With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no precipitous drop. Nor would there be after many grams of water. In fact 40MJ is stored in the metal. This is enough to boil ~20kg of water. Where are you getting 1.8 tons? ----- Original Message ----- From: Jed Rothwell To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 4:59 PM Subject: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it. Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water. I wrote to some friends complaining about the test. My conclusion: Despite these problems . . . I think this test produced irrefutable proof of anomalous heat. Here is why I think so -- Look at the graph here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat exchanger. At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam, which they poured down the drain. At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous heat, the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same rate it did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25. Actually, it would have approached zero before that, based on Newton's law of cooling. In other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours. During that time, 1.8 tons of water went through the cooling loop. It is inconceivable that an object of this size with no power input could have remained at the same high temperature the whole time. Yet Lewan reports that the surface of the reactor was still hot, and boiling could still be heard inside it. As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused this. You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and the reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof. It is possible that the placement of the outlet thermocouple was flawed, and it recorded a value midway between the outlet cooling water temperature and the steam in the pipe next to that. I do not think much heat can cross from the steam pipe to the water pipe next to it. Alan Fletcher did a rigorous analysis to demonstrate this. The thermal mass of the cooling water was much larger than the steam, so the average temperature was closer to the water than the steam. However, for sake of argument let us assume the temperature was too high. In that case, we can ignore the actual temperature and look only at the temperature trends. We can look at relative temperatures. Whatever the temperature was, it goes up after the power turns off. It stays up. It stays at a higher level than it was when the power was on! Even if the actual temperature was half this value, it still should have fallen monotonically, as I said. This behavior is simply impossible without some source of heat, at some power level. I think that very little wicking from the hot water pipe occurred, so I expect the peak anomalous power was ~8 kW as shown in this graph. (I also ran this analysis and my complaints past Rossi himself.) - Jed
