mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
It is operating at a fraction of maximum. Even 130 kW is a fraction of 204 kW.
However I have only guessed at the length of the E-cat cylinder (20 cm seemed
reasonable to me, however increasing it to 60 cm while keeping the volume equal,
would increase the power to 354 kW). It could be longer or shorter.
It is probably longer, judging by the shape of the reactor. Furthermore,
the estimate of 1 liter volume was made by Levi by looking at the cell.
It could easily be more, maybe 2 or 3 L.
I suggest you try it again for 2 L, smaller diameter, and 4 mm thick
steel. Based on the cells the Mizuno and others have made for high
temperature studies, I suspect that is how it looks. I have never seen
one that was not not tall and thin like a fission fuel rod or fire tube.
Rossi knows a great deal about conventional heat engines so I cannot
imagine he would make it that wrong shape.
The thing is, the high temperature calorimetry may be somewhat wrong,
but it cannot be hugely wrong. It might be 100 kW or perhaps even 90 kW,
but there is no question the cell was producing massive power long
enough for the temperature to settle. It might be an over estimate but
it cannot possibly be wrong by a factor of 10 . . . or 1000, or whatever
it is that Beene now claims. Calorimetry does not fail on that scale. It
is not possible that the flow rate is only 100 ml/s and they think it is
1 L.
It might be an overestimate because -- for example -- the outlet
thermocouple is close to the heat source. That would make no difference
at 5°C but it might be a problem at higher temperatures.
Furthermore, let me reiterate that it is not a misuse of authority
(fallacious appeal to authority) to point out that people such as
Kullander and Levi are well acquainted with the physics of thermal
conductivity, specific heat and so on. If these results conflicted with
conventional theory or calorimetry, they would realize that. As I
mentioned, before I uploaded the message on Monday, I ran a draft of it
by the people at the NRL who discussed 10 and 20 kW calorimetry at
ICCF-16, and various other experts. They pointed out some mistakes I
made, which I corrected. I later sent them the thread from this
discussion group. Not one of them agrees with Beene that a 130 kW
reaction is ruled out by theory. I do not know who his invisible expert
is or what this person is saying, but I suppose that if a report from
this person shows up, these experts will find an error in it. It is
unlikely this expert knows something they do not know. This is
long-settled science. Furthermore there are millions of ordinary
machines in widespread use such as water heaters which prove that Beene
and his expert are wrong.
- Jed
