On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The October 28, 2011 test of the Rossi 1 MW LENR system was either a > success or a failure depending upon your point of view. The skeptics > have decided to totally disregard the test results without allowing the > ECAT any reasonable chance of success. > Not true. This skeptic has considered the measurements reported on Rossi's 3-page report, and found that the measurements do not support Rossi's claim of heat from nuclear reactions. His calculation of 470 kW is based on an unsupportable assumption of dry steam at the output. No evidence is given on the report or verbally, that it is in fact dry. There is only the claim. In fact, the evidence excludes the possibility. > What would you expect for them to do? They see the glass as half empty > while the proponents of the ECAT see it as half full. There is no > possibility for a resolution of this impasse without a large quantity of > data. > A small quantity of good data would resolve this impasse. Rossi is careful not to supply it, because the impasse is essential to his modus operandi. Mr. Rossi was expecting to dazzle us with his brilliant 1 MW ECAT system. > I think he was expecting to confuse people with it, and to maintain a following of true believers who want desperately to believe his claims have merit. In that, he succeeded. > Making one ECAT operate into a well defined load is not easy, [...] > You're just trying to make excuses for why Rossi can't give a convincing demo of gigajoules of energy from a few grams of nickel. > Both of them would understand the reason to throttle back the power > level to the 470 kW output region. > The throttling back by a factor of 2 was not the problem with the megacat demo. It was the failure to demonstrate more energy out than energy in, that was the problem. > All the customer would need to witness is that the ECAT system vaporized > the water input and output dry steam at an approximately defined level. This > was apparently what the customer engineer saw. > He didn't even *claim* to see that. The fluid was inside a closed system. According to his interview with Lewan, he based his claim of dry steam on the temperature, and the claim the liquid was captured. But without pressure the temperature does not prove dry steam, and capturing liquid with a tee in the conduit doesn't work if the water is entrained in fast moving steam, and it works even less well, if the valve is closed, as appears to have been the case. Oops. If it was dry steam, then he is claiming an eightfold increase in power transfer in a matter of minutes. How does that work? > Who would doubt that water would initially be collected within the > water trap before the ECATs came up to power? The engineer would have a > serious case of ignorance disease if he did not verify that water was being > trapped under the cold ECAT condition. Give the guy a little slack here. > But that says nothing about whether the water will be trapped when 1% of the water is vaporized. In that case, the vapor occupies more than 90% of the volume in the conduit, increasing the pressure and boiling point, and producing a mist of entrained droplets in the pipe. The mist will not be trapped, especially if the valve is closed. And why should we cut him slack? He clearly failed to demonstrate any expertise in this event. After proving that water is indeed trapped with no power applied, the test > was begun and the data that we see was obtained. > It only proved that water was trapped when 100% liquid. That says nothing about whether or not water was trapped when 1% (by mass) is steam, giving > 90% steam by volume. And especially if the valve was closed. > Rossi knows perfectly well how much water is required in order to produce > 500 kW of output power in self sustaining mode. > Why is water required to produce heat? I goes you mean how much water is required to get 100% vaporization to within one per cent or less. > Do you question this? He also knows that his ECAT 1 MW system puts out > approximately 500 kW without drive. > I have no reason to believe he knows that. And approximately isn't good enough. If he's claiming dry steam, then he'd have to know it to a per cent or so, which seems unlikely. And the power would have to be stable to a per cent or so, which is also unlikely. With this arrangement, all Rossi and the engineer have to do is watch the > water collected within the liquid trap and keep emptying it until no more > water appears. > But with the trap they were using, water would stop appearing at the onset of boiling, because it would immediately produce a high speed gas containing entrained mist. Of course, closing the valve would also cause water to stop being trapped. > Everyone is happy except for our skeptic members. > Right, because no one can explain: (1) why is the temperature so stable, requiring power stability of 1% (2) how does he get an 8-fold increase in power transfer in a few minutes, if the first-fold power increase took 2 hours. Also, when did they do this flow rate adjustment to get the water to stop being trapped. There is no indication of that in the temperature record. Did they do it the night before? All of the water is vaporized so the power can be determined to be 470 kW. > Only in your dreams. > There is not liquid water being ejected by the ECATs. > There is no evidence for that. > The ECATs are capable of self sustaining mode for hours due to the > operation of a 3 core device with positive heat feedback beyond what we saw > in the 1 core test of October 6. > Again, not supported by the evidence. > So, I am dazzled by the demonstration of a 1 MW cold fusion heat device > which is an historic event. > Even if your interpretation were right, which it surely isn't, you were dazzled by 3 sheets of paper with claims on it from Rossi and his long-time associate. You are much too easily dazzled. > The fizzle is only in the mind of those that will not see through the > fog of reality. > More believer testimony.The only fog is in your head. Do you honestly think that 470 kW is too low of a power to witness for a > cold fusion device? > I honestly don't think there was 470 kW. The evidence (claimed evidence) only supports 70 kW, and that is not impressive from 107 100kg-devices that were heated first for 2 hours with 200 kW. > What does it take to get your attention? > Really isolate an ecat (just one), and use it to heat something really big, like a pool of water, or to lift some really heavy weight. That would be better. But sending all the heat down a drain or into the sky... not so much.
