At 03:13 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joshua apparently wrote:
> Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
> Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
> his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
> the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
> at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
> the temperature of the steam substantially.
This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of
water converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1
atm. Therefore, the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the
water to boiling plus what it takes to vaporize it. In the January
14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes
to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per second. 17 kW was how much
they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, during most of the test.
The displacement pump was used in the steam tests but not the Feb.
10 liquid water test. I believe you set that pump to whatever speed
you want, up to some limit.
Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one
test apply to another. Even if device characteristics were not
different, to make the device operate with high flow rate would take
presumably higher reactor power input, otherwise the reactor
temperature would lower, underr reasonable assumptions. Cude is
correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed.
On the other hand, Cude's statement is true, as stated. if 12 kW was
equilibrium, such that water was being neither boiled away nor
running over, 17 kW would have rapidly boiled away all the water, if
the flow rate remained the same, so that any new water coming in
would be flash vaporized, because the whole cooling chamber would
increase in temperature above boiling, and the steam would increase
above boiling as well.
Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very
carefully. You can be trapped into rejecting what's true, and it will
make you look foolish. I make mistakes like that from time to time,
and the only remedy I know is prompt admission, yes, I screwed up.
OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
<<mailto:orionwo...@charter.net>orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a
seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous...
and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab
would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a
wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting
each and every
single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the
same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined
to do when exploring uncharted territory.
That is what I have heard about him.
From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core.
No, he adjusts the power.
See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an "out."
Basically, in the January demo, #2, in what has been published, I see
adjustment of the power, turn-on and turn-off of the heater, as I
recall. My sense is that the controller is designed to respond to a
temperature sensor that reports reactor chamber temperature to the
controller, and that it then turns the heater on and off, and it
might adjust the current to a temperature to create steady state
conditions, i.e., "just right."
However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is
difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective, unless there is
also feedback reporting to the controller from the cooling chamber,
such as a level sensor, or perhaps temperature. If temperature of the
cooling chamber were being used, though, we would probably see the
operation of the feedback loop, with cycling of the chamber temperature.
What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be
maximum power. Rossi may think it unimportant that the maximum power
figure is being used, rather than true input.
Or, remember, maybe he's blowing smoke instead of steam. Jed, I have
no fixed opinion on that. All I've noted is that the demonstrations
don't show what they purported to show, because of incomplete
observation and/or reporting.
He did not change the flow rate in any test. You can tell the flow
rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump is at the
same rate the whole time. You can tell they measured the flow
correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable method.
Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound
doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't
change, because there could be valving or obstruction within the
E-Cat. These pumps are designed for constant flow, but they cannot
maintain it if flow is obstructed. They might or might not change in
sound. Yes, the scale method is definitive, but only for the period
of time where flow is measured. Lewan's April tests did measure all
flow, those are definitive on the flow, but still were not definitive
on the disposition of the flow, i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's
report that guarantees that all that water was vaporized.
