Alan:
Perhaps you can explain something to me. With the device in the ambient
laboratory atmosphere, it loses a certain number of watts of heat to the
air, but this is subject to variation from drafts and so forth. But even
so, it is still possible to control the e-cat by modulating the
electrical input.
Now consider an insulated furnace equipped with cooling tubes. The
device still loses the exact same number of watts to the cooling coils
that it previously lost to the ambient air, only now the heat losses are
controlled and measurable using ordinary calorimetry. Why is the control
problem any better or worse? You can still modulate the heating power
exactly as before, and the losses are exactly the same as they were
before. The only difference is that you no longer need to make
assumptions about emissivity and convection currents.
Duncan
On 5/26/2013 1:14 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote:
From: "Duncan Cumming" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:53:45 PM
A few days of self sustaining running (cooling only without
electrical input) would be pretty convincing. Use electrical heaters
only for starting the reaction.
I think it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that the eCat operates in a narrow band of
stability. (See the November melt-down, for example). Lewan's "self-running" test showed
a peak and then a decay -- and certainly wouldn't have lasted "a few days". Make the peak
too high, and you've lost control.
Rossi has apparently found a way of controlling the reaction, in a range up to
COP=6, by stimulating the reaction in a series of rise-and-decay bursts.
Siegel on
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/21/the-e-cat-is-back-and-people-are-still-falling-for-it/
demands a closed-loop test. But with a COP of 6, how are you going to get the
feedback? (Turbines are being tested, but not yet formally announced).
So ... you're left with thermoelectric, at what .. 10% efficiency? So to prove the
"impossible" eCat you have to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
The gas-fired eCat is still a mystery. In addition to the thermal input, does it still need
"pulses" or "waveforms?"
In my opinion, we're left with either wiring fakes (eg coax, or double-running
wires to hide the current), or DC.
DC can, and should have been checked, on the input lines. Preferably with
in-line resistors, rather than current loops.
Both of these (wiring or other power fakes) are easily eliminated by using a
motor generator.
Heck, even COAL plants take their control energy from the Grid.
