Joshua Cude has completed his proof that Rossi's own data from the "1 MW" demo shows unavoidably that it is certain that no excess heat was produced. Q.E.D.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&shva=1#inbox/133e0a55a24df9e5 Joshua Cude 7:20 AM (56 minutes ago) to vortex-l On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: [ not quoted here ] Joshua Cude: It is not the size of the gradient change that is the problem, it is the time it takes to change. You are right that the notion that an increase in power transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the core and the water interface is a comparison of steady state conditions, but the complications of transient conditions between steady states doesn't change the fact that a large thermal mass has to be heated to get from low power transfer to 7 times higher power transfer. Your suggestions that ignition might happen before the onset of boiling and that it might ignite at a higher power do not explain a 7-fold increase in power transfer in a matter of a few minutes. In the first place, although it clearly takes time after the power turns on before the power transfer begins to show up, we can get some sense of that from the pre-heat period. The temperature change begins about 30 minutes after power is turned allegedly on, and then it increases *very gradually*, and it takes another 90 minutes before the power transfer reaches half the input power. There is no indication of any step increase in power transfer at some fixed delay after the power is turned on. This is also consistent with Heffner's models in which a step increase in the input power results in a very gradual increase in the power transfer (gradient near the surface) to about half the input over 2.5 hours, delayed by about 30 minutes. Secondly, based on the time-course during pre-heating, and on Heffner's calculation, using power a factor of 2 higher (9 kW per module) than the steady state (4.5 kW) would not be anywhere close to enough to achieve the necessary increase in power transfer in a few minutes. In fact, it appears it would still take hours for the output to reach half the input power. Finally, even if a step increase at the input would transfer through the heat sink as a step-increase at the output, it is even more unrealistic to expect an early ignition to happen at just the right time so that the power transfer increase occurs exactly at the onset of boiling, than it is to expect ignition to happen at the onset of boiling, again in all 107 ecats. And without any kind of indication in the pre-boiling curve that a second heat source has ignited. Likewise, even if it were possible to tailor the input to give the necessary step increase at the onset of boiling, it would take a much higher initial power which would then have to fall nicely back to the 4.5 kW just in time so that the steam never exceeded the boiling point. Not only is this unrealistic, there is no reason Rossi would want to do it, except to make the results consistent with much less output power. Now, I gather you're prepared to accept a somewhat slower power transfer increase by assuming that the ecats are not full at the onset of boiling. This of course requires you to accept that Rossi and his engineer do not have sufficient competence to know what the output flow rate is (by, say, observing liquid coming out before the onset of boiling), and that you can determine these things better from a distance. Nevertheless, it's hard to imagine it could be less than 80 or 90% full, because then the heating elements would be exposed, and the steam would likely by superheated. And if they're 80% full, it would only take an hour or so to fill, and as argued above 3 hours to reach half the input power. So, unless you're proposing much more than twice the input to begin, tailored to decrease to 4.5 kW (per unit) at just the right time to avoid superheating the steam, this will not avoid quite a lot of liquid being forced out with the steam. And once the possibility of wet steam is admitted, then the effectiveness of the trap is unproven, and output power as low as 70 kW (total) is consistent with the data. Joshua Cude 7:28 AM (52 minutes ago) to vortex-l On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: OK Horace, You have supplied the information that is needed to answer the questions. Joshua Cude: By my reading of the graphs, they contradict your ideas. They show that a step increase in the power input results in a very gradual increase in the power output to half the input over a period of 3 hours. The only graphs that show rapid increases are related to some kind of active control, and in those cases the power increases are extremely brief spikes. Rossi's claims require a step increase in the power by a factor of 7 and then a new plateau at the higher power.
