It appears there is debate here similar to the historic philosophical
debate about how many angels can sit on the head of pin, when it is
not determined the size or nature of the pin and whether angels exist.
I am responding to this only to bring some clarity to what it is I am
doing though it is largely explained in my review here:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
My response may be limited in relevancy to the discussion, because I
am including mechanisms in my analysis which might be part of a fake
device.
Responding to this kind of debate only detracts from my ability to
make progress, so I do not wish to engage in any kind of discussion
or the debate. I have been working with 2005 level hardware and
software, and am now in the process of a major hardware and software
upgrade. This is a huge learning effort for my old crystalized
brain, and I am in my tax planning and preparation time. It will be
some time before I post my findings.
1. One model of the basic structure of the E-cat consists of:
(a) an outer insulated box, "outer box", with water inlet at the
bottom front left, and a steam/water outlet at the top rear,
dimensions roughly 34.9 cm x 48.5 cm x 33.5 cm,
(b) an inner 30x30x30 cm box (about 3.3 cm of the top taken up by
cooling fins), "inner box", connected to the outside through the
front of the outer box via 4 pipe conduits to the the outside of the
outer box,
(c) one (or more) reactor (or at least hydrogen) containment box(es),
"reactor box", or just "reactor", said to be roughly 20x20x1 cm, and
connected to the outside through one of the pipe conduits, for
loading hydrogen under pressure,
(d) two water ingress ports, located below the large flanges which
are used to blolt the top and bottom segments of the inner box
together, such port water flow controlled by power tapped from either
or both the heater power or the frequency generator power,
(e) steam vent ports located just under the cap to which the finns
are attached and which is positioned over the top of the inner box
with some overhang on the left and right sides.
As noted on page 8-9 of my review, the test data requires (1) a large
thermal storage, possibly about 11 MJ, as evidenced by a large amount
of energy going into the E-cat without corresponding amounts coming
out, and (2) a large thermal resistance to enable the retainment of
the electric energy supplied for the durations required.
Given the outer box contains water which would be immediately
converted to steam upon exposure to the large amount of electrical
power input, it is apparent that a significant part of both the
thermal insulation required, and the thermal mass required, are
located inside the inner box. These facts are independent of whether
a nuclear reactor exists inside the inner box or not. I have thus
far assumed no phase change is involved in the inner box thermal
storage, but that is likely a false assumption. This assumption was
made in part because it seemed to me logical to use such a thermal
mass, comprised of a mix of metal and ceramic slabs, to achieve
thermal stability for a reactor. It is thus a neutral decision with
regards to fake, no fake, etc.
There is necessarily a thermal gradient between the resistance
heaters and the water. A reactor can be located anywhere in this
gradient, in order to achieve ideal mean operating temperature. This
obviously can be achieved by including slabs of material between the
electric heaters and the rector, and then between the reactor and the
water. There are clearly also other means of sustaining an ideal
temperature.
As noted in my review, there is evidence in the data of a control
influence of the power applied vs the heat out, regarding both the
heater power applied, and the "frequency generator" power applied.
In other words, the effective amount of insulation between the water
and the large thermal mass appears to vary with the power applied to
the device. This control influence has an inverse relationship, in
inverse relationship between power applied and thermal flux, as I
have noted. The lower the power applied, the higher the thermal
output, i.e the lower the effective thermal resistance. This kind
of relationship can be achieved using small, normally open, solenoid
activated valves, to permit water access from the outside box into
the inside box. There are other means, such as variation of slab
separation gaps, to similarly control thermal flux. I also have
noted the possibility of use of a thermal transfer fluid (other than
water) to achieve control of the thermal flux from the thermal mass
to the water.
Based on these assumptions, the outer box can be viewed primarily as
a water storage device which collects any (uncontrolled) leakage heat
escaping from the inner box. The inner box then is where the primary
thermal flows occur, likely via timing or control of when and how
much water is admitted exposure to the thermal storage for heat
transfer and boiling. The only requirements for the outer box then
are water storage, and maintenance of a sufficient temperature to
avoid significant condensation of steam generated within the inner
box. The large flange around the perimeter of the inner box limits
flow of the steam from the inner box to the water, provided the outer
box is less than half full,permitting steam to essentially flow
directly from the inner box to the vent. SOme additional steam
heating may occur via the cooling fins (called "wings" by Rossi.)
The inner box is where all the significant action is, under these
assumptions.
In the simulations shown thus far, I assumed the location of the
heater to be in a plane roughly at mid elevation of the inner box,
with slabs of material located above and below.
Note that for water injection into the inner box to provide
meaningful rapid shutdown control, the water would have to be
injected near the site of the rector. For water to be utilized for
normal power generation, it would be best to tap the heat from the
thermal mass on the far, colder side, of the thermal storage. For
this reason I expect there is a need for two control mechanisms.
These may trigger flow at differing voltages. There are two wires
from the frequency generator, plus what appears to be a ground wire,
going to the E-cat. There are numerous feasible geometric
configurations. It is notable that the frequency generator power was
supplied from a large 240 V variac, making control of the applied
voltage easy.
The size of the spikes depends on the flow rate of the water released
by the control mechanisms, where the water is released, and the
temperature distribution in the slabs. The water could potentially
be released into the interior of a slab stack. Flow restriction on
the water can greatly limit the spike height, and extend the spike
duration. The thermal mass of the inner box, the outer box, and the
water, can also greatly damp the pulse height, thus smoothing it out,
elongating it. There are a great many operating mode, geometries,
and materials feasible to match the Pout vs time profile. What
really matters however, to knowing the absolute energy out, is the
effectiveness of the Tout thermocouple. This is of course not known
due to the frayed insulation, and the location of the thermocouple on
the heat exchanger. It is also notable that potential chemical
reactions, between the hydrogen and other materials, or between other
materials and the steam, are not considered. It is also feasible
that, once the water level reaches the level of the steam vents, that
water back flow can occur, giving uncontrolled water access to the
core, involving long frequency oscillations of power out.
The relevant point I think here is that huge fast spikes in heat
production are feasible without any variation in either reactor
power, if that exists, or applied electric power, or even without any
electric power at all. This can happen regardless of whether the
device is faked or has legitimate control mechanisms within the inner
box. The data itself indicates that a control mechanism exists
whereby thermal flux increases even when the 300 mA frequency
generator power is reduced. I think the data further indicates the
presence of a large thermal mass and thermal resistance inside the
inner box. It is thus not surprising that the device is capable of
producing large thermal flux spikes.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
