On Dec 15, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Robert Leguillon <[email protected]> wrote:
You should read the report you cite again. He doesn't ignore that
the reactor remained at boiling temperatures for four hours. He
takes it head-on. Go straight to pages 8 and 9.
I saw that. That is an attempt to explain the Tout thermocouple. It
cannot explain palpable heat over the entire surface of the reactor
lasting for four hours. That's preposterous! Putting iron or any
other material in the walls or around the cell cannot do that for
several reasons:
1. Stored energy can only cause the temperature to decline
monotonically, very rapidly at first (Newton's law of cooling). Yet
this heat increased during the event.
You apparently have forgotten that thermal pulses from a passive
device can be delayed until long after the power is applied.
This is evidence of what I was talking about in this thread. Your
mind must be going. I think I can recognize this because it is
happening to me! I don't think this is a case of projection. I am
stunned you are still saying this kind of thing. Maybe you do not
understand thermal pulses, so don't accept my data? Do you not
understand that the graphs:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph2S.png
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph5S.png
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Graph6S.png
are all from the same simulation, represent consistent data? The
maximum thermal flux occurs after the input energy is cut off. This
is fully passive heat transfer. The maximum flux occurs after power
cutoff. This maximum thermal flux point can be further delayed
beyond power cutoff by either choice of other passive materials, or
by use of active controls.
2. You cannot heat the iron around the cell or in the call walls
up to 543°C with electric heaters inside the cell. They would have
to reach much higher temperatures than any electric heater is
capable of.
Just to be clear, no one is talking about heating the outside box
metal envelope. My focus is entirely the inside box, the 30 cm x 30
cm x 30 cm inside box, the insides of which no one has seen. It is
easy to place a thermal mass inside this volume that can store and
release sufficient energy to meet the requirement of producing some
boiling water for 4 hours, especially if phase changing salts are
used. Also, small ceramic kilns are commonly available that reach
over 1200°C. Graph 6S shows a maximum internal temperature of about
1000°C being reached at time 270 minutes, 11 minutes before
converting power to the "frequency generator".
3. The data shows that the reactor cools in ~40 min. when the power
is cut. That is the actual, measured limit of stored heat with this
system, at these temperatures and inputs.
That is merely a measure of the stored heat and thermal conductivity
at the end of the test. I have stated the data indicates there is
an active control mechanism by which the thermal conductivity, or
water exposure to the stored heat, is reduced by application of main
heater power, or "frequency generator" power. When the power is
reduced the thermal ouput increases. Maximal thermal transfer thus
only happens when all power is removed at the end of the run. Water
flow rate was supposedly increased then too.
Heiko Lietz asked Rossi why the output power momentarily rises when
input power is cut. Rossi's response was that this is confidential.
You cannot magically change it to 4 hours. The data shows a rapid
decline in temperature. You cannot magically change that to an
increase.
It takes no magic - a mere calculation, which I provided. This is
not magic or even arm waving.
Sorry to be harsh,
It's OK. Why should you follow special rules? 8^)
but I took that section on p. 8 as politician-style evasion, along
the lines of "we have to say something here, so let's fill in the
blank with what we know just ain't so."
I don't know what you are talking about. I provided a calculation
example based on simple hypothesis that iron was involved in the
thermal mass. Later calculations, simulations, considered other
possibilities. Do you see the word "suppose"? Other assumptions
provide explanations closer to the observations.
This analysis cannot be taken seriously. It is full of gaping holes
and impossibilities. I realize that Heffner does not see it that
way, but I do.
- Jed
The only gaping holes in my opinion are the questions of just where
the Tout thermocouple was located during the test, and whether an air
pocket in the heat exchanger manifold affected the temperature at the
Tout location.
Rossi's tests and explanations are full of holes and self
contradictions, impossibilities. It is Rossi's tests and
explanations that matter. All the blather from the peanut gallery is
irrelevant, except possibly to alert the few gullible investors that
might listen, and to demonstrate that the LENR research community is
not so crackpot as to easily accept scientifically unproven claims of
commercial viability.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
