Its a first principle.
----- Original Message -----
From: Finlay MacNab
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER
EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited
your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations!
I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe
in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed
changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange
between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various
materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the
device during its operation.
5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what
you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone
here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can
explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your
claims.
If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and
distracting from more interesting discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as
temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
JC stated:
“(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”
Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s
internal temperature on startup…
Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’
and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for
resistance heater power…
Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes)
--------- ----------- ----------
18:59 5 0
19:10 6 11
19:20 7 10
19:30 8 10
19:40 9 10
We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not
know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and
Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting
of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)
Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.
-Mark
From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over
and the CF regime to have begun.
