I find it strange that anyone would assume that a proof has been generated that the power output does not show excess heat. I think you should read Mr. Cudes' mailings as he suggests that the power output could be anywhere between 70kW and 470kW. I think I recall him suggesting that if it is in fact 470 kW, then that is due to LENR energy release. I would assume that he will come back and respond to your statement in that manner.
I do not think that he is firmly convinced that there is no LENR activity, but is skeptical to that effect. All of us maintain doubt as long as Rossi does not allow complete and free access to his device. I have completed many calculations regarding the October 6 test and the preponderance of evidence points me to the conclusion that excess heat is generated, but I realize that I could be in error. I do wish you would refrain from "hero worship" as that has no place in science. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com> To: vortex-L <vortex-L@eskimo.com>; Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com>; Rich Murray <rmfor...@comcast.net> Sent: Mon, Nov 28, 2011 11:21 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Large Temperature Increase of Core Not Required for 6 to 1 Output Delta Joshua Cude has completed his proof that Rossi's own data from the "1 W" demo shows unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was roduced. Q.E.D. ttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&shva=1#inbox/133e0a55a24df9e5 Joshua Cude :20 AM (56 minutes ago) to vortex-l n Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: [ not quoted here ] Joshua Cude: It is not the size of the gradient change that is the problem, it is he time it takes to change. You are right that the notion that an increase in power transfer is roportional to the temperature difference between the core and the ater interface is a comparison of steady state conditions, but the omplications of transient conditions between steady states doesn't hange the fact that a large thermal mass has to be heated to get from ow power transfer to 7 times higher power transfer. Your suggestions that ignition might happen before the onset of oiling and that it might ignite at a higher power do not explain a -fold increase in power transfer in a matter of a few minutes. In the first place, although it clearly takes time after the power urns on before the power transfer begins to show up, we can get some ense of that from the pre-heat period. The temperature change begins bout 30 minutes after power is turned allegedly on, and then it ncreases *very gradually*, and it takes another 90 minutes before the ower transfer reaches half the input power. There is no indication of ny step increase in power transfer at some fixed delay after the ower is turned on. This is also consistent with Heffner's models in which a step increase n the input power results in a very gradual increase in the power ransfer (gradient near the surface) to about half the input over 2.5 ours, delayed by about 30 minutes. Secondly, based on the time-course during pre-heating, and on effner's calculation, using power a factor of 2 higher (9 kW per odule) than the steady state (4.5 kW) would not be anywhere close to nough to achieve the necessary increase in power transfer in a few inutes. In fact, it appears it would still take hours for the output o reach half the input power. Finally, even if a step increase at the input would transfer through he heat sink as a step-increase at the output, it is even more nrealistic to expect an early ignition to happen at just the right ime so that the power transfer increase occurs exactly at the onset f boiling, than it is to expect ignition to happen at the onset of oiling, again in all 107 ecats. And without any kind of indication in he pre-boiling curve that a second heat source has ignited. Likewise, even if it were possible to tailor the input to give the ecessary step increase at the onset of boiling, it would take a much igher initial power which would then have to fall nicely back to the .5 kW just in time so that the steam never exceeded the boiling oint. Not only is this unrealistic, there is no reason Rossi would ant to do it, except to make the results consistent with much less utput power. Now, I gather you're prepared to accept a somewhat slower power ransfer increase by assuming that the ecats are not full at the onset f boiling. This of course requires you to accept that Rossi and his ngineer do not have sufficient competence to know what the output low rate is (by, say, observing liquid coming out before the onset of oiling), and that you can determine these things better from a istance. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine it could be less than 80 or 90% ull, because then the heating elements would be exposed, and the team would likely by superheated. And if they're 80% full, it would nly take an hour or so to fill, and as argued above 3 hours to reach alf the input power. So, unless you're proposing much more than twice he input to begin, tailored to decrease to 4.5 kW (per unit) at just he right time to avoid superheating the steam, this will not avoid uite a lot of liquid being forced out with the steam. And once the possibility of wet steam is admitted, then the ffectiveness of the trap is unproven, and output power as low as 70 W (total) is consistent with the data. Joshua Cude :28 AM (52 minutes ago) to vortex-l n Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: K Horace, You have supplied the information that is needed to answer he questions. Joshua Cude: By my reading of the graphs, they contradict your ideas. They show hat a step increase in the power input results in a very gradual ncrease in the power output to half the input over a period of 3 ours. The only graphs that show rapid increases are related to some ind of active control, and in those cases the power increases are xtremely brief spikes. Rossi's claims require a step increase in the ower by a factor of 7 and then a new plateau at the higher power.
