Jed: Now I see what you were shooting for:
You were recommending replacing the core with the same volume of water based on
specific heat.
The reason that that was insufficient, is due the the total energy storage
possible.Though iron has a lower volumetric heat capacity that water (3.5 Jc3/K
vs 4.2 Jc3/K), it can store more thermal energy; it isn't limited to the 100C
phase ceiling that the water volume would be subject to. Taking this to its
extreme, the fixed volume would even allow a metal core to melt without
violating the volume/weight restrictions observed in the Oct. 6th test.
I am not saying that a molten metal core is likely, only that it could fit in
the container supplied, and produce steam at a stable temperature for some
length of time.
From: colinher...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 04:13:31 +0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why not duplicate Rossi's setups and see how they work
without LENR?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Hi Jed,
I think the simple test would be to put a 25kg block of lead (for big ecat
simulation) on the gas with a pan of water on top of the lead, all well
insulated. Turn on the gas and heat until the water boils. Turn off the gas and
with whole container well sealed and insulated see how long the water boils and
stays at 100C. Just be careful not to melt the lead.
Colin
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> 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
