On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> > It has been suggested that it is not possible to obtain the rapid increase > in output power measured for the Rossi ECATs. The reason stated is that > the core would have to have its temperature multiplied by a factor of 6 or > so to deliver the needed power. This belief is based upon a > misunderstanding of the heat equation and its solutions. [... > Consider this thought experiment. The cores of one ECAT are heated > within 5 minutes to a high temperature by the electrical heating element > leading to the generation of LENR heat. The cores are now at a > temperature that allows the total output to be 9 kW where they continue to > supply energy into the heat sink. The water initially knows nothing of > this power since a significant delay exists as the heat makes it way toward > the water. The gradient of temperature facing the water is zero until > the leading edge of the heat wave reaches that position in space. Since > the gradient is zero, no power is being delivered to the water. Next, > time elapses and the heat begins to flow into the water and increase its > temperature. A gradient is now established to allow the heat flow and > this gradient rapidly increases as the power delivered to the water > increases. The gradient began at zero and will increase as needed to > allow the heat flow required. There is no reason why this gradient > change is restricted to a value as low as 6 to 1, and I would expect it to > be far larger until the system stabilizes. > [...] > Horace Heffner has been generating a finite element model of the heat flow > within his assumed ECAT scam device and will be able to demonstrate this > effect to anyone who does not understand the mechanisms involved. I > recall a time domain chart he published to vortex that shows his expected > gradient of temperatures along the heat sink. This graph should be used > as reference. > Horace, please take a small amount of your time to explain the effect that > I refer to since you have the finite element model that reveals the > solution to the partial differential equation. A demonstration is worth > a million words in this case. > It is not the size of the gradient change that is the problem, it is the time it takes to change. You are right that the notion that an increase in power transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the core and the water interface is a comparison of steady state conditions, but the complications of transient conditions between steady states doesn't change the fact that a large thermal mass has to be heated to get from low power transfer to 7 times higher power transfer. Your suggestions that ignition might happen before the onset of boiling and that it might ignite at a higher power do not explain a 7-fold increase in power transfer in a matter of a few minutes. In the first place, although it clearly takes time after the power turns on before the power transfer begins to show up, we can get some sense of that from the pre-heat period. The temperature change begins about 30 minutes after power is turned allegedly on, and then it increases *very gradually*, and it takes another 90 minutes before the power transfer reaches half the input power. There is no indication of any step increase in power transfer at some fixed delay after the power is turned on. This is also consistent with Heffner's models in which a step increase in the input power results in a very gradual increase in the power transfer (gradient near the surface) to about half the input over 2.5 hours, delayed by about 30 minutes. Secondly, based on the time-course during pre-heating, and on Heffner's calculation, using power a factor of 2 higher (9 kW per module) than the steady state (4.5 kW) would not be anywhere close to enough to achieve the necessary increase in power transfer in a few minutes. In fact, it appears it would still take hours for the output to reach half the input power. Finally, even if a step increase at the input would transfer through the heat sink as a step-increase at the output, it is even more unrealistic to expect an early ignition to happen at just the right time so that the power transfer increase occurs exactly at the onset of boiling, than it is to expect ignition to happen at the onset of boiling, again in all 107 ecats. And without any kind of indication in the pre-boiling curve that a second heat source has ignited. Likewise, even if it were possible to tailor the input to give the necessary step increase at the onset of boiling, it would take a much higher initial power which would then have to fall nicely back to the 4.5 kW just in time so that the steam never exceeded the boiling point. Not only is this unrealistic, there is no reason Rossi would want to do it, except to make the results consistent with much less output power. Now, I gather you're prepared to accept a somewhat slower power transfer increase by assuming that the ecats are not full at the onset of boiling. This of course requires you to accept that Rossi and his engineer do not have sufficient competence to know what the output flow rate is (by, say, observing liquid coming out before the onset of boiling), and that you can determine these things better from a distance. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine it could be less than 80 or 90% full, because then the heating elements would be exposed, and the steam would likely by superheated. And if they're 80% full, it would only take an hour or so to fill, and as argued above 3 hours to reach half the input power. So, unless you're proposing much more than twice the input to begin, tailored to decrease to 4.5 kW (per unit) at just the right time to avoid superheating the steam, this will not avoid quite a lot of liquid being forced out with the steam. And once the possibility of wet steam is admitted, then the effectiveness of the trap is unproven, and output power as low as 70 kW (total) is consistent with the data.
