2011/11/10 Higgins Bob-CBH003 <bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com>: > Mats Lewan put his hand on the top foil over > the insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C. That information > might be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will > not be as simple as presuming R6 to get a rough order of magnitude. >
We can calculate that the heat loss was around 400-700 watts for 5 to 7 hours. In addition to that, heating brick E-Cat to 100 °C would consume ca. 20 MJ energy. Heat loss would consume 7-17 MJ energy. That means that initial heating and heat loss together eliminated 27-37 MJ energy that never did not even get to the heat exchanger, to produce change in ΔT. Electrical input energy that was 32MJ ± 15 MJ (frequencies may cause up to 50 % error in measurements) Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into reactor. For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. And to speculate, Horace is too much depended on Krivit's opinions which are based as he has said, he was experienced very unconvincing personal »demonstration» that lasted for 25 min in June. –Jouni PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all demonstrations have been too short, including these private demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. This is very annoying fact, that it is telling, that all five fat cat demonstrations follow the same pattern. That never exceeded eight hour operation. However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat would depend on incompetent observers.
