----- Original Message ----
> From: Stephen A. Lawrence <sa...@pobox.com>
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sun, June 19, 2011 9:09:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
>
>
>
> On 11-06-19 06:44 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
> > In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22
>-0400:
> > Hi,
> > [snip]
> >> If the effluent isn't flowing, however, the
> >> temperature rise is limited only by the need to heat the thermal mass of
> >> the device, which is fixed.
> >>
> >> The "linearity" argument is very far from conclusive, of course, but
> >> it's one more thing that bothers me.
> > If one were trying to reach the operating temperature of the device,
> > wouldn't
>it
> > make sense to have no water flowing until it was reached (or at least
close)?
>
> Yes, it would.
>
> AFAIK that wasn't done, however -- certainly no mention has ever been
> made of turning on the pump *after* the thing had achieved criticality.
>
Perhaps he has learned how to better regulate the reaction without any water
flow, but in the earlier demonstrations Rossi did not want to expose
the invited
observers to this extra risk. He also didn't want to risk disgracing himself
by allowing his promising device to blow up while an audience of reporters and
other opinion makers watched from a safe room.
Harry
