Mate I'm not a physicists or an antagonists. Just a very practical old
power systems engineer. You have come up with a exotic theory of scam
that requires you to prove it. If I say I doubt your theory, that is my
right and you have no right to say "Nonsense" cause you have absolutely
no proof of what you suggest is even remotely true.
As a point of interest do you accept the significant and long term
reports of excess heat generation in Ni-H LENR cells? If not why? If yes
then why do you doubt Rossi?
AG
On 11/9/2011 5:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Nov 8, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote:
I have spent some time on working out what is what in the Exposed
E-Cat photos.
What can be seen is boiler scale on the reactor heat radiation fins,
external conduits and assembly bolts which seems to indicate water
and steam occur in the outer box as the Higgins drawing suggests and
not inside the reactor core as you suggest.
Nonsense!
That water and steam are present in the outside box has never been in
doubt by anyone that I know of. What I suggested is the possibility
ports can be opened to the inside box to permit timed and limited
water exposure to selected slabs of material, and the resulting steam
emissions. The source and destination of the water/steam is of course
the outside box, and then the top vent. You assertion that you can
determine whether or not this occurs from the photos is the nonsense.
The steam outlet from the outer box is via a fitting on the top and
not from the reactor core as you suggest.
You must think I am and idiot to say such a thing about me. Did you
not read my estimates of the location of the port in my photo analysis?
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
Do you think I am unaware of the T fitting in the top of the outer box
through which the thermocouple also is fitted, the location of which I
determined by photo analysis?
This would suggest the water input is to the outer box (inlet fitting
on the bottom lower front left and not from the side as the Higgins
drawings suggests)
Well of course there is a water inlet on the outside box, on the left
front.
and there is no water inside the smaller finned reactor core.
This you have no way of knowing.
See attached photo.
From what I can see there are 3 conduits connections into the reactor
core to supply H, heater power and RF energy.
There are actually four: 1 water, 1 gas, 2 for "frequency generator"
input.
Based on my measurements of the photos and assuming a symmetrical
reactor core design, there is room for the fins on the bottom of the
reactor core as Higgins suggests.
Of course there is room. The problem is the fins were not observed
there by Mats Lewan who had extensive access at the demo being discussed.
AG
On 11/9/2011 4:53 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Well I got some sleep and am catching up on this thread. I am very
disappointed. The confusion here is incredible. It also appears no
one has read my paper at all:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf
especially the sections "T2 THERMOCOUPLE LOCATION" and "VOLUME
CALCULATIONS", wherein I analyze the photos, Photo 1 and Photo 2 in
my paper, which for some reason everyone confuses as showing the
inside of the "30x30x30 cm inside box" that supposedly houses one to
three 1 cm thick reactors (or 3 cm thick reactors if you please,
Rossi made both statements), and to which I referred when I said no
one saw inside it at the demo. I was *not* referring to the
roughly 50x60x35 cm *exterior* box. The posters on this for some
reason seem to confuse the two boxes. Jed calls the 30x30x30 cm
inside box the "reactor", though it clearly is much more than "the
reactor". It is a reactor housing that supposedly keeps the reactor
dry and protected, and to which 1 /4 inch and 1 inch water sealed
conduit pipes connect which carry water, main power, and the
"frequency generator" power from the outside to the stuff inside the
box.
The material I have analyzed fits inside the 30x30x30 cm box. The
50x60x35 cm exterior box to which others refer is irrelevant, except
when water levels and temperatures are simulated.
It is disappointing that people would think I have not even seen the
photos I so carefully analyzed and described in my paper. This
reinforces the feeling I have had that this is all a waste of time.
Here are the important facts:
1. No one at the 6 Oct demo saw inside the 30x30x30 cm box. It was
not opened.
2. Mats Lewan did not see any features of the box aside from what
was shown in the various photos. He did not see any exterior
structures that might be important, such as
holes, vents, fins underneath, etc. The only features visible were
the bolted flanges and the pipe feed throughs.
3. The small interior 30x30x30 box was bolted to the bottom of the
exterior box. It is thus unlikely a set of fins like those on top
are present on the bottom of the 30x30x30 cm box.
4. No one would have been able to observe cement, ceramic tiles,
fire brick, iron slabs, lead slabs, Ni containers, valves, wiring,
hidden water access ports, etc., because the inside box was not opened.
5. The inside and outside boxes, and the contents of the inside box,
together weigh 98 kg. Clearly the inside and outside boxes, pipes
and bolts that are visible do not weigh anything like 98 kg. The
boxes are made of sheet metal. Therefore the density of the 30x30x30
cm box and its interior contents is very high.
I am attempting to construct my simulation within these constraints.
I think Bob Higgen's diagram at:
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php
is inaccurate. The reactor is enclosed inside the 30x30x30 cm
interior box. The fins are not as big as shown. There is only one
set of fins, on top. The thermocouple is much longer than shown and
likely rests against the edge of the inside box, and probably on the
flanges of the inside box, which are not shown. The gaps between
the inside box and the edges of the outside box are too large in
proportion. The 50x60x35 cm exterior box dimensions include the
flanges to which the top panel is bolted. This only leaves a few
centimeters gap (5 cm on the ends, 3 cm on the sides, excluding the
flanges) between the inside box and the outside box. See the
sections of my paper referenced above. I should note here that I am
working on an update of those sections based on an improved photo
analysis.
Here are my best numbers so far:
Width of E-cat inside box: 30.3 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, flange to flange: 49.6 cm
Interior width of E-cat outside box, side to side : 40.6 cm
Interior length of E-cat outside box: = 46.3 cm
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
<index.jpg>
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
