On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote:
> > The "inconclusive" epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see > this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where "excess heat" > evidence was considered "conclusive" by half the panel, and it's clear that > the rest of the panel was rejecting the heat on the basis of lack of > convincing *theory*. No. It is precisely the DOE review I had in mind when I used the term inconclusive. Only one of the 18 members considered evidence for nuclear reactions conclusive. As for the heat, about half the panel found the evidence compelling, not conclusive. There's a difference. > > However, Kullander and Essen go on to state: > > If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would >> not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. >> > > No basis for this statement is given. However, let's look at an apparent > source. What is the temperature rise that 300 w heating power will produce > in a 6.47 kg/hour water flow? I come up with 40 degrees. So the statement is > based on an assumption that the flow rate and input power are correct. > So clearly a basis for the statement is given. You're contradicting yourself. The discrepancy, which you go on to identify, is that one would expect an asymptotic approach to the 60C temperature, but in fact it is linear. That suggests that either the power is higher than they claim, or the flow rate is lower. Since E and K measured the flow rate themselves, but the power was not monitored, and since we have seen Rossi with his paws on the power control in the Lewan video, I'd suspect the input power was higher than claimed. > The flow rate was determined by filling a carafe, perhaps by disconnecting > the input hose from the E-Cat and directing it into the carafe. But the > actual flow into the E-Cat could be less, if there is restriction, the exact > flow in could depend on pump specifications regarding back pressure, if > there is back pressure. If they instead measured flow out of the outlet > hose, this would establish actual flow, for the period prior to boiling. > It's not stated where the water sample was obtained. > The pump is designed to give constant flow rate, and no significant back pressure is likely, because that would increase the boiling point (more than by a degree or 2). There is also no continuous monitoring of water flow. It's assumed to be > constant, from a single measurement. > Again, the pump is designed to give constant flow rate. Of course, it's possible that Rossi changed pump setting, but a change in flow rate during the warm-up period would give a step change in the temperature, which is not observed. So, if he changed it, it would have to have been at the very beginning. A change in power should give a change in slope, which is a little more subtle, but admittedly also not obvious until the 60C mark. So the power change, if it happened, also fits better with a change at the beginning. The change in slope at the 60C may correspond to a second increase in the input power. > Roughly, if 300 watts produces a 40 degree rise in 9 minutes, and then a > 37.5 degree rise in 4 minutes would indicate total power of 633 watts, or > excess power of 333 w. > There is little sign of any additional increase in power as the temperature > approaches boilingYet later, as heating continues until all water is > presumably being vaporized, a period of about three minutes, the apparent > heating power must now be 4.38 kW. this must begin some time during the > boiling phase, as, presumably, reactor temperature continues to increase. We > are not shown reactor temperature, though it is almost certainly being > monitored by Rossi's controller. That extra power would be shown in reactor > temperature as a very rapid rate of temperature increase. > > How this high rate of temperature increase is controlled to be exactly that > which will vaporize a fixed flow of water, neither allowing excess flow nor > allowing reduction of water level in the E-Cat cooling chamber, is > mysterious. It's more than mysterious. It's not plausible. The time it takes to reach dry steam depends on the power from the ecat, and the actual temperature of the ecat when boiling is reached, but using some reasonable estimates suggests that the only way to reach 4.4 kW transfer from 600 W in 3 minutes would require the ecat to increase its power output at the moment boiling begins to a level far above 4.4 kW, and then decrease back to 4.4 kW as the equilibrium point is approached, to avoid going beyond dry steam. That would be some feat of engineering indeed. And for no purpose.
