. That is OK as Rossi has done everything within his ability to confuse the data and leave himself open to serious doubt. I suspect that it is not a coincidence where the output power thermocouple was located. If Rossi had allowed us to have accurate output data, I could have reverse engineered his ECAT quite well. There are others who would wish to duplicate his device and produce them, but that is not my intent. As an example, I am confident that there exists a well defined function of vapor output power versus ECAT temperature reading T2. With this information, it would be simple to calculate the exact power output at every point in time and thus the true COP. Rossi must have this relationship in order to conduct his testing of individual modules. Even the power up sequence he uses is part of his testing. I have conducted a number of reviews of the data supplied during the October 6 test and can see his intent. I suggest that you look over a the detailed, smooth graph of T2 versus Time using all of the data points. If you do, you will see a treasure trove of data to mine.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat <aussieguy.e...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 5:14 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress I will read your information. I do apologize for assuming you were a ENR denier. But mate, values in the inside box to do a fraud? Maybe a it much. AG n 11/9/2011 7:21 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: 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/
