requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one
thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever
runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Horace Heffner" <hheff...@mtaonline.net>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
First let me correct an earlier statement in this thread. In regards
to the pipe conduits to the interior box from the front of the outer
box I said: "There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for
"frequency generator" input."
That was meant to say: "There are actually four: 1 gas, 1 main power,
and 2 for "frequency generator" input." I think it is especially odd
that the two "frequency generator" conduits, one above the interior
box flanges, one below, are 1 1/4 inch pipe, while the conduit for
the main power is only 1" pipe. It seems reasonable to speculate as
to what might require, and be located inside, the large pipes.
On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/11/9 Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net>:
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.
I am responding to this post only because words I did not issue have
been put in my mouth.
If you think that there is a 30×30×30 cm³ black box
"Black" is your wording, not mine, in relation to color. Those
dimensions came from Mats Lewan's report which I reference in my paper:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
I also determined from the photos that the actual dimension is closer
to 30.3 cm. Any reference to a "black box" I might have made in my
writing was not literal, but I don't recall referring to the interior
box as "black". The color might be called rusty dirty scale deposited
on aluminum.
(it was not mine
impression, but my impression is based on indirect conclusion made
that I do not remember anyone saying seen such a large black box
inside),
If you had read my paper you would have seen a photograph appended of
the 30x30x30 cm interior box, with sealed pipe fittings going into it
from the front of the larger box.
and you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and fraudster,
I did not at any time say that. Those are your words, not mine. It
is you who repeatedly jumps to the fraud conclusion, not me. Fraud
or self delusion are of course possibilities I recognize, as do many
others, especially given Rossi's inability numerous times to provide
anything other than highly flawed calorimetry data, or refusal to
admit the importance of such mundane scientific concepts as controls,
etc. The lives of billions of people are affected by Rossi's actions
now, regardless the outcome. Why will he never make the tiny
incremental effort required to properly demonstrate he produces
nuclear heat? If he does not give a damn about the rest of the
world, only his marketing strategy, then that indeed does not speak
highly of his morality, does it? His bizarre behavior raises logical
questions. Has he no faith in himself to produce his claimed
results? Has his discovery gone the way of Patterson's beads? Are
his results now merely amplified artifacts, or insufficient to be
commercially viable? Is he unable to run for multiple days, much
less multiple months as claimed? Only Rossi himself is responsible
for creating these doubts.
What I *would* be happy to do is show the possibility that a logical
construction can produce the observed results. Given the 37% extra
output heat that I mistakenly built into my spread sheet by biasing
the temperature, it does not take an unfeasible error in the Tout
reading to accommodate a good match of result by simulation. Given
it is not even known for sure the Tout thermocouple was in direct
contact with metal, this is not a far reach. However, if I could
show even a possible fraud based mechanism exists which simulates the
results with the given inputs, that would be sufficient to
demonstrate the calorimetry requires improving. It should be
sufficient to quell at least some of the ridiculous non-quantitative
arm waving true believer arguments made here, but probably won't.
You do see the difference between calling Rossi an evil criminal
fraudster and showing a logical mechanism exists which reproduces the
experiment outputs given only the experiment inputs, don't you? The
purpose for the latter is to provide some motivation or justification
for a customer demand for appropriate due diligence. The former would
serve no purpose. Many people in the blogosphere have said or implied
the E-cat is a fraud, so the former would be useless, in addition to
being unsubstantiated arm waving.
then why do you cannot understand, that it is also trivial to fit
internal chemical power source to 30×30×30 cm³ black box?
If you had read my paper, especially the section "CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE CENTRAL MASS" you would have understood. There is a logical
explanation for using slabs of material to retain and stabilize heat.
"Thin layers of insulation can be placed between the iron and the
catalyst, and the catalyst and the water, in order to maintain the
catalyst at a desired temperature above 100°C." There are even good
reasons for active control of the heat release - namely to control
the reaction. That heavy thermal masses reside in the interior box
of the 98 kg device I take as self evident from the photos. The
majority of the 98 kg mass has to be located *somewhere*. It
certainly is not located in sheet metal and a few plumbing parts.
That is what started me down the road of finite element analysis. It
answers "Newton's second law" arm waving remarks, and combined with
water volume and temperature computations might place some boundaries
on other assumptions.
Therefore your "analysis" is not only ridiculous it is mere wasting of
time, because it is based solely on nonsensical speculations. It would
be more productive for you to think how to fit 4-10 liters e.g.
thermite inside 30×30×30 cm³ black box.
–Jouni
You are right. There are numerous ways chemical means can be used to
produce such short period test results. Radioactive sources could
also be used to enhance results. However, such means are not
repeatable without reloading. They would not evolve naturally as a
means to control a real LENR reaction, possibly now elusive, nor as
form of self delusion. I think these kinds of heat source
explanations provide a far less credible conclusion, especially given
that the power out curve looks to be a result of timed release of
energy from thermal storage, triggered by input power reductions.
This is the kind of response one would expect from the action of
normally open valves.
Attempting a serious analysis with such unreliable data I'll grant is
ridiculous, and probably even useless given no one will read it. I'm
considering dropping all thought of LENR for a few months and getting
back to my other experimental interests. On the other hand, such an
analysis may some day help someone understand what they are looking
at when they open up the boxes. Wouldn't that be cool! 8^)
Ps. besides, your method does not explain observed gamma-radiation
near E-Cat, that was reported someone how had their own Geiger counter
in the Oct 6th demonstration.
Sorry, but it would make no sense to respond to the above kind of
unsubstantiated, non-sourced, non-quantified, non-referenced arm waving.
Don't you think it is highly discourteous and annoying when a poster
expects you to dig up a reference and respond when that poster is too
lazy to provide a URL or quote?
In the future, if you attribute any specific statements or concepts
to me, such as "... you think that Rossi is an evil criminal and
fraudster..." please provide a reference (e.g. URL) and quote.
I am going to stop reading this list for a while. It is too
addictive. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
