On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Berke Durak <berke.du...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? > > As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the > power > > was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at > most) > > 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = > 1.5 > > GJ > > Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5 > GJ, > unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius. > Quite > an unlikely scamming technique. Also, that would be too heavy for the > way they > were mounted in the container. No one can describe in detail the exact nuclear reaction that produces the necessary heat without radiation, but still people don't seem to have a problem claiming it's nuclear. So why is it necessary to describe in detail the energy storage or chemical reaction that might produce the heat before you might consider also this possibility? There is no question that with a 100 kg device of that size, the energy density required is completely consistent with ordinary energy storage or chemical energy production. No one looked inside any of the ecats on Oct 28, so they could contain anything. There were 107 ecats, so that means that each one only needs to produce about 10 MJ. Fire brick has a heat capacity of about 1 J/gK, so for a 500C temperature change, you would need about 20 kg. That's only a fifth of the total weight, and at a density of 2 g/cm^3, that's only 10 L. I don't see any problem with that, even given what was shown on Oct 6 with the open ecat. And some fire brick can be heated to 1500C, so it's possible with even less of it. Using phase change with molten lead could of course give much more energy storage, but that doesn't seem to be necessary. And 10 MJ corresponds to only a few hundred milliliters of a clean burning fuel like alcohol, just as an example. But some chemical reaction between the hydrogen and nickel could probably supply that as well, or at least some fraction of it. However you want to do it, the claimed energy is obviously well below ordinary chemical energy density, so I don't see any reason to invoke nuclear reactions to explain it.
