On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:40 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1- I for one disagree with any experiment without measurements- perhaps later if/when the E-cats will be around in great number. Non negociable issue, i am a professional engineer nad I respect my profession and myself. Noblesse oblige- not experiment for popularization of some device. I said in my last post that making it visual does not exclude measurements. But as long as Rossi uses his own designates to report measurements, he will not be taken seriously. As soon as it would be visual and obvious so anyone can see it, he would be rich and famous. It should be a badge of honor to make things simple for anyone to see, not an embarrassment to your profession. Feynman said if you really understand something, you should be able to explain it to a 10-year old. The demonstration of heavier-than-air flight was a major triumph of science and engineering, and yet it could be understood by anyone with eyes. Not all phenomena can be demonstrated this way, but this one, I think, can be. It is power and energy. It can be made obvious. > 3. Very good your idea to use the E-cat in a way analogous to a pressure cooker- you can adjust the pressure and the temperature of the steam Later this has to be done! I wasn't talking about higher pressure. At a sufficiently low flow rate, when all the water is converted to steam, then an even lower flow rate will cause the steam to go above the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. > 4.- Excuse me I don't get what you say with: >>"Or, you could measure the flow rate of the output fluid. That would be a very direct measure of the steam dryness" > Which fluid- the volume of the steam by a flowmeter? Right. The output fluid is probably a mixture of steam and mist. Its volume will be determined by the percentage of water that has been converted to vapor. And the volume will determine the speed of the fluid, which can be measured. > 5.- what do you consider the energy equivalent of 1 kg weight gasoline? About 50 MJ, give or take. > In principle if the E-cat is burning it also disappears? Not necessarily. It might be something like thermite. > What is the logic of this idea? Isn't it exaggerated? Yes. Of course it is overkill. And much less than this will already attract attention because it is obvious that the entire mass cannot consist of fuel which is combusted. But the nuclear energy density is not just a little higher than chemical, it is millions of times higher. So, they can afford a lot of overkill. The only problem is the power density (as claimed) is not significantly higher, and so to demonstrate the energy density takes time. But even if it were some reasonable fraction of its weight in gasoline, it would attract attention. And then, the longer it runs, under public supervision, the more attention it gets. > OK, the weight is 32 kg the E-cat has to produce how many Kwh? 32 times 50 MJ is 1600 MJ. 1600 MJ is 1600 MJ kW hour / (3600s *1000 J/s) = 444 kWh At 10 kW, this would take about 2 days. Now, it only takes about 400 MJ to heat a 1000 L tub from freezing to boiling, so that is only 1/4 of the mass in kerosene, but I'm pretty sure people would take notice if he could do that much. And this would only take about 11 hours. Then, with world leaders watching, he could let it run and boil most of the water off through a stack of some kind, to demonstrate that the energy exceeds its weight in chemical fuel. That would usher in the age of Rossi. And if his claims are valid, this would be a piece of cake to set up. > 6. a lot of water ius not something unusual or to be scared of it has tio be measured not to visioned or scared. Of course. I'm not afraid of a lot of water. But I'm fixated on making it visual because it's possible. And more than 1000L or so means it's difficult to verify the amounts of water in a simple visual way.
