At 05:06 PM 7/19/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/7/19 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>:
> At 03:15 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>> The 120 kW excursion makes the 18-hr test less credible to me. It means
>> that during that excursion the delta T between the ecat walls and the water >> would have to increase by an order of magnitude. If ordinary operation is at
>> 300C or 400C, this would cause the metal to melt.
>
> Yeah, my thinking is along these lines also.

I am stunned. I thought that you, Abd ul-Rahman had somewhat sense
along with your reasoning ability, but instead you fell such a simple
false argument! Sorry, but I just fail with words to describe how
utterly your credibility went down the sink here.

Along with a lot of cooling water, eh? Look, there is a simple technique which would have addressed so many of these problems: gravity feed of water, with the source at a level where water would not flow through, but only in, to the E-Cat. Combine this with continuous examination of steam quality, with no liquid flow possible, it would be iced.

Not done.

As to Cude's suggestion, Jouni, I don't think you've understood what Cude was pointing out. It's not a proof, it's an inference. Can you understand the basis for that inference. Give it a try. Hint: it has to do with what is likely thermal resistance between the reaction chamber and the cooling water.

Give it a try!

­Jouni
Ps. you still have however a chance to apologize your error that you
concurred Joshua! Perhaps you just misread something. . .

I'm not seeing any error being pointed out. What error? By the way, my comment wasn't validating specifics of Cude's statement, just the line of approach. Think about it!

Indications have been that the reactor temperature is quite a bit higher than the coolant water would allow if they were in intimate contact. From what I've read about this, it takes something over 400 degrees C for the reaction to start up. If the reaction can start at 60 degrees, all bets are off! The thinking would be incorrect. What do you think?


Reply via email to