"Before you try to grab one sentence and ignore everything else, do you understand why your statement is wrong?"
Sorry. That was a poor choice of words, condescending and terse. Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote: >"Adding the heat initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding >it with an electric heater." > >Jed, >Do you really not understand the difference, here? Using an external gas heat >vs. An internal heater is absolutely crucial to the argument of stored heat. >Your statement really makes it seem that you do not understand the fundamental >basis of the claims. > >Using an external flame would boil water and raise the core to the same >temperature as the water. Subsequently, taking it off of the burner would >cause a drop from 100C. > >Conversely, an internal heater would necessarily be more than 100C. If there >were a slow thermal transfer between the core and the water, as is >demonstrated by the input power prior to the onset of boiling, the core could >elevate to much higher temperatures, and continue releasing that stored heat, >slowly decreasing temperature after power is removed. A 500C core and 300C >core both produce ~100C water and some amount of steam. So, it would appear >that it's stable until eventually the core temperature would need to be >re-elevated to maintain boiling. >The reason firebrick was mentioned, was merely as a possible heat medium, that >would fit in the inner container and store sufficient heat during the "warm up >phase", and would release it slowly, maintaining minimal boiling. > >The bad calorimetry needs to be tested, because it could explain away the >large power claims, which reduces the magnitude of claims into a window where >stored heat is sufficient to explain the observations. > >I am not making any statement on the likelihood of fraud, but it honestly >seems that you do not comprehend the "stored heat" argument. > >Before you try to grab one sentence and ignore everything else, do you >understand why your statement is wrong? > >Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > >>I believe you should do a much simpler test. As I said, an experiment is >>best when reduced to minimum number of components. That is, when you test >>the claim to its essence. You keep it "clean." Test one thing at a time, in >>isolation, rather than the entire range of behavior the eCat exhibits. >>There is a company on Airport Road near my office where they test scrapped >>airplane wings for stress-related failure. As you can imagine, they do not >>test an entire wing, and they do not fly an airplane with sensors attached. >>They cut out a sample of a wing and put it in a mechanical press to flex it >>repeatedly, to speed up the process. Along the same lines you should not >>undertake to simulate the entire eCat, but rather the one aspect of it that >>makes or breaks the claim. >> >>In this case you should do what I described earlier: >> >>Bring ~30 L of water to boil in a large pot >> >>Insulate the pot, but not much, so that the outer layer is still too hot to >>touch (60 to 80 deg C). >> >>Check the temperature periodically for 4 hours and see whether it remains >>at boiling temperature, or cools down. >> >>That may sound silly, but I am 100% serious. Any skeptic who sincerely >>believes the claim may be mistaken should be willing to do this test. Not >>just willing but *anxious* to do this test. Frankly, if anyone is being >>silly it is the skeptics who are unwilling to try this, or to deal with the >>fact that this is a direct simulation of eCat behavior. You can argue about >>some details of what the eCat does or does not do, but this is one thing it >>*unquestionably* does. No one has challenged that. It has nothing to do >>with instruments. The observers all agree the vessel surface remained too >>hot to touch. Lewan confirmed it with a thermocouple. They later dumped the >>water out and saw it was still steaming hot. It would be absurd to argue >>they are wrong, and the vessel actually cooled down to room temperature. >> >>That is the most important claim, in its essential form. The rest is either >>unimportant detail, or it only strengthens the claim. The latter includes, >>for example, the fact that during the 4 hours all of the water in the >>reactor vessel was replaced with cold water twice. Some people doubt that, >>although it is unquestionably true that some water was flowing into the >>vessel. Otherwise the vessel would have been empty at the end, and people >>observed that it was full. However, you can ignore that, not replace the >>water, and simply look at the heat lost from 30 L container. >> >>You can use a cylindrical pot even though that has less surface area than >>Rossi's square reactor. >> >>This is a much easier test than making a copy of the reactor. This is as >>definitive and irrefutable as a test with a copy would be. This test gets >>to the point, without confusing the issue, and without getting into debates >>about trivial and irrelevant matters such as the placement of the cooling >>loop outlet thermocouple. You can -- and you should -- ignore the cooling >>loop for the purposes of this test. The cooling loop is secondary evidence; >>the claim stands or fails based on this primary, first-principle >>observation. >> >>There is no benefit to adding in the complexity of Rossi's electric heaters >>and reactor geometry. This would only confuse the issue, and distract >>you. They have no effect on the Stefan-Boltzman law. Adding the heat >>initially with a gas fire produces the same results as adding it with an >>electric heater. >> >>The only way this may not model the reactor in all important respects would >>be if there is a hidden source of chemical or electric energy. There is >>absolute no evidence for that. To put it another way, if there is a hidden >>source, it is hidden so well no expert has seen any trace of it, and there >>no suggestions anywhere as to how you might simulate it; i.e. how you might >>hide wires large enough to keep a 30 L pot boiling for 4 hours. So you >>might as well not try to simulate a hidden source. >> >>(There are a few crackpot ideas about putting bricks heated to 3000 deg C >>into the reactor beforehand. There is no way that could work, and it would >>be dangerous, so do not try it.) >> >>- Jed
