OK Horace, now I see your reason for the simulation and it makes sense. I am afraid that you, I and a lot of others have been manipulated by Rossi. If you read my latest document, you will see that I reached the conclusion that the power actually generated during the October 6 test was far less than I originally thought using the thermocouple data supplied by Mats. It made me feel a bit upset until I realized the trick that Rossi perpetrated. Remember, he always has insisted that only 1 core module was inserted or active for this test. One core is only good for an output power of 3.4 kW in the driven mode. That level was actually estimated in my first report at the beginning of the self sustaining mode. If Rossi had wanted to prove that his ECAT was nuclear powered, he could have allowed the test to proceed at that driven level for an extended length of time. But not Rossi, he likes to confuse us.
He tested the ECAT in the self sustaining mode where the output power is about 1/2 that level and then for a short period. Remember, in the self sustaining mode the output power is continuing to drop according to an exponential curve of some sort. We have no idea about the function relating power output of a core to its temperature at this point. I suspect that I could derive something from the data if I work on it hard enough, but it is too late to make much of a difference now. So you are left with an internal core structure that behaves like a large thermal mass that has a lot of energy stored during warm up. I honestly expect that you will find a material that will simulate that function if enough of it is assumed. But this simulation is an illusion. That is exactly what Rossi wants us to conclude. What better way could he find to keep competitors guessing? And the thermocouple location is a joke as was evident from the beginning. I found that extremely careful selection of data revealed one or two accurate estimates of power. The other data looks like rubbish. Continue your quest and you will most likely be successful. Just do not allow yourself to believe that your simulation is the real world environment. Mr. Rossi has an ace up his sleeve and we are holding a loosing hand. Regards, Dave -----Original Message----- From: Horace Heffner <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Nov 7, 2011 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress On Nov 7, 2011, at 3:15 PM, David Roberson wrote: This exercise has me confused. Are you making an attempt to demonstrate that it is possible to make a scam ECAT? That would of course be instructive since Rossi has never run an ECAT for an extended period of time as a single unit. I suspect that we should consider that he is telling the truth about only populating 1 core within the large case for the October 6 test. If you calculate that three times the excess heat energy would be generated with the same input when all 3 cores are installed, then a fake unit is much more dificult to achieve. What are we to assume? Do you think that Rossi is totally dishonest? I wish you good luck with your endeavor. Dave I think is important to demonstrate *why* the calorimetry done thus far is so inadequate. One important means to do this is to provide an alternative way the results could be obtained without any nuclear energy. The most convincing way is to build a physical model. Another way is to build a simulation of what could be built as a physical model. What I would most like to see, by far, is positive results in a long test with good calorimetry. There seems to be no way to get Rossi to perform good calorimetry or even to have it done for him at no charge. I take this as a bad sign. I have pretty much assumed all for some time that a scam explanation is not required. It could simply be bad experimental technique and self delusion. However, a feasible scam explanation should be good motivation to provide good calorimetry. I will be satisfied if I can show a scam method can reproduce the results. My feelings about all this have been in numerous posts. Some examples http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg50931.html It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without even the most basic and inexpensive science being applied to the most important aspect - calorimetry on the output. Despite my dismay at the calorimetry, or lack thereof, and lack of due diligence (on the part of investors), I should note that I have made an effort to understand how Rossi's results might be real. For example: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg44845.html I still hope beyond all reason that Rossi's methods are real and useful. If not, this could be the worst thing that has happened in the field of LENR. LENR is clearly very real, if not useful yet. I think everything is still purely a matter of speculation though regarding Rossi's results, for those outside Rossi's inner circle. It is thus best to simply wait and see what unfolds. http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg50707.html The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself, preferably using dual methods. Then there is little need for issues like this that involve a lot of guesswork. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. This is not a moon mission. I expect Rossi could have had competent high quality calorimetry done for free many months ago, and without divulging anything about his device. I find all this very depressing. Billions of people are likely going to be affected by timely development of the LENR field. If the Rossi thing is a bust it could cost a major setback for LENR research support, and millions of lives. The longer the issue of poor calorimetry goes on the worse it looks for Rossi. Also, the more I work on the data the worse it looks. I have developed a new perspective on all this, however. It seems to me a couple million dollars for an M-cat might be a worthwhile investment for either law enforcement or national security agencies. A couple million is in some sense small change to get the right answer about whether there is anything real behind the claims. Further, if an Italian law enforcement agency makes the purchase, they either have a great investment, or grounds to get their money back immediately, and a solid case to prosecute. I saw somewhere a report that Domenico Fioravanti drove off towing the M-cat right after the test. The report seemed bogus. I had visions of E-cats falling off the top of the container as he drove off. 8^) The report said he hitched up his truck to it. Containers don't have wheels, or trailer hitches. Maybe there are dollies that can be attached? I suppose a container could be quickly winched up on a tilting flatbed. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
