I wrote: HOWEVER, if you want to do this test, and you feel the core is important, > you should simulate it. That may mean you heat it up a core separately and > then immerse it in the liquid. . . . > > This would not make the experiment significantly more complicated, so why > not? Go for it. >
Whoever does the test has to decide things like this. People all have their own ways of doing things. The important points I am trying to make are: Do not encumber the test with irrelevant aspects of the original, such as the external cooling loop and heat exchanger. Rossi needed that but you do not need it for a simulation. Test only the essence of the claim. That is, what *you think* is the essence, not what I think. Test only the principal claim, and the core reactor, not the entire system. Focus your test on the heat after death event. This greatly simplifies calorimetry. Naturally if you want to heat it up initially with an internal heater, and you should record that event. But the main focus should be on the heat after death event. It would be much harder to simulate or separate out the effects of heating and simultaneously triggering sporadic anomalous heat, as occurred in the initial stages. I see no reason to make it a square reactor, rather than an ordinary pot. If you trust there was water flowing thorough at the rate reported by Rossi, then replace 4 L every 15 minutes as I originally suggested: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295498.ece/BINARY/Conclusion+Ecat+Oct+6+by+Jed+Rothwell+%28pdf%29 This will make it cool to room temperature in ~40 min., the way the original did. Obviously there was *some* water going out, because otherwise the heat exchanger would not have gotten hot. Nothing would have reached it. But if you sincerely believe this flow was only a few liters per hour then don't bother simulating it. - Jed
