A lot of responses have already been kicked up by JC and MY, but I'd like to
continue, if I may, to Jed.
This is a long reply, and was in discussion of using the primary of the October
6th test in any considerations as to test validity.
I completely understand your argument of rising and falling E-Cat levels. I
know that its based on Roberson's water-level analysis, but you know the
problem with it.
We do not have the incoming flow rate, and all we have for the outgoing rate
are the two from Lewan (one while it was running, and one during purging). His
measurements could coincide with overflow just as easily as a decrease in
output power. Without knowing the input flow rate, this cannot be determined
with any level of confidence. And I really appreciated David's well-thought
analysis on power/water levels. I'm sure he had a great "Aha!" moment or two,
where the scenario seemed to match up. Immediately after the test, I had begun
my own analysis, building the same graphs and tables that everyone else was.
The error margins due to unknown variables were so large as to make a null
output just as possible as the claimed output. It was aggravating, but it
really makes one understand just how few data points are there when they are
most critical.
You can't see how tenuous the conclusion is until you try to reproduce it
yourself. If the output thermocouples are jeopardized by their placement, the
test is moot.
You look at the September data, and find that: not only is the pump he's chosen
variable frequency and variable stroke, but its output also varies
substantially based on the amount of back pressure - If you measure the output
into a reservoir, it will read higher than when it is actually being used for
pumping water into the E-Cat.
You start to realize, for example, that Mats raising the end of the line,
trying to get SOME idea of flow rate, is effecting the test. While he's
pooling up the condensate line for a careful measure, this length of water
actually creates additional back pressure all of the way to the heat exchanger,
and respectively, the E-Cat. That back pressure results in a higher boiling
point, raising the recorded temperature at the E-Cat probe with no power
increase necessary.
You realize that a large spike can be seen at the heat exchanger simply by
water overflowing. I've said this before, but imagine the E-Cat filling taking
in water at a rate of 1 g/s, but only boiling off .1 g/s. At the moment of
overflow, the temperature at the thermocouple would actually increase with no
change in core power.
Without knowing the input water flow and output water flow of the E-Cat, trying
to derive any power data from its temperature is a fool's errand.
I will politely ask to agree to disagree on the October 6th data; the two
methods of determining the power are, in my opinion, insufficient.
In Method 1: the calorimetry in the secondary was, in my opinion, inconclusive.
The thermal transfer between the brass and the water, the air surrounding the
brass, the unknown conductivity between the braided wire and the nut, the
environment under the insulation, all make the thermocouple placement suspect,
and are not properly alotted in the Excel data that you graciously provided.
Furthermore, it looked to be placed specifically to maximize heat contamination
with the primary input.
In Method 2: there is insufficient data on water flow to make any reasonable
approximations on output power.
The most conclusive piece of the demonstration, as you often refer to as "first
principle", is that Mats said it was still boiling, and the surface was still
hot. I have avoided publicly addressing this, because I would have to address
this as fraud, instead of bad calorimetry. I have tried to avoid any such
claims, but it's inescapable. The earlier tests could have failed and been
simply bad calorimetry. If the October tests did not produce any excess heat,
then I cannot think of any determination that doesn't involve intentional
desception.
I will openly admit that a very large part of why I am so critical is my
impression of Rossi. But, due to a lack of independent testing, and variables
whose origin is "Rossi says..." I have rely on the data that we have available.
If the data is not specifically meausured by an impartial instrument or
observer, and Rossi supplies the evidence, then his credibility is added to the
equation. I do not think that Rossi has credibility. I would be just as
critical if he was claiming a lithium battery technology that gives an electric
car 5,000 miles per charge. I believe that the evidence of his past points
towards exaggerated claims of performance based on real technology
(http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg56290.html). Claiming
orders-of-magnitude performance better than everyone else on thermoelectric
generators or biodeisel refinement is not that much different than claiming
orders-of-magnitude better performance than everyone else on Ni-H reactions.
I am perfectly open to Ni-H possessing the capability for excess heat. If
Piantelli observed excess heat in Ni bars, it is only logical that micro- or
nano-nickel could show better performance. Ni-H reactions could be real.
Rossi's claims of taming the reaction and having Kilowatts of tabletop power
has not, in my opinion, been demonstrated. I would LOVE to be wrong about this.
> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:01:09 -0500
> From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
>
> Robert Leguillon wrote:
>
> > This is the same thing that may be happening in the "Ottoman" E-Cat:
> > water gurgling out, and some steam. The assumption of complete
> > vaporization cannot be relied upon, and is actually contradicted by
> > the measurements. This is why your "Method 2" for the October 6th test
> > was unuseable.
>
> I agree there may have been some liquid flowing through at times, but
> Lewan performed Method 2 after a very large burst of heat, and he found
> the flow rate was much lower than the flow rate going into the reactor.
> Therefore the reactor water level was low and the vessel was filling up.
> All of the water coming out of the heat exchanger hose at that time was
> condensed from steam.
>
> I think you are right that at other times there may have been a mixture.
> If they had measured the flow rate constantly with two precision flow
> meters (for the inlet and outlet) they might have found something like
> that, where the overall flow coming out was higher than the flow coming in.
>
> - Jed
>
