On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson <[email protected]> wrote:
> ** > Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the > reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each > second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of > the inlet... > No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer > who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state > would endorse Rossi as they have??? > They did not witness liquid water flowing out of the chimney. If Rossi showed them, they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. And yes, I have no doubt at all that many academics inexperienced with steam and steam/mist mixtures would accept that it was dry steam. > I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER > the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet > flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you > look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in > order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the > mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. > No. I think it is the opposite situation. That you so want to believe it is true that you are ignoring obvious flaws in the demonstrations. Like how the ecat knows to turn on exactly when the water boils. How the power transfer can increase from 600W to 5 kW in a minute or 3, when the increase from 0 to 600 W takes more than 10 minutes. How the temperature can remain so perfectly regulated in the absence of liquid water. And so on. What Rossi is claiming is unlikely, and therefore without evidence, I remain skeptical. He has not provided evidence. Everything he has shown can be easily explained without resorting to nuclear reactions. No exotic explanations are needed to understand his demos, so why would I invoke exotic explanations? It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data > there is and given the fact that we don't have "irrefutable" evidence, your > only conclusion is "it doesn't work". > No. Without evidence, I am skeptical that it works. I do not conclude that it doesn't work. But I am not ready to conclude that it does work, until the evidence is much stronger, even irrefutable. As long as it's refutable, why should anyone accept it? > I look at it as a continuum... and at any point in time, my > confidence level can vary according to any new details or analysis I come > across. > I have not seen any indication of doubt from you, but ok, if you are less confident than you indicate, that's good.
