On 02/09/2011 09:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com <mailto:sa...@pobox.com>> wrote: > > > There was no feedback from the applied power level to the input > flow rate, and there is no apparent reason for the output > temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did. > > > There is no feedback in the Hydrodynamics gadget either, just a > constant flow pump, but once the water goes to dry steam it stays dry > steam.
Of course. That is not the point. The point is the temperature remained at 101.6 degrees, barely above boiling -- it did not rise above that. Is that not correct? The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. > It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. It wasn't. So, the reactor produced *EXACTLY* the amount of energy needed to vaporize the water. And that's a rather large coincidence. I spend a lot of my time doing performance tests on highly complex asynchronous software spread across multiple machines, and running experiments, and reducing output data to look for patterns to tell us what's going on and how to fix it. When we see a coincidence that large, we generally find it's not a coincidence. Ask yourself this: If the output power was random within a fixed range of, say, 1000 watts (that's 10% variance), what are the odds in favor of its turning out to be so close to exactly the amount needed to boil away all the input water that the steam temperature would hold within one degree of boiling throughout the run? (Boiling point that day in Bologna was 101C, or so someone claimed after checking weather records.) And then ask yourself what could have pinned the temperature at that point. One possibility is that the steam was actually very "wet" -- that would hold its temperature at just above boiling. Other possibilities may come to mind as well. But the one thing that doesn't seem plausible is that it was just a coincidence. > It does not flip-flop, and the machine does not suddenly start adding > much more energy as the phase transition occurs. You get a blast of > hot water and steam, and then steam only, just like the Rossi device. No, NOT just like the Rossi device -- as you said, when the power level is higher, "it comes out ... with more enthalpy". The Rossi device didn't do that. Why not? > > - Jed >
