Make that TEST#2. Notice the divot in the temperature curve. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Damon Craig <decra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "It's a very strange method of control." > > Damed straight it is. Something appears very wrong. The evidence shows-up > in Levi's original report (test #1) showing the device operating in the > first quadrant where an increase in input heat energy generates an increase > in reaction heat. A decrease in input energy has resulted in a decrease in > reation rate. > > Look at the dimp in the temperature in the second experiment. Levi is a > sloppy physicist, but not so sloppy we won't eventially decipher his garbled > report. > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > >> At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: >> >>> http://evworld.com/press/e-**cat_cutaway.jpg<http://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg> >>> >>> Two heaters. The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to >>> operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of >>> the external heater that's puzzling. >>> >> >> How authoritative is that drawing? It's from Passerini, and is labeled >> "speculative rendering." This is no source at all for the structure. >> >> The external heater would rapidly raise the coolant to boiling, thus >> expediting turn-on. It's a very strange method of control. > >
