At the risk of confusing the issue, is it possible that Rossi is trying to *reduce* the apparent temperature of the system?
After seeing the video of the September test, and reading Eff Wiavkeef's comments here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg61747.html it seems obvious that the steam coming from the rubber hose is at a much lower pressure than the water/stem being released from the E-Cat at the end of the video. Therefore, there would have to be two different reservoirs of water, one in a sealed container at high pressure, and a separate one, at normal (1 bar) pressure. They would be physically isolated, but thermally connected (through some sort of heat exchanger). The high-pressure side could be heated to much more than 100 C (at 5 bar, 152 C., at 10 bar, 181 C.). The pump would push small amounts of water through the heat exchanger, which would draw heat from the high-pressure reservoir, converting it into steam. This would easily explain where the "extra" heat came from. It would also explain the long, forceful jet of water/steam coming out of the E-Cat then the high-pressure side was opened at the end of the video. Rossi would have to hide the fact that the system is actually holding a temperature much higher than the 100 C. he claims. Just throwing it out there. From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:University testing of the E-cat question asked on Rossi blog On 12-01-22 04:24 AM, Shaun Taylor wrote: On 22/01/2012 6:57 PM, Mary Yugo wrote: > > >> >>On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Shaun Taylor <[email protected] >><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> Rossi faked the 6 Oct data and fooled all the "Experts" that >> attended the demo. Some BIG names there. >> >> >> I see goop (probably silicon grease) >>on the brass fitting in the third image but I'm not sure what it tells us. >> >> >The goop is where the bead of the thermocouple was placed. There is no other reason for anything like that material to be there other than to provide a good heat exchange between the brass fitting and the thermocouple head. > OK, seems like a reasonable conclusion. But there's something about it which bothers me. The brass fitting in question is actually farther from the manifold body than the stainless nut which Horace (and others) had been assuming was the location of the thermocouple. What's more, the fitting in question is sufficiently far from the manifold body that it's not at all clear to me, at least, how much heat would actually have wicked to the thermocouple from the steam inlet. But be that as it may, given that this evidence seems to place the thermocouple farther from the heat source than had been previously assumed, I don't see how it makes things any worse for that test than they already were. So, what did I miss? (And by the way, Horace wasn't "shouted down". Say, rather, he was "shouted AT" and I'll go along with it, but some folks agreed, some disagreed, and some just listened, as usual.)
