Obviously, you have come to your conclusions. I have found this test
inconclusive. You may disagree, and now be 100% convinced, but it's your
personal attacks that are troubling. You continue to strike down questions
with comments like:
"Skepics who claim that the temperature did not really go up, or that it went
up but there was no energy generated and yet this is not a violation of the
second law are not foolish. They are ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge of
physics."
This only serves to stifle conversations that very well could enlighten
everyone involved. These E-Mails are readily available to the public, and your
comments do not serve anyone well.
____________________
1)It doesn't matter if the E-Cat thermocouple was resting on the heat-sink
fins, because the thermocouples are laboratory grade and they read correctly.
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
The thermocouples are definitely reading correctly. It is not possible for two
sets of thermocouples to show the same trend in both be wrong. It is not clear
what they are reading but that does not matter. Suppose for the sake of
argument is the heat sink fins. Those fins did not cool off when the power was
cut. They heated up. Therefore there is heat being generated. In a steady-state
system with no power being generated every molecule in the system must cool
down.
The E-Cat temperature is a curious artifact with interesting implications.
It could indicate that there is pressure and the boiling point is raised to
over 124 degrees C. If that's the case, we're over the rating of the back
pressure on the paristaltic pump. We can see in the September test that the
water flow decreases when presented with pressure. It's important to look
primary temperature and flow rate if you don't trust the secondary thermocouple
measurements.
If we're at 1 ATM, then we're superheating some or all of the steam. This
would be really, really, bad news, because the steam temperature doesn't appear
to change when we are in periods of quadruple output power.
_________________
2)Any attempt to quantify the flow rate into the primary doesn't matter. It
must have been consistent, and large enough to imply significant power gains.
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
This does not matter because the reservoir did not fill up. There was no
outflow from the pump action. (I base this on an analysis by David Roberson
which has not yet been presented here.)
You've also asserted that there was no water overflow in all of the previous
tests, so I apologize if I don't just take your word on this. Nobody, present
or otherwise, claims to have accessed the steam output hose between the E-Cat
and heat exchanger. A gurgling sound or "boiling feeling" at the E-Cat does
not preclude overflow.
___________________
3)The proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam input doesn't
matter. It may have been influenced by the steam/water input, but it must have
been less than a few percent.
You misunderstand. The error could be 95%. That is irrelevant. No one said it
was "a few percent." This is a strawman argument. The proof is in the trend,
not the actual power level. However, different methods of measuring the power
all indicate that at 18:34 power was ~3.5 kW. Since there was no input power at
this time calorimetry is simplified. It is not likely that different methods
yielded the same answer but they are all wrong.
If the water vs. steam overflow has any bearing on heat conductance, then this
is quite relevant. Temperature spikes caused by differing thermal conductivity
would be felt across the junction. I hope that I, or anyone else, can look at
the difference experimentally between heat transfer in water/steam of the same
temperature. The problem with this is that the flow rates into the heat
exchanger would be dramatically different per gram, due to the water/steam
density. If the E-Cat is "percolating", I would expect erratic output. If this
conducts to the secondary output, it would appear to be power spikes/troughs.
It's not worth attempting to quantify any effects, because there must have
been observed power gains. Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
Of course it's possible to quantify the effects! This is another strawman
argument; i.e., one that no one here has made. It is not possible to quantify
the effects up to the usual standard of modern science. Rossi conducted the
test ineptly, preventing this.
There has been analysis ongoing in this forum for estimations of heat
conductance. Maybe you missed it.
It is quite telling, that on the secondary, the input thermocouple was placed
as far from the heat exchanger as possible and the output was placed as close
as possible. A cynical observer would say that this could be to optimize
apparent gains.
___________________
4)Temperature fluctuations in the secondary-side thermocouple cannot be caused
by overflowing water, because specific heats of steam/water don't change the
efficientcy of heat transfer to the heat-exchanger fitting. Skeptics are
foolish to look at this.
Skeptics are wrong. The water did not overflow. The analysis at 18:34 and the
analysis from Roberson demonstrate this. And no, I do not think overflow water
can change the heat transfer enough. In any case, after 4 hours there it not
the slightest chance the reservoir water would still be at the same temperature
-- or hotter. The surface of the reactor was ~80°C, meaning it is not well
insulated. 30 L of water cannot continue boiling that long without input
energy. If you believe that is possible, you need a refresher course in
everyday reality. Better yet, you need to boil 30 L of water (8 gallons) in a
large pot, insulate it such that the surface is still too hot to touch, and
wait 4 hours.
I seriously recommend you try that before making more assertions about this
test. It is not expensive or difficult to put insulation around an 8-gallon pot
of boiling hot water. Turn off the gas, move the pot to an blanket of
insulation, and cover it up. Use ordinary household insulation and don't make
it thick or well sealed, because you have to leave the surface so hot you
cannot touch it. I promise you will find that it does not remain at 100°C for
four hours. It will cool down considerably and after the system stabilizes,
with the insulation reaching terminal temperature, the temperature in every
part of the pot and insulation will fall monotonically.
Remember that this is NOT a gas stove. This is an electric stove with a
massive burner. It takes HOURS to get the water boiling, and thatlarge, hot
burner is inside the E-Cat, inside a blanket. We never "remove the pot from
the burner," we simply turn off the burner. The burner still has energy to
release after power is removed. Horace Heffner had some excellent calculations
of the slow release of thermal energy from the core. It's worth a read.
___________________
5)The sporadic checking of the output temperature hurts calculations of heat
output, but the actual gains don't really matter in the end. They must have
been large. Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
Skepics who claim that the temperature did not really go up, or that it went up
but there was no energy generated and yet this is not a violation of the second
law are not foolish. They are ignorant. They lack 7th grade knowledge of
physics.
Skeptics are saying that the secondary thermocouple may be influenced by slugs
of hot water overflowing the E-Cat. Puffs of steam and shots of water impart
differing amounts of thermal energy.
___________________
6)It doesn't matter if there was never any evidence of heat-before-death,
because there is ample evidence of heat-after-death.
This is deliberate nonsense. The rest was mistaken.
In all of the previous tests, the E-Cat had a gain while it was powered.
Skeptics pointed out that overflowing water could eliminate all of the
described gains. Now, in this test, the only time that we see perceived gains
is when it's turned off, and a new "frequency generator" is applied. I
predicted before the experiment took place that with most opportunities for
obfuscation removed, we would be stuck with a demonstration that relied upon
"heat after death" to show any gains. I'm sorry if this vindication has made
me more cynical.
Cold fusion is a more likely explanation than bad calorimetry or stored heat.
Skeptics are foolish to look at this.
The calorimetry was bad but not that bad. Stored heat cannot do this. Try it,
and you will see.
Do I need to make an Orbo, while I'm at it?
