On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I > have been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a > short time that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not > that is a real problem but the following theory easily eliminates that > issue. First, the pooled water is being evaporated by the initial hot > vapor entering the steam pipes. This shows up as the relatively long > shoulder period that is visible just before the "big bang" in temperature > reading of the thermocouple within the steam pipe. > The evaporating pooled water at low pressure holds the temperature down > until it is dispersed. At that time, the much hotter vapor that is > collected within the ECATs can begin to escape the output valve and quickly > raise the steam pipe temperature since it is no longer restrained by the > pooled water. I think this makes perfect sense and matches the temperature > data collected. > It doesn't make sense to me. If the steam coming from the ecat is at the boiling point, as you have already agreed, then that means the pressure is above atmosphere, and so there is nothing keeping the pooled water at 100C. It can increase to the boiling point as well. The temperature is only at 100C for a few minutes, and that is consistent with the pressure starting out at atmosphere, and then increasing quite rapidly when boiling begins and the steam begins to form. There is presumably some kind of aperture or even regulator that limits or regulates or in some way determines the pressure for a given power output, and this can have an erratic sort of response, especially when the pressure first kicks in. Basing any sort theory on the that behavior is gross over-interpretation, in an experiment that should require only the safest under-interpretation imaginable. > > Now, the power output does not have to instantly show up as 470 kW since > the water level within the ECATs is not overflowing. Why would it not be > reasonable to assume that the water level continues to rise more slowly as > time progresses until the final 470 kW is achieved? If the output now > exceeds 470 kW then the average levels within the ECATs will start to > decline. > So, what you're saying is that the measurements are consistent with power initially far below the 470 kW, and that they increase gradually over time to 470 kW or higher. The problem is that once you've admitted the measurements are consistent with 70 kW output at the beginning, then since the measurements don't change over the 5.5 hours, you have no evidence to suggest that the power does increase. And so 70 kW throughout is also consistent with the measured data. Even the dry steam argument (which I reject) doesn't work, Because, if you allow an arbitrary starting level, and assume the ecat is filling up when boiling begins, that means the output starts out far below even 70 kW. In fact, the output power (the power leaving the ecat) starts at (near) zero, and then increases as the vaporization rate increases. And if the ecats start out nearly empty, and end up nearly full, the total amount of dry steam that exits is consistent with an average of 66 kW. If the steam is wet, it can be as low as 9 kW. And even if you consider a more realistic half-full ecat, and the steam starts out dry (so no water is collected at the beginning) at the rate of 70 kW or so, then most of the water (about 90%) stays behind. Within about 3 hours, the ecats will fill up, and the output will necessarily become much wetter, but maybe by this time someone has conveniently closed the valve to the trap. After all, Lewan's video shows that at 3:00 it was closed. This would mean that 70 kW is consistent with the entire run, and you could still have your partially filled ecat and dry steam at the beginning. Anything more than half full, would still require unrealistic increase in power to 470 kW before the ecat fills (less than 3 hours), given the 0 - 70 kW took 2 hours. Finally, your scenario is contradicted by what Rossi and his Engineer say is happening. Namely, constant output flow rate at 470 kW power. You said you didn't want to assume that they are lying or incompetent, but your scenario requires one or the other. The quality of the steam has been suggested to be low. This is not the > case since kettle boilers that have a reasonable space above the liquid to > hold vapor deliver high quality steam. Anyone who wants to prove this to > themselves can study boilers and determine that this is true. > But we don't know that there is a reasonable space above the liquid. Boilers regulate the level, by adjusting or cycling the feed water. But Rossi said the flow rate was fixed, and even if the level were detected somehow, regulating the input to 107 ecats would not regulate the levels in individual ecats. If the vaporization rate is far below the input flow rate, then the output (in steady state) will be a mixture of liquid and vapor. And even for a very small mass fraction of vapor, the liquid will occupy a tiny fraction of the volume. I don't think Rossi trap would be effective for such a fluid, especially if the valve is closed. > With this latest theory, I suggest that a coherent description exists > which fits the data that was collected during the October 28 test. The > bottom line is that the 1 MW system test demonstrated a working cold fusion > device. > > No. Your argument at best shows that the data fits your description. It does not show your description is necessary. In fact, the simpler explanation that the flow is constant and the power is constant at 70 kW fits it better, and therefore the data most certainly do not demonstrate nuclear reactions.
