On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > Some of the issues raised by skeptics are that heat of vaporization of steam can be used to mislead. That can only be best and most conclusively tested by something that looks like an E-cat with a cylindrical appropriate size core module having an internal heater and a cooling jacket having a flowing water coolant in it and a large heater band around it. And also a large sloppy rubber hose leading out of it into a bucket. I'd use the same type pump and heater controller as Rossi. For the October 6 test, I'd use exactly the same size box, a finned inner container and an external heat exchanger -- just like Rossi did. Then you could experiment to your heart's content with hidden heat sources, heat storage devices including various types of bricks and molten metal which would have to fit inside the finned container, and of course thermocouple placement on the heat exchanger. If you don't do an exact simulation to the best of your ability, you will simply create more obfuscation, not less. The argument will simply shift to the ways in which your simulation is unlike Rossi's machine -- exactly what my suggestion was intended to avoid.
