Alright, I'll go over this again: Please, listen. The E-Cat is not an 8 gallon pot that you take off a heater. The heater is INSIDE. When the E-Cat is turned off, there is still a hot iron core at 600 - 1000C, depending on who you listen to. It has lead shielding. If there are adjacent cats, they will also heat up, storing additional heat. Depending on the description, this may or may not be in the bottom; it may or may not be connected to the heat exchanger. If it slowly releases heat, the temperature in the E-Cat will be pegged at boiling, which varies based on back pressure. If it is releasing enough energy to boil .5 g/s at 117C at 1.5 ATM of pressure, and some obstruction causes the pressure to increase to 1.51 ATM of pressure, the boiling temperature could increase to 118C, but the amount of water boiled would decrease to .48 g/s without violating any law of physics. These are not hard calculations, because I'm on my cellphone and have beer, but you get the point. If it is boiling away less water than the paristaltic pump is putting in, water could overflow. Overflowing water would necessarily be at an increased g/s of H2O, causing a temperature spike in the thermocouple. Sloshing or percolating water would make these spikes more temporary and erratic. If the placement of the secondary thermocouple is indeed influencing its reading, then what it reads is irrelevant, and spikes are explainable by water overflow. This explains bumps in both sets of thermocouples without violating laws of physics. Your 8 gallon pot doesn't have an internal source of heat. Your proposal of "adding tap water" doesn't work, because we have no idea what the input water flow actually was. Your suggestion of taking measurements doesn't account for bad thermocouple placement. Rossi's actions indicate that he has observed an effect. Many other researchers indicate that they have observed effects. The february test sounds conclusive, yes. This test does not appear to conclusively prove Ni-H fusion is occuring. I wish it did, because I would immediately invest in nickel, nickel mining, and short oil. You stifle debate when you minimize arguments as "junior-high level physics"
Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> You have grown tiresome. >> Leaving an anvil in a forge overnight was merely to overstate that it was >> at full equilibrium. > > >You said two days, not overnight. Quote: "I warm it in a kiln over two >day to roughly orange-hot (it is going to hold this heat for a LONG time, >especially if well-insulated)." > >Also, the degree of insulation has no bearing on how long you leave it in >the kiln. > > > >> Have you ever cooked a turkey? > > >Iron conducts heat much better than flesh and bones, and it has much lower >specific heat, so it reaches equilibrium faster. > > > >> Despite what you may think, the core of an object does not immediately >> reach the same temperaure as applied to its surface. > > >I never said that. This a strawman argument. You have made several strawman >arguments. It is not good form. > > >I have personally repaired an anvil, and you heat it slowly to avoid >> destroying its hardened characteristics - and you cool it overnight packed >> in vermiculite to allow slow cooling. >> > >That has no bearing at all on your original statement. > > > >> Obviously, you prefer to go after an individual. > > >That does not seem obvious to me. I "go after" people who make major errors >and who confuse the issue. You, in this case. I did not "gone after" you in >the past when we all agreed you were correct, did I? I think you should stop >taking this personally and explain more clearly what you have in mind by >this statement -- > >Then you oversimplify arguments with an 8 gallon pot. > > >As far as I know, there is nothing oversimplified about my example. We are >talking about 8 gallons of water in an insulated metal container. If you >think this is an oversimplification or an invalid simulation, then -- as I >said -- please explain what you mean. > > >I cannot comprehend if you're being facetious, or truly do not understand >> what we are referring to by stored heat in the core. >> > >I am not being facetious. You are the one who made a profound error about >stored heat. I think you should admit that, and I sincerely wish that you >would experiment with a large amount of water in an insulated metal vessel. >I think you do not understand that system. > >If you see nothing anomalous in the behavior of Rossi's Oct. 6 reactor, then >it is certain you do not understand it, and you do not understand some very >basic physics. > >- Jed
