On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:38 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I have always maintained that I will follow the evidence and have been > faithful to that end. > That is not consistent with your frequently expressed absolute certainty that LENR is occurring. > > Why should we assume that a well trained engineer would be so stupid as to > be incapable of catching water? > Because of the geometry of the trap. It would not capture entrained mist. Why should we assume that a well-trained engineer would be so stupid as to be incapable of knowing the output flow rate? > Please read the Wikipedia article on steam locomotives to put things in > some perspective. I would estimate that the total area of Rossi’s 107 > ECATs is comparable to that of boiler within one of these devices. How > do you think that they can function at all if most of the steam leaving has > a quality of 5% or so as you keep repeating? > How does steam engines producing dry steam mean that the ecats are? You need more than the same area. You also need the power. The water level in steam engine boilers is regulated to ensure dry steam. In the ecat it's not. So if the power is too low, liquid water is forced through. It has no choice. If a straight forward model fits all of the facts, why should we go out > of the way to insist upon one that requires dishonest behavior, ignorance > or just plain deception as you suggest? > Low vaporization is the most straightforward model that fits all the facts. It requires only the assumption that the trap is not effective for an entrained mist, and the closed valve kind of suggests it was not effective at all. 470 kW out requires unrealistic power regulation and stability and/or ignorance of the output flow rate. > Are you convinced that the only way for the system to release 470 kW would > be for LENR action to be taking place? > No. I've answered this already. Playing with the report numbers is nothing more than academic, since we have no way to verify any of the results of that test. Even Rothwell agrees with that. To be convinced that heat was being produced by nuclear reactions would require disconnecting the 450 kW generator, verifying the energy out with a properly used heat exchanger, and demonstrably independent observation, and running it much much longer. > Where are the skeptics that claim that energy is stored for long enough > and intense enough to continue to heat the output for the full 5.5 hours? > > First, it didn't. The output temperature bounced around, and for the last half, mostly decreased, in spite of the fact that the input crept up a little because of recycling the output. But all you need is a slight increase in pressure to increase the temperature, as long as you've got liquid vapor equilibrium. Second, there is little point for any skeptics to waste their time trying to "analyze" the Oct 28 test, because there was no independent verification. Without trust in Rossi and his engineer of unknown connection, we have absolutely nothing. And from what we do have, there was a 450 kW generator connected, no evidence of dry steam, and unknown pre-heating conditions, and 107 completely uninspected ecats, which could easily contain more than just thermal mass for energy storage. Just look at the 450 kW generator beside it. It's a fraction of the size, and is capable of producing 3 times the thermal energy, at a temperature high enough to convert it to electricity. And it doesn't need to be plugged in to anything. It makes the giant ecat pretty feeble in comparison. The only thing that the megacat might have going for it over the generator would be run time, but, sadly, that was not demonstrated.
