Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: A skeptic doesn't need excuses. They have the Magic Right-as-Rain Protective Shield? Someone who makes a claim and is challenged may need an excuse. The skeptic is not the one making a claim. The problem with the E-Cat demos was not that they were not self-powered. Imagine a self-powered demo that did what the E-Cats did, exactly. Supposedly too much power, eh? But wait, how much power did they generate? If it was a seventh as much, perhaps that was stored energy by some scheme. Then it would only be a matter of time. Boiling water without input would be pretty impressive with something the size of the smaller (or larger) ecats. It's certainly a fair fraction of a kW at those flow rates (even the lower ones calculated from the pump frequency). Then you need nothing more than a time piece to convince skeptics that there is a new energy source there. Sure. And it sure might be. Whether self-powered is in reach or not, reaching it would be an additional development step, one providing no particular advantage at the early demonstration stages. It's established engineering. Compared to finding a new energy source, it really is a trivial addition, and the advantage is huge, because infinity is so much bigger than any other gain, that demonstrating it is vastly easier and more convincing. The Pons-Fleischmann effect was -- and is -- relatively fragile and unreliable, but it's not down in the noise, there is plenty of experimental evidence that there is substantial heat being generated, but it's difficult to scale it up. The approach, loading the palladium with deuterium generated by electrolysis, wasted a lot of energy, and when excess energy was found, in the most reliable approaches, it was down around 5% of input energy. That's still ten times noise, and control experiments showed that the calorimetry was accurate, etc. Other evidence has shown that the effect is, indeed, fusion. Most scientists are not convinced by this. Essentially, that an effect is real doesn't mean that a practical application is ready or even close, it can take many, many years to find techniques to make such applications possible, if ever. Nobody claims that muon-catalyzed fusion isn't real because there is apparently no possibility of practically using it. Again? CF is claimed based on measuring the very thing that would make it practical: heat. Muon catalyzed fusion is observed based on detection of neutrons, not heat. Yes, a self-powered application would *probably* be more impressive. But that's all. In no way is it a requirement. Definitely more impressive. It may not be a strict requirement, but it seems like such an obvious thing to do, that when you're talking about validating something most people don't accept, failure to do it just seems too suspicious; especially for something people have been plugging unsuccessfully for 22 years. This is all the more true for something like the ecat, where the input is *heat*, and the output is heat. There is no reason, even with a gain of 1.5 that it couldn't be self-sustaining. Rossi's claim of safety is not believable, but even if true, for demonstration purposes, it would not be difficult to provide safe isolation. He says many have exploded, but he's still kicking. You know, I have a gas furnace that heats water to make steam to heat my apartment. It is not self-powered. It requires not only gas supply, but also electricity, to operate. So? A gas furnace does not need electricity. My barbecue does not need electricity. When the world is convinced of CF, a trickle of electricity to control something is OK. The ecat is not using electricity just for peripheral purposes, though. It is using it to provide heat; the very thing they are claiming the ecat produces. That's the problem.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You're just guessing. The pressure at 30 cm of water is enough to raise the bp by about a degree. The chimney height can explain it.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Will I be misunderstood if I don't say this was said with sarcasm and exageration? Actually, the best head of water you can get require both the device is and exit are on the roof. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion). Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago: In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of the output as evidence of an exothermic reaction. This bold and bewildering deduction lead many of us to believe he possessed inside information he was not at the time sharing. At the same he did not share information, if he had it, as to how the input heat may have been varied over time. A pot of water placed on the stove undergoes three phases: warming, simmering and boiling. The temperature curve reported could be described by more common physics in the following scenario. We can identify at least 4 different modes of heating in the Rossi device with different effects on a thermometer measuring liquid in the chimney. 1) The device is divided into two zones; vertical and horizontal. The internal chamber within the horizontal zone restricts water flow between these two zones. An internal heater within the “reaction” chamber and an external band heater supply heat to the horizontal zone. 2) As heat is initially supplied, there is a relatively small rate of temperature increase in the vertical zone through convection of water, and conduction through the metal parts. 3) During a second phase, in which the average water temperature is below the boiling point, the water simmers on the heated surfaces. The agitation provided by simmering increases the rate of convective heat transfer from the horizontal to the vertical zone. dT/dt increase. 4) During a third phase, after the water temperature in the horizontal member reaches its boiling point, a steam bubble collects in the bulb of the horizontal member. Hot water is forced into the vertical member, and dT/dt of the vertical zone increases once again. The steam bubble quickly overflows and steam enters into the vertical column. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:27 AM 7/17/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of exothermic activity? It's unclear what Damon is responding to. However, a change in the slope of a heating curve will generally indicate some variation in condition, such as changed input power or locally generated power. It's a rough calorimetric technique, to determine what slope corresponds to what immediate power. If it were known that input power was constant, a sudden change in slope could indicate additional power being applied. It is thus evidence. But it is certainly not proof, because that shift could be a result of something else, such as a suddenly decreased coolant flow rate. Remarkably, the Kullander and Essen data shows this phenomenon, with apparent power doubling or tripling as the coolant temperature passed sixty degrees. This apparent power is much lower than what was asserted from overall heating on the assumption of full vaporization, but no clear evidence for full vaporization was shown. The Lewan demo shows no such clear increased heating phenomenon, so that data is even more puzzling.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
OK. Excuse my caution. I am simply not comfortable helping witch hunters hunt witches. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it. Then you turn up using the same phrase. I've been using it for some time. I'm not looking back, though. What I see is that the issue of steam quality successfully distracted a lot of people. Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story wide open. Are you helping him? If he reads my stuff, he might get some ideas that will help him, but historically, he's been pretty upset by what I write, since I've criticised his journalism. Long story. Krivit does what he does, he's good at certain things, not so good at others. Most of us are like that, right?
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
Essen and Kullander: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control. This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation. However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L. Rossi's goofball stuff is being exposed right here and now, and there is really nothing you can do to stop us from finding and writing about more irregularities. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply acknowledge them and move on. Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did.
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Essen and Kullander: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control. This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation. However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L. Rossi's goofball stuff is being exposed right here and now, and there is really nothing you can do to stop us from finding and writing about more irregularities. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply acknowledge them and move on. Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did.
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
Excuse me Lomax. My last email was directed to Rothwell not yourself. This email interface is not the best mode of communication.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding about 6. Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically reasonable to either of you?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Damon, This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Wherever the input power resistor is, its gradual surface deterioration and fractal cracking will accelerate the flow of electric current along the outside of the resistor, increasing the direct transfer of heat energy into the input cooling water, 2 cc/sec into a perhaps 200 cc interior volume, so 1 % mass of the contained H2O is forced in as liquid by the input pump every second, while 1 % of the contained H2O mass exits every second as a complex chaotic mixture of hot water, froth, bubbles, mist, invisible dry steam, H2 and O2 from water electrolyzed by the electric currents on the surface of the heating resistor -- the thermometer happens to be in a hot spot that measures a location within the chaos that is, well, hotter... always possible for there to be a stable hot spot in a complex fractal chaos witch's pot. For too high input electric power, the resistor corrosion results eventually in direct shorting, arcing, and explosion, as Rossi admits happened 17 times, if my feeble wits be trusted... Be careful, O ye would rush to run your very own witch's pot! In mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Damon, This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. You should get a job working for turbine manufacturers. They go to a lot of trouble to evaluate steam quality, when all they need is for you to look at it. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. That's because it is whacky. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources. No need to invoke hidden heat sources if there is no evidence for hidden heat.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
Hi Damon, I hope your piping is better than class 150, and your fittings better than schedule 40. Preferably you would want to use class 3000 pipe and schedule 80 fittings of 316/316L stainless steal. The strength of stainless steal Thank you for the safety concern. I'm using schedule 40 pipe and fittings. I looked at schedule 160, but the fittings are hard to find and expensive.. so instead, I assume my rig could explode and stay 100m away when heating. I run my experiments remotely using LabView via Remote Desktop and a solid state relay to turn on/off the heat. Also, I can monitor the pressure gauges from my webcam, and so far I haven't seen any real pressure increase when increasing the temp from 20 to 250C. Will try some simple and safe catalysts next. (Mg,Ti, MnO2) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
You can buy commercial pressure relief valves which will prevent an explosion. See globalspec.com T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
What are the exact details of your setup and runs so far? In mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 9:33 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Damon, I hope your piping is better than class 150, and your fittings better than schedule 40. Preferably you would want to use class 3000 pipe and schedule 80 fittings of 316/316L stainless steal. The strength of stainless steal Thank you for the safety concern. I'm using schedule 40 pipe and fittings. I looked at schedule 160, but the fittings are hard to find and expensive.. so instead, I assume my rig could explode and stay 100m away when heating. I run my experiments remotely using LabView via Remote Desktop and a solid state relay to turn on/off the heat. Also, I can monitor the pressure gauges from my webcam, and so far I haven't seen any real pressure increase when increasing the temp from 20 to 250C. Will try some simple and safe catalysts next. (Mg,Ti, MnO2) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
A few replies: Terry: Thanks for the link. If I start to see pressure exceed 300PSI (20 bars) I'll think about a rupture disk (but at what pressure?). So far I'm pressurizing up to 150 PSI (10 bars) and with mild heating it has not increased more than a few PSI. (I haven't logged pressure very carefully since my webcam can't read the gauge well at a distance, but definitely the needle isn't climbing much.) Rich: So far I'm just working with Ni powder + H (10 bars) + Heat (250C). The 30nm Ni powder is lightly packed in a test tube with steel wool help the hydrogen circulate. No anomalous heat detected. I am posting my results to http://ecatbuilder.com/builders/bhlowe and I'm working on posting actual results (time, temps, heater voltage) rather than just simple graphs. Robert/Peter: The Piantelli/Focardi methods of degassing is very interesting to me. I'd love to try to replicate, but my vacuum pump is not that powerful. Here are some experiments that have shown excess heat: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2004/2004CampariEGoverviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf(but none use nickel in powder form...) Bastiaan: I am in the San Francisco Bay Area too, near Walnut Creek. I would be happy to chat or visit, take suggestions. I am bhlowe on skype. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
Brad, Shouldn't an EM be applied into the powder? Loading with gas only won't work.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. No, what increases the pressure in the E-Cat would be two sources: pump pressure and steam pressure. Stop the pump, and with no boiling, the pressure in an E-Cat with an outlet hose full of water, leading down to a drain pipe, will be below atmospheric pressure, by the relevant head. If you were to open the steam escape valve at that point, air would flow in, not out. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.comjoshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You're just guessing. The pressure at 30 cm of water is enough to raise the bp by about a degree. The chimney height can explain it. Well, when I wasn't thinking carefully, I thought so. That would be true if the top of the chimney were open to the air, and the chimney was full of water. Which wouldn't stay that way, the water would flow out the drain! I'm amazed at how many stupid mistakes we can make. Babes in the woods. No, increased pressure is caused by the pump (I have little idea how much it will cause, but my guess is that this isn't enough to raise the pressure to atmospheric), and by steam pressure from boiling. Even a little boiled water will significantly raise the pressure. This leads to a possible analysis. Has anyone done this? Basically, it is possible to come up with a ball-park estimate of pressure from the data on chamber temperature. The accuracy of the thermometer is lousy, in fact, absent a pressure measurement. However, assuming elevated temperature of one degree C., due to elevated pressure, doing this in a preliminary way, inadequately checked, I came up with a pressure of 1.04 bar. If that's overpressureof 40 millibars, that would lead to a 40 lb/hr flow of steam through a half-inch orifice, which is 5 g/sec., from an on-line calculator for steam flow through an orifice. that's remarkable, but is quite imprecise. This approach directly calculates flow rate from some assumptions: 1. temperature of boiling water in the chamber of 100.6 degrees, vs. in an open pot at 99.6 degrees, same probe but unknown specific care in calibration. 2. Orifice of one-half inch. (It's probably less than that, the hose is 15 mm ID? The orifice must be smaller, and walls are probably more than 1.3 mm thick. Any figures from fittings?) 3. Head of water in hose was neglected. That head would increase flow because the differential pressure
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate! Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam. I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at the E-Cat fires up! Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a stationary steam. Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up. There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
At 06:47 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion). There is a copy of the report at http://freeenergydocs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Levi-and-Bianchini-Reports.pdf. Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago: In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of the output as evidence of an exothermic reaction. This bold and bewildering deduction lead many of us to believe he possessed inside information he was not at the time sharing. At the same he did not share information, if he had it, as to how the input heat may have been varied over time. Aw, c'mon. It's bold only because the very claim that the device exists is bold. The chart does show evidence of two shifts in heat production. A pot of water placed on the stove undergoes three phases: warming, simmering and boiling. The temperature curve reported could be described by more common physics in the following scenario. We can identify at least 4 different modes of heating in the Rossi device with different effects on a thermometer measuring liquid in the chimney. 1) The device is divided into two zones; vertical and horizontal. The internal chamber within the horizontal zone restricts water flow between these two zones. An internal heater within the reaction chamber and an external band heater supply heat to the horizontal zone. While two heaters is possible, it's not what is reported. The description here is a bit garbled. There are two chambers, the reaction chamber and the cooling chamber. There may be a third chamber, a closed coolant chamber that transfers heat from the reaction chamber to the cooling chamber. I think it's been said that this is a solution of water and some dissolved chemical that raises the boiling point. If I'm correct, the external band heater supplies heat to the reaction chamber, which then implies that either the reaction chamber is at one end, or the reaction chamber surrounds the cooling chamber(s). I'm not looking at all the released information. But I've seen nothing that would indicate a second heater, though it's obviously not impossible. 2) As heat is initially supplied, there is a relatively small rate of temperature increase in the vertical zone through convection of water, and conduction through the metal parts. At this point, the theory goes, the heat is not being efficiently transferred to the chimney part of the cooling chamber. 3) During a second phase, in which the average water temperature is below the boiling point, the water simmers on the heated surfaces. The agitation provided by simmering increases the rate of convective heat transfer from the horizontal to the vertical zone. dT/dt increase. I'm a bit surprised to see a sharp knee if the cause of increased dT/dt is simmering. That would generally have slow onset, I'd think, as bubble generating increases. 4) During a third phase, after the water temperature in the horizontal member reaches its boiling point, a steam bubble collects in the bulb of the horizontal member. Hot water is forced into the vertical member, and dT/dt of the vertical zone increases once again. The steam bubble quickly overflows and steam enters into the vertical column. Sure, it is possible to construct scenarios where shifts in rate of temperature rise depends on something other than heat generation. This much I'll agree with. It's an interesting idea. The change in rate of change of temperature has been alleged -- by me -- to be evidence of increased heat generation, but not to be, by any means, proof of the same, because of less precisely-specified possibilities like this. Whether or not the phenomena described by Damon would actually happen would depend on details of design not accessible to me, at least! There are two kinks. The first kink is preceded by very linear rise in temperature. The kink is abrupt. It does not look like something that could be caused by simmering, which, as we all know, is something that starts slowly, i.e., A watched pot never boils. The second kink is after a period where the chimney temperature is levelling off, actually *has* levelled off. As I understand Damon's idea, at this point heat transfer between the reaction chamber being heated, and the cooling chamber, has been interrupted by a steam bubble, so that while the reaction chamber increases in temperature, the cooling chamber goes more or less flat. Perhaps there being some leakage past the bubble explains the irregularity here. Then the bubble escapes. However, the temperature rise at that point is back to the original rate of increase. What happened to the accumulated heat, if heating was actually constant. No cigar, I'd say, but interesting. It points out how we can't be sure about heat generated
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
I will attempt to address this question from ecat builder: “Does the catalyst convert hydrogen to H+? Is there something else to try? What would you like to see tried for a catalyst?” First some background quoted from ecatrepor: “although one might first think “the finer the better” because the finer the powder the more surface area per volume you get, this is not the case. Because in order to reach useful reaction rates with hydrogen, the powder needs to processed in a way that leads to amplified tubercles on the surface of his nano-powder. The tubercles are essential in order for the reaction rate to reach levels high enough for the implied total power output per volume or mass to reach orders of magnitude kW/kg – this level of power density is required for any useful application of the process. Rossi tells that he worked every waking hour for six months straight, trying dozens of combinations to find the optimal powder size for the Energy Catalyzer, or E-Cat. He further stresses that specific data about the final optimal grain size cannot be revealed, but can tell us that the most efficient grain size is more in the micrometer range rather than the nanometer range.” I remember seeing a picture of the Rossi stippled catalyst surface in pictures of his catalyst shown in his patent. This surface was bumpy and lumpy; and in my opinion, it was the surface wall of the reaction vessel and not an image of a pile of nano-powder. From the patens of interest listed in the Rossi patent, I believe that Rossi produces such a mottled nickel surface by using a technique commonly found in the fabrication of artificial joints by medical device manufacturers. This technique produces the rough bone facing surface of metal knee or hip joints. The process involves “Inorganic Nanoparticles as Protein Mimics”. There has been a recently developed biomedical technology that produces metal surfaces that bond well with bone; a metal surface scaffold that optimizes bone growth onto and into the surface of these artificial joints. But there are many ways to skin a cat. There may be an easier way to get to the same result. An easier way to produce that pimpled nickel surface might be to first powder coat the inside surface of the stainless steel reaction vessel with 10 nm nickel oxide nano-powder, next to heat the stainless steel reaction vessel to just under melting temperature to imbed the powder onto the surface of the stainless steel. Nickel oxide nano-powder will not melt or deform during this heating process because it has a much higher melting temperature than stainless steel. The nano-powder will retain its randomized and ruggedize shape throughout the powder plating process. Then when all is cooled in a hydrogen packing process to remove oxygen, expose the newly dimpled and roughened surface to hydrogen to plate out a newly roughened pure nickel surface to expose these pure nickel bumps. Now for some theory; a bumpy surface of the lattice wall is required to activate the Rossi process because such a surface will ionize the exotic hydrogen molecules that the pressurized hydrogen envelope will produce. The bumpy surface of a nickel lattice will “field-ionized” the Rydberg atoms in a highly excited hydrogen envelope that hug the surface of the reaction vessel. This phenomenon may be visualized as arising from the interaction of the Rydberg atom with the electric fields due to its electrostatic “image.” Compared to a hydrogen atom in the ground state, a Rydberg atom has an enhanced susceptibility to these fields. This is because the Rydberg electron experiences a greatly reduced electric field from the ion core due to their larger average separation. Polycrystalline metal surfaces of the nickel lattice will generate inhomogeneous “patch” electric fields outside its surface. These electrostatic fields also influence Rydberg atoms, potentially causing both level shifts and ionization and competing with the more intrinsic image charge effects. In general, patch fields arise from the individual nano-grains of a polycrystalline lattice surface exposing different crystal faces of the individual nano-crystals. Each of these faces has a different work function due to differing surface dipole layers. For example, Singh-Miller and Marzari have recently calculated the work functions of the (111), (100), and (110) surfaces of gold and found 5.15, 5.10, and 5.04 eV, respectively. These differing work functions correspond to potential differences just outside the surface beyond the dipole layer. Consequently, charge density must be redistributed on the surface to satisfy the electrostatic boundary conditions, producing macroscopic electric fields. While patch fields were first discussed extensively in the context of thermionic emission they are present near polycrystalline metal structures of any type, including electrodes and electrostatic
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
At 07:30 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Essen and Kullander: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control. This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation. Give me a break, he's just reporting there, the claimed function of a part of the device. However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L. By the way, that claim of function has been ridiculed. How can a heater be used as a safety if heat evolution gets out of control. But EK were probably just reporting the claim here. After all, this part of their report was obviously not based on an observation of what happens during runaway! Personally, if I saw signs of runaway with this thing, I'd look for the nearest exit or object that might shield me from shrapnel. The auxiliary electric heater is used, it appears to be claimed, to control the temperature of the reaction chamber when it is operating below runaway temperature (i.e, self-maintaining temperature or anything above it). By requiring this extra heat, there is then some control of the reaction. Rossi also has added cooling power to shut the reaction down, apparently. Looks like Defkalion may be planning on using hydrogen pressure for control.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding about 6. Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically reasonable to either of you? It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response of the active material. The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc. This is far simpler than other possibilities, my opinion, this is why Rossi is doing it. Controlling the reaction in other ways, though, could allow the reactor to operate in a self-sustaining region, so that continuous heating isn't needed. That requires having other means to rapidly quench the reaction. Reportedly, nitrogen has been used, flushing the reaction chamber with nitrogen to rapidly shut down the heat. Setting up a means for rapidly increasing cooling should do the trick, too.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 11:55 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Yeah, I *sort of* understand this stuff and still I forget. Joshua is right. Completely. That does not mean that 97% steam is likely, but it is certainly possible.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. Okay, who is making the claim that we are examining here? Rossi? Rossi has zero responsibility to us What we have been trying to do is to analyze available evidence, from all the sources, to try to get a handle on what is happening. It's necessarily a hazardous business, because we can't just run down to the lab and make some measurements, and very little has been actually confirmed.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to condense the steam. SAlso the temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g of cooling is needed to remove the heat of vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate! Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam. I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at the E-Cat fires up! Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a stationary steam. Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up. There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to condense the steam. SAlso the temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g of cooling is needed to remove the heat of vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate! Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam. I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at the E-Cat fires up! Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a stationary steam. Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up. There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I find your statements bewildering. . On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. You are wrong. If you can point to another source of backpressure, please do so. In one demonstration the hose ran into a sink in another room in my recollection. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. The elevation is relevant to determining the back pressure. Evolving steam must push down on this head whether the water is flowing or not. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. Yes, in the Krivit video it runs into a sink. In the Levan video a blue bucket. Not all these demos were in the same place that I am aware of. No, what increases the pressure in the E-Cat would be two sources: pump pressure and steam pressure. Yes, steam pressure. This is elementry physics. It can't be all that hard to figure out. Stop the pump, and with no boiling, the pressure in an E-Cat with an outlet hose full of water, leading down to a drain pipe, will be below atmospheric pressure, by the relevant head. If you were to open the steam escape valve at that point, air would flow in, not out. What does leading down to a drain pipe mean? If it leads down, any water drains out of the hose and the pressure in the water jacket will be at ambient pressure.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
Hi Axil: As usual, very interesting.. and way over my head.. Dimpling and bringing something up to the temperature of melting stainless steel is beyond my ability.. but hopefully others are listening and can try.. I'm not sure that powder coating the reactor wall is required to get transmutation. Exactly how much Ni powder is in a reactor is undisclosed, but in the presumably reviewed by Rossi paper http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=473 (30% of Ni transmutes to Cu) it says “One hundred grams of nickel powder can power a 10 kW unit for a minimum of six months”. How do you put 100 grams of Ni on the surface of the 50cm3 reactor wall? Maybe a rolled tube of material powder coated with Ni. For manufacturing purposes, some kind of mass-produced roll of material seems plausible.. but again, Rossi showed a sample of Nickel powder that had been used in a reaction... and I assume it wasn't scraped off the reactor. I don't expect I can get Rossi level results, but I would be thrilled if I or anyone could get a few measurable degrees difference, or some other type of confirmation that transmutation is occurring. For now, my pile of Ni powder in steel wool is all I can do.. but would be happy to accept any Ni samples that might have tubercles on them! As far as lithium and potassium catalysts, does that mean just raw K or Li or should I use KH or LiH? Or something else? Thanks for your insight. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I was under the presumption that there a few here that understood elementry physics. Good Grief! On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I would think that anyone seriously investigating should have the reports and video evidence closer at hand. It's embedded in Lewans Ny Teknik article. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here!
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
The evidence for nano-powder welding as one of Rossi’s secrets is strong but circumstantial in the 10kw unit whose reaction vessel volume is 1 liter. First, the 100 gram pure nickel nano-powder fills only 1% of the volume of this one liter reaction vessel. This small amount of powder cannot be “packed” in such a large volume. A 100 gram pile of nano-powder would form a small clump at the bottom of the reaction vessel. If all the heat came from this small 100 gram pile of powder, the pile would burn a hole in the reaction vessel through the formation of a very hot spot. Second, Rossi said that the powder can reach a temperature of 1600C. Nickel Nano-powder will melt and/or degrade well below this melting point (1000C?) of the bulk material at 1350C. Third, the ash of the Rossi reactor he gave to the Swedes contains 10% iron that Rossi said was not produced through the action of transmutation from the reaction,,, but was produced by “scrubbing”; a Rossi quote. Forth, the nuclear heat that will have been produced by a pile of nano-powder throughout the entire though minuscule volume of this powder will be poorly conducted through that volume. This is caused by the randomized surface structures and associated protuberances and irregularities of each nano-powder particle. This porcupine like tubules will keep the surfaces of each nano-particle from mating flush with its neighbors to make efficient transfer of heat impossible to all the surrounding walls of the reaction vessel; in sum, any heat conduction through the volume of such a powder will be very poor. By contrast in support of the powder coating case, Rossi is using tubercles to increase the cross-section of his reaction well over what can be produced in a well ordered smooth nickel lattice. A tubercle is atomic mound of randomized topology created on the metal’s surface. Rossi is using these tubercles to disrupt the regularity of the nickel lattice to increase the strength of the atomic bonds of the nickel atoms. When there is a lattice defect on the surface of a lattice, the coordination number (CN) of the atoms that form the defect decreases. As a result, the remaining atomic bonds shorten and deform; this increases the strength of the remaining bonds of the nickel atoms on the walls in and around the tubercles. These atomic CN imperfections induce bond contraction and the associated bond-strength gain deepens the potential well of the trapping in the surface skin. This CN reduction also produces an increase of charge density, energy, and mass of the enclosed hydrogen contained in the relaxed surface skin imperfection. This increased density is far higher than it normally would be at other sites inside the solid. Because of this energy densification, surface stress and tension that is in the dimension of energy density will increase in the relaxed region of the disruption lattice bonds. For example, when a nickel wall lattice phonon wave breaks upon the surface imperfection, it is amplified by the abrupt discontinuity in the lattice and is concentrated by the increased bond-order-length-strength (BOLS) of the nickel atoms that form the walls of the cavity. His phonon behavior is highly improbable is a simple pile of nano-powder. This tight coupling allows the thermodynamic feedback mechanism to control and mediate the reaction. It also amplifies and focuses the compressive effects that phonons have on the hydrogen (Rydberg atoms) contained in the lattice defects. These defects increase the intensity of the electron screening because of the increased bond tension inside the defects. Nano-defects are very tough. This toughness and associated resistance to melting and stress is conducive to the production of high pressure inside the defect. Rossi has stated that his temperature of his nano-powder can reach 1600C before it melts. Nano-powder usually melts well below the 1350c melting point of bulk nickel in a regular lattice. This revelation informs us how much Rossi has increased the strength and available atomic bond tension in his nano-powder. The smaller the dimensions of the lattice surface defect, the greater is the multiplier on the hardness and the resistance to stress compared to the smooth bulk material. These multiplier factors can range from 3 to 10 based on the properties of the bulk material. Multilayer sites that penetrate down through many lattice layers are more resilient than surface defects. There toughness is proportional to their detailed topology and therefore not generally determined. There is a certain minimum size which one reached reduces the hardness of the nano-defect site. This size is on the order of less than 10 nanometers. If you are interested in this subject read this paper for more theoretical background: http://www.ntu.edu.sg/home/ecqsun/rtf/PSSC-size.pdf In steadfast service to our community; Axil On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, ecat
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 04:49 PM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: I find your statements bewildering. Projection of internal state onto external reality. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. You are wrong. If you can point to another source of backpressure, please do so. In one demonstration the hose ran into a sink in another room in my recollection. If the hose *end* rises above the E-Cat, this will create overpressure. It's not back pressure. Back pressure will result from resistance to flow. In the Krivit video, you can see that the hose is stick into the wall, into a drain fitting for a sink that has not been installed. The initial condition, after the pump is started and water is flowing out the hose: The hose end is inside the drain. The levels involved are this: the level of the E-Cat is highest. Then the hose goes down to the floor and runs into the next room and up to the drain, it's stuck into the drain there. This is below the level of the E-Cat The hose will not, as I stated earlier, fill entirely with water, the flow rate is too low. Rather it will fill to the level of the drain. Above the drain there will be air in the hose. The pump rate is not high enough, I believe, to remove that air. So there is no water head at all, the air pressure will be atmospheric. However, there is some head from the water level at the level of the hose outlet, down to where the thermometer bulb sits. There is no pressure from water standing in the hose, per se. The source of significant pressure in the E-Cat is from the evolution of steam. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. The elevation is relevant to determining the back pressure. Evolving steam must push down on this head whether the water is flowing or not. The concept of pushing down on this head is where the pucky is. If the head is below the E-Cat, this head will actually be sucking on the interior of the E-Cat. But at equilibrium, if air can flow into the end of the hose, then air will rise and water will flow out the hose beside the rising air, leading to an equalization of levels. The hose will be filled to the level of the drain, in the Krivit case. In that case there is no head. But in the bucket case, it is negative head, if the water level in the hose is higher than the water level in the bucket. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. Yes, in the Krivit
