[Vo]:Ideas how to make an illusion of excess heat
One method could be that in before summer demonstrations, there was thick wooden stand that could be hollow and hence store easily required amount of odorles ethanol. Fuel need was no more than few kilograms. And also it could provide sufficient supply for air or even compressed oxygen, to avoid incomplete burning. And if burning is catalyzed, it does not require that much room, and proper burning could easily be done in the core. However, I do not say that it is easy and Rossi may require assistance from David Copperfield. We should understand that there are no limits how clever hoaxes people can construct. Therefore we should not underestimate those, although they are not relevant with this Rossi's case. Not anymore. What is most clever thing about Rossi that he performed demonstrations in such a way that they were clear for everyone open minded and who is motivated to go through them in detail at discussion forums, but they remained elusive for common people and for those who were basing their attitudes on prejudices against cold fusion. —Jouni On Oct 7, 2011 4:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Someone wrote: In previous experiments, however hidden energysources such as fuel tanks were not excluded. That is incorrect. A video of a previous test shows the observers lifting up the device, looking under it, and placing it on a weight scale. They also looked inside it. Hidden energy sources such a fuel tank in the table or in the device would discovered by these methods. In this test they reportedly disassembled the reactor more completely than in previous tests. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
We know that they mean kilowatts. We know this is not standard. You are not telling me or anyone else here anything we do not know, so I suggest you give it a rest. You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they talk about energy. Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very wrong. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:32 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, i have a scientific degree. I know what are the unit of measuremnts. kWh/h, by semplification, is kW, is a unit of POWER. Using kWh/h for ENERGY is totally wrong. Totally. Open a physic book and study it. Yes, I am aware of this. I learned it in 8th grade as I recall. However, even though this notation is not standard, many people use it. To insist that it is wrong is pedantic. It is pointless. We know that they mean kilowatts. We know this is not standard. You are not telling me or anyone else here anything we do not know, so I suggest you give it a rest. In both common speech and scientific writing there are many forms of notation and many expressions that are irrational, redundant, obsolete, based on mistaken premises, or reversed in meaning. This is a fact of life. Human communication is imperfect. There is no need for you to tell us this. We know. - Jed
[Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece Test of Energy Catalyzer Bologna October 6, 2011 http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Some preliminary notes about the test. The weight of E-Cat before test: 98kg and after the test 99 kg. I think that this may be explained with inaccuracy of the scale and remaining water residuals. Therefore no chemical combustion inside E-Cat! Of course metal-oxide production is still possible, if there is hidden oxygen bottle inside E-Cat (very unlikely). Could lithium be volatile enough to enable controlled burning? I think that most of the other metals, such as aluminium or beryllium require such a high temperature that they are not practical for sustained burning. I hope that someone measured the outlet water temperature after steam/hot water went through heat exchanger. This would be important bit of information to exclude the possibility that heat exchanger does not absorb all the out flowing energy. It looks like 3 kW is the lower limit for heat output. But total heating power was somewhere between 3-6 kW. And if we assume 60% efficiency for the heat exchanger, heating power was something like 5-8 kW. For single core I think that this is reasonable performance. With full power it would thus produce 15-24 kW that is reasonable power production. One important detail to notice that steam temperature was around 120°C. This is significantly less than in September test, where temperature was above 130°C. This would imply that September E-Cat was producing around 6-10 kW energy, when self-sustaining. I think that this is surprisingly close to my steam pressure calculations. Also, Rossi's business continues as usual, because he cancelled the contract with one of the greatest entities in Americas... The company that was rumored to be behind the contract was here http://www.e-cat.com/ But I think that there is not much substance for this rumor. –Jouni 2011/10/7 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com: TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece Test of Energy Catalyzer Bologna October 6, 2011 http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On 2011-10-07 13:37, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Test of Energy Catalyzer Bologna October 6, 2011 http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 This must be the secret sauce: 15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V. Current through resistance was zero, voltage also zero. From this moment the E-cat ran in self sustained mode Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery... 2011/10/7 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2011-10-07 13:37, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Test of Energy Catalyzer Bologna October 6, 2011 http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3284962.ece/** BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+**6+%28pdf%29http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 This must be the secret sauce: 15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V. Current through resistance was zero, voltage also zero. From this moment the E-cat ran in self sustained mode Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery... This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test. There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the devices, presumably to replace the batteries; and they absurdly claimed that they were demonstrating OU. Here, there was just one battery, charged up for 4 hours, and then depleted by heating water for 3.5 hours.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
This must be the secret sauce: 15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V. Current through resistance was zero, voltage also zero. From this moment the E-cat ran in self sustained mode Interesting... Frank, can you predict the frequency? Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote: Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery... This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test. There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the devices, presumably to replace the batteries; and they absurdly claimed that they were demonstrating OU. Here, there was just one battery, charged up for 4 hours, and then depleted by heating water for 3.5 hours. I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi wrote: You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they talk about energy. Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very wrong. Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
But that was what happened... 2011/10/7 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 08:59 -0400, vorl bek wrote: Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery... This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test. There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the devices, presumably to replace the batteries; and they absurdly claimed that they were demonstrating OU. Here, there was just one battery, charged up for 4 hours, and then depleted by heating water for 3.5 hours. I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then. Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Craig Haynie wrote: I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then. If there was a battery than when they opened the device they would have seen it. Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the table leg. This is ruled out. Videos of previous tests show the observers picking the device off the table and put on weight scale as they did this time. Videos also show them sliding the device across the table. A hose connecting the device to the hidden source of gas would be revealed when they do this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Even a emeritus professor in physics who's mission is supposed to teach others ? Jed, you're or too indulgent or too naive. This is not a single error. They keep doing the same mistake over and over. A poor student will fail any test with this little mistake. 2011/10/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mattia Rizzi wrote: You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they talk about energy. Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very wrong. Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
I would like to point out that if it were a battery, then it would have been hidden and pre-charged before anyone came into the room. There would be no need to charge it up in front of everyone then. I guess I should have referred to it as a 'battery'. That cylinder of nickel powder could have been 'charged' before the demo for all we know; maybe without the 'pre-charge', it would only have lasted for one hour instead of 3.5. Here is an inventor and entrepreneur, who intends to have a 1MW system running within 3 weeks, and who gives a demo of one of the modules, and does it in a way that can only engender skepticism and ridicule. There is no reason I can think of why Rossi would not do his best for this demo, but what he came up with was almost a joke, presumably because he could not come up with anything better.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
I wrote: Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the table leg. A canister of gas, for crying out loud. There is no gas, no wires and no batteries. Get that through your heads. That is nonsense. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna. He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual error, a big one. If this is the quality of report in the cold fusion environment, it’s not surprisingly that nobody matters the subject. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 3:13 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report Mattia Rizzi wrote: You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they talk about energy. Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very wrong. Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
I made some initial calculations for the COP. They are just rough estimations. Electricity provided to the E-Cat was approximately 30 MJ (average input power when electricity was on, was 2 kW). It was little tricky to calculate, because input power was variable. Here we can see that most of the energy was consumed initial heating of the device. 100 kg Metal + 25 kg water alone takes 18 MJ to heat up by 80 °C and in addition that there was ca. 13 kg/h water inflow during the initial heating. Therefore, It is safe to say that almost all the electricity was absorbed by heating E-Cat to 100 °C. However, as E-Cat was producing ca. 5-8 kW power (60% efficiency for heat exchanger is assumed) around 6-7 hours, we can calculate that total energy output was around 100-150 MJ. That is directly more than 10 times more output than input, if we ignore the initial heating. And when E-Cat is running on all three cores, I think that COP is more than 30, in sustained mode. We can say that this test was not only the great success, but it was phenomenal success that surpassed even our wildest dreams! So where I can reclaim the price for guessing correctly the COP?^^ –Jouni
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
My Two Cents: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an operating E-Cat producing 6 or more times input power. Instead, we were asked to evaluate a temperature decay of an E-Cat, whose power output was at or near parity with the input, while a new device produces frequencies. The only explanation that I can come up with is this: Rossi was originally claiming a MINIMUM of 6x power gains. Skeptics said, Then why do you need two heaters? Even with an 80% loss in thermoelectric power generation, it should be able to run self-sustained. Of course skeptics MEANT that you could generate electricity with the output heat, and use it to power the heaters. This would close the loop, and allow it to run ad infinitum; much crow would be eaten. Rossi couldn't be bothered with thermoelectric generators, and tried to come up with a way for it to run without input. I'd predicted that the self-sustained or heat after death mode of operation would be a bone of contention. Let's just look hard at Heat-Before-Death. It's obviously not his promised 6x power gain, but there may be something to this, yet. Donating to the World - Two Cents at a Time, R.L. There is no reason I can think of why Rossi would not do his best for this demo, but what he came up with was almost a joke, presumably because he could not come up with anything better.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Now that Jed has told me my utility pension is at risk and I have vested interests. I will have to agree there is probably something wrong with the tests. Perhaps a laser was heating it from the ceiling? Frank Z
[Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper data
Mats Lewan sent me a note with links to his article, a report and the spreadsheet of temperature data: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284968.ece/BINARY/Temp+data+Ecat_6_10_11+%28xls%29 He said that unfortunately the spreadsheet did not include data from the secondary cooling loop, but only data from the steam outlet. He said I took these data manually and put them in the spread sheet. His pen and paper data is in column G and H in the spreadsheet. I wrote to him: Pen and paper is fine. That is FAR better than nothing! That is how we collected data in the 1970s when I was in college. But, did Rossi record the cooling loop data on a computer? I mean the inlet, outlet and flow rate. Will he publish this data? If he did not record it, or he will not publish it, he has disgraced himself again. You say there was [a 0.1°C bias] between the inlet and outlet thermocouples. That is also a disgrace. It is ridiculous. Such things are easily corrected, and should be corrected before the test begins. [Dedicated, computer-based instruments should have a smaller bias than that. Handheld instruments usually show only 0.1°C increments. They may vary by 0.1 or 0.2°C.] This test was convincing but it was excessively crude. There is no reason and no justification for doing crude tests. It takes no more effort, preparation or expense to do careful tests with proper instruments. By doing such crude tests and by expecting people to believe them, Rossi expresses contempt for the scientific community. Perhaps it is subconscious, but I think it is contempt . . . Did you collect the water into a vessel, stirred and measure the temperature externally away from the machine? If you did not do this, and you relied on Rossi's internal thermocouples only, the data cannot be relied upon. It is absolutely essential to check all temperature measurements with independent instruments. Unless that is done, there are too many ways this could be a mistake or even fraud. . . . Lewan remarked that he was not prepared to collect data and play as active a role in the test as he ended up playing. I responded: I wish Rossi had allowed me to come, as I requested, because I might have been better prepared if I had been given a week to prepare. He said it would be crowded and that many people wanted to come. I suspect he was exaggerating. . . . Exaggerating is a polite way to put it. - Jed
Re: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Von: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com However, as E-Cat was producing ca. 5-8 kW power (60% efficiency for heat exchanger is assumed) If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4 = 2kW. Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into the ambient. I think even if the heat exchanger at this size (as visible in the video) has no insulation, it cannot lose 2kW. It is well isolated and the loss must be much lower. The output temperature delta of course is lower then te input temperature delta, but at the secondary circuit the flow can higher. A heat exchanger has always a loss of temperature, but this does not necessary mean a loss of energy. If the isolation against ambient is 100% perfect, then it will reduce the temperature but not loose energy, because the secondary flow must be higher than the primary flow. Peter
Re: [Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper data
I'd like that someone integrated the energy spent in heating before the e-cat was turned off for the self sustaining mode. Is anyone up to the task?
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Frank sez: Now that Jed has told me my utility pension is at risk and I have vested interests. I will have to agree there is probably something wrong with the tests. Perhaps a laser was heating it from the ceiling? ...will have to agree I can't tell if Frank is being serious or not. If Frank is not being serious, I'd say Frank has a wicked sense of humor. Well played, Frank! OTOH, if Frank was being dead serious... Well, let's just say that disliking the ramifications someone else draws should not in itself become the primary reason to decide it must therefore be wrong. Most of us try to come to terms with those kinds of hurdles during the terrible twos of our lives. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:A little unclear whether observers looked inside reactor
Here are the most recent 4 messages from Zreick: http://twitter.com/#%21/raymond_zreick [This was in English:] raymond_zreick raymond zreick we couldn't take pictures of the open cell. and thay didn't show us directly the secret reactor 17 hours ago [Translated by Google:] raymond raymond_zreick zreick yet, it seems to do its job well (a great hunt hot): the mysterious member, however, do not haveshowed 17 hours ago raymond raymond_zreick zreick is not much good inside. if you think hi-tech ... not. to be honest, open, e-cat is almost disappointing. Really that's it? 17 hours ago raymond raymond_zreick zreick There we can say more about the black box when we see it we'll tell you more about the black box, we'll see it When 19 hours ago I do not understand exactly what this means. I think he means they looked inside the reactor chamber but they were not allowed to take photos, and they were not allowed to look inside the actual nickel hydride cell (the secret reactor). My take on this test: This was yet another rotten presentation. *However*, if the observers were allowed to look inside the reactor as planned, and if the people I talked to did the things I recommended, then despite the obvious problems this is still an irrefutable result. If the observers did not do any of the things I recommended then this result is crap. I cannot understand why Rossi refuses to do a properly instrumented test. I was hoping that this test would be organized and conducted by someone else but it is clear that Rossi set it up, and -- as always -- he neglected to: * Use proper instruments * Record the data on a single computer with uniform timestamps * Make independent measurements, with your own instruments, away from the reactor. * Calibrate I told him and two of the other observers that they should do these things. He ignored me. I have not heard from the other two yet. I mentioned this yesterday: The observers collected the water in vessels and measured the temperature externally with their own instruments. At least, they said they would do this. I will be upset if they did not. . . . I have been dealing with Rossi for nearly 2 years and I have been saying these things to him over and over again, as have other people. It is like talking to a wall. I know him well enough to predict that he will never do these things, and it is a waste of time advising him to do so. He is a frustrating person to work with. I knew that years ago. Nothing has changed. He is a genius in many ways, but he is no good at demonstrating machines or convincing people of his claims. It is fortunate that Defkalion has also done these tests and they have used proper instruments and techniques. I hope that more information about their tests will soon be revealed but I have no assurance that will happen. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4 = 2kW. Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into the ambient. Correct. It radiates into the surroundings, from the reactor and the heat exchanger. Lewan reported the reactor surface was between 60°C and 85°C. I presume he means at different times. I do not know how he measured that. It has a lot of surface area so it is radiating a lot of heat. Someone better physics and I can estimate how much. With a really good calorimeter having a high recovery rate, nearly all the heat ends up captured by the calorimeter. With the flow calorimeter it ends up heating the water. With a Seebeck calorimeter it may radiate out into the room, or if there is a water bath on the outside shell of the chamber to ensure a stable background, it will be captured by the water bath. This reactor is too large for most Seebeck calorimeters. I think even if the heat exchanger at this size (as visible in the video) has no insulation, it cannot lose 2kW. It is well isolated and the loss must be much lower. I believe the heat exchanger plus the reactor itself can radiate 2 kW. They look crude to me. Such things are inefficient. See photo of the two of them (in one box): http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper data
I wrote: You say there was [a 0.1°C bias] between the inlet and outlet thermocouples. That is also a disgrace. It is ridiculous. Such things are easily corrected, and should be corrected before the test begins. [Dedicated, computer-based instruments should have a smaller bias than that. Handheld instruments usually show only 0.1°C increments. They may vary by 0.1 or 0.2°C.] Oops. Excuse me. He said 0.5°C. Quote: It should also be noted that after half an hour of water flow, before starting any heating, the temperature at the inlet and the outlet of the heat exchanger still showed a difference of 0.5 degrees centigrade, the outlet water being cooler than the inlet water (at that time, the primary circuit was still empty as the E-cat was still filling up) I assume this is an instrument bias. The device cannot act as a refrigerator cooling the water down as it passes through. but perhaps the water sat in there for a long time and ambient was less than tap water, and it cooled down. Or the inside of the machine was cold. I don't know what to make of it, but this kind of problem should be addressed before you begin the test for crying out loud. You have to do a calibration. You have to flow water through the thing and prove that the two thermocouples are less than 0.1°C apart. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper data
Just straight line it and do a 1/2 b x h for the triangle. You'll be within 10% if your line is properly placed. T On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I'd like that someone integrated the energy spent in heating before the e-cat was turned off for the self sustaining mode. Is anyone up to the task?
Re: [Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper data
I cannot plot anything. And there seems to have wild variations in Lewan's report. I would like to see that done in the xls report.
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote: My Two Cents: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an operating E-Cat producing 6 or more times input power. Instead, we were asked to evaluate a temperature decay of an E-Cat, whose power output was at or near parity with the input, while a new device produces frequencies. I disagree with this. During the 'power phase', you can measure the power coming out of the system as heat. The conclusion is far away from a 4 hour 'charging phase' followed by a 3 1/2 hour 'discharging phase' of near equal parity. Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
The lastest version of Steorn's 'orbo' technology also produces steam and uses nickel. I think Rossi and Steorn are both exploiting the same underlying phenomena, or they are both mistaken or ... Harry On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 AM, vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Maybe the secret source was charging a battery for around 4 hours with an energy above 2KW coupled with some other kind of auxiliary battery... This test was almost as ludicrous as the Steorn waterways test. There, they kept things running by periodically swapping out the devices, presumably to replace the batteries; and they absurdly claimed that they were demonstrating OU. Here, there was just one battery, charged up for 4 hours, and then depleted by heating water for 3.5 hours.
RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
I have not yet had time to compile the four hours of warm up. Obviously, we don't have all of the data required to even remotely show a balanced energy equation. The at or near parity statement was referring to E-Cat performance before it was turned off. One would expect an operating E-Cat that is consuming 2 kW input power, to be displaying 12 kW output power during operation. This does not appear to be what was demonstrated. If the E-Cat was running at a high enough core temperature to produce 3.5 kW output, while 2.5 kW was being introduced to the heater (230V x 11A), then why did the output not immediately drop to 1 kW when the power was removed? Why did it not slowly decline and stabilize at a new baseline that represented the E-Cat's output power? How does it maintain the same output power, when you've removed 2 kW of input? Is he claiming that the E-Cat isn't producing its own heat for the first 4 hours, and now it only operates when you REMOVE power from the heaters? These questions would never have to be asked if we were only evaluating 8 hours of operating gains, and that's point in its entirety. Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test From: cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:21:18 -0400 On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote: My Two Cents: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an operating E-Cat producing 6 or more times input power. Instead, we were asked to evaluate a temperature decay of an E-Cat, whose power output was at or near parity with the input, while a new device produces frequencies. I disagree with this. During the 'power phase', you can measure the power coming out of the system as heat. The conclusion is far away from a 4 hour 'charging phase' followed by a 3 1/2 hour 'discharging phase' of near equal parity. Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down. This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the results. They should also try an inert gas like helium. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4 = 2kW. Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into the ambient. Correct. It radiates into the surroundings, from the reactor and the heat exchanger. Lewan reported the reactor surface was between 60°C and 85°C. I presume he means at different times. I do not know how he measured that. It has a lot of surface area so it is radiating a lot of heat. Someone better physics and I can estimate how much. With a really good calorimeter having a high recovery rate, nearly all the heat ends up captured by the calorimeter. With the flow calorimeter it ends up heating the water. With a Seebeck calorimeter it may radiate out into the room, or if there is a water bath on the outside shell of the chamber to ensure a stable background, it will be captured by the water bath. This reactor is too large for most Seebeck calorimeters. I think even if the heat exchanger at this size (as visible in the video) has no insulation, it cannot lose 2kW. It is well isolated and the loss must be much lower. I believe the heat exchanger plus the reactor itself can radiate 2 kW. They look crude to me. Such things are inefficient. See photo of the two of them (in one box): http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
2011/10/7 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com: I have not yet had time to compile the four hours of warm up. Obviously, we don't have all of the data required to even remotely show a balanced energy equation. I disagree. Calculating energy input is straight forward and it is ca. 30 MJ. Calculating energy output is more tricky, but we have sufficient data to do it in reasonable accuracy. If we examine the secondary circulation data carefully. I calculating for the output something between 100-150 MJ. The at or near parity statement was referring to E-Cat performance before it was turned off. One would expect an operating E-Cat that is consuming 2 kW input power, to be displaying 12 kW output power during operation. This does not appear to be what was demonstrated. Where did you get that 12 kW? On average input power was 1 kW during the demonstration. As we see that Average output power was close to 6 kW, then during this test COP was 6. But if consider that most of the electric input was for initial heating of E-Cat to 95°C when cold fusion reactions were kicked in. Then we get more than 10 for COP. If the E-Cat was running at a high enough core temperature to produce 3.5 kW output, while 2.5 kW was being introduced to the heater (230V x 11A), then why did the output not immediately drop to 1 kW when the power was removed? Why did it not slowly decline and stabilize at a new baseline that represented the E-Cat's output power? How does it maintain the same output power, when you've removed 2 kW of input? Is he claiming that the E-Cat isn't producing its own heat for the first 4 hours, and now it only operates when you REMOVE power from the heaters? This is good observation. And it is good to read healthy skepticism, because this is not obvious Here is the temperature graph. http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231409333581939set=o.135474503149001type=1theater and direct link to the picture. http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/296467_231409333581939_11386229231_643956_806537009_n.jpg It is good to see, that after the input power was cut from E-Cat, Temperature of secondary circuit was increased to maximum power output! This explains very clearly why there was not a drop in the output when power was cut. Also 3,5 kW is too low figure for power. Because it does not include inefficiency of heat exchanger. Therefore reasonable figure is 5 kW typically and in peak after power was cut it was more close to 6-8 kW. –Jouni These questions would never have to be asked if we were only evaluating 8 hours of operating gains, and that's point in its entirety. Subject: RE: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test From: cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 11:21:18 -0400 On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 09:01 -0500, Robert Leguillon wrote: My Two Cents: Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Most of the previous experimental problems were solved in this setup. We could've seen measurable, stable, power gains completely unaffected by phase-change or water overflow. We should have been presented with an operating E-Cat producing 6 or more times input power. Instead, we were asked to evaluate a temperature decay of an E-Cat, whose power output was at or near parity with the input, while a new device produces frequencies. I disagree with this. During the 'power phase', you can measure the power coming out of the system as heat. The conclusion is far away from a 4 hour 'charging phase' followed by a 3 1/2 hour 'discharging phase' of near equal parity. Craig
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
2011/10/7 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com: Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down. This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the results. They should also try an inert gas like helium. Of course, but unfortunately there was not time to do such thing (doing such correlative analysis would take several days) . And also, reaction speed did not react too much for the reducing the hydrogen pressure. But test excluded all possible hidden power sources (E-Cat was weighted before and after the test). Therefore what would be the point of injecting helium? –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Am 07.10.2011 16:59, schrieb Jed Rothwell: peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If the heat exchanger has only 60% efficieny, then the energy loss is 5kW * 0.4 = 2kW. Where does the enrgy go? Energy cannot vanish magically, it must go into the ambient. I think even if the heat exchanger at this size (as visible in the video) has no insulation, it cannot lose 2kW. It is well isolated and the loss must be much lower. I believe the heat exchanger plus the reactor itself can radiate 2 kW. They look crude to me. Such things are inefficient. See photo of the two of them (in one box): http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 I cannot calculate this, I can only estimate it by comparison with known devices: I live in rooms directly under the roof. I have a gas boiler 10 kW. This heats water, that is pumped through copper pipes and these are connected to 5 radiators. Because I live under the roof, the pipes are partially on the outside of the walls. They are still under the roof but exposed to the cold winter air. They are isolated by glass wool and alu foils, just as the e-cat. The isolated copper pipes are in a length of about 5m exposed to the winter air. The water temperature is max. 80 centigrade. Now imagine it is outside under the roof -10 centigrade. Then I must loose several kilowatts of heating energy in winter! Possibly I should check this. Peter
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test : disappointed again
Inaccurate calorimetry? Thermocouples INSIDE the box, provided by Ross? Do I understand that the thermocouples were attached to the OUTSIDE of the heat exchanger in well-established positions -- and not IN the water flow? Where they could be affected by the ambient heat from the eCat ? And not recorded continuously? Just the lid taken off ... can't even see nekkid eCats inside? Digital bathroom scale used for weighing the E-cat. It was calibrated by two persons knowing their weight. (Before or after lunch?) This isn't even science-fair quality science ... it's more like bar-bet science. My bet : The test will be conclusive. *NO* My expectation : and positive. *YES* I don't even know what volume to use for the Ecat I guess I'll have to redo my calculation with energy/mass.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then its energy loss is zero, if we compare the steam measurement in the september test to the water measurement in october. The output temperature will of course be lower, but the thermal mass flow in the secondary circuit must be higher.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:37 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece Test of Energy Catalyzer Bologna October 6, 2011 http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E- cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 Once again no kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by P(t) = d E(t)/dt than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and integrate to obtain E(t). Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the time stamped volume data! It is much more accurate, depending on flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as: f(t) = d V(t)/dt than to integrate: V(t) = integral f(t) dt (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues. The flow rate chosen was (once again) too large, resulting in a max delta T of about 8°C and thus very unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples had not been placed on insulated metal parts, i.e. connected directly, metal to metal, to the heat exchanger itself. They should have been separated from the heat exchanger by low conductivity material, such as a short length of rubber hose, to avoid thermal wicking problems through the metal. The same applies to the output temperature measurement for the E-cat. This is the same old problem as before, but compounded. This makes the temperature data highly unreliable. From Report: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C. 18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/ s. Temperature 23.2 °C. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This indicates a significant problem with temperature measurement. The most serious problem, however, is the output temperature recorded for the condensed steam. Perhaps that was a repeated recoding error. The condensed steam is measured leaving the heat exchanger at a temperature lower than room temperature by at least 5°C, and lower than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C. If the heat exchanger were 70% efficient as estimated by some individuals, then the condensed steam water temperature should have been closer to Tout. Given a delta T of the cooling water of 32.4°C - 24.2°C = 8.2°C, we might expect a condensed steam temperature more like 34.8°C, not 23.2°C. The condenser itself and the highly insulated flow lines do *not* appear to be a source of loss of energy, and thus low measurement efficiency. Further, the low temperature of the condensed steam water indicates no loss of energy in the heat exchange process due to dumped heat in the form of condensed steam going down the drain. Based on all the above, the temperature measurements lack the degree of credibility required to make any reliable assessment of commercial value. A rough estimate of energy in: 11:52 to 12:02 8.07 A * 225 V * 10/60 hr = 0.302 kWh 12:02 to 12:12 9.22 A * 226 V * 10/60 hr = 0.347 kWh 12:22 to 12:32 11.24 A * 224 V * 10/60 hr = 0.420 kWh 12:32 to 14:00 12.05 A * 224 V * 88/60 hr = 3.959 kWh 14:10 to 15:53 11.90 A * 221 V * (10+13+54)/60 hr = 3.419 kWh 15:53 to 19:08 0.50 A * 230 V * 195/60 hr = 0.168 kWh Total energy in: 8.615 kWh = 31 MJ Noted in report: 15:53 Power to the resistance was set to zero. A device “producing frequencies” was switched on. Overall current 432 mA. Voltage 230 V. The power measurement during this period may be highly flawed, depending on the circuits involved and where the measurement was taken. Filtering between the power measurement and E-cat is essential, unless a fast response meter, like the Clarke-Hess is used. The heat after death was estimated in the report to be between 38 MJ (based on secondary circuit water flow) and 21.7 MJ (based on steam mass). This indicates some possible energy gain, but the temperature data is highly unreliable, and the COP does not look to be anywhere near 6. Further, the temperature tailed off after less than 4 hours. The device should not
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test : disappointed again
Fake paper updated : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_proof_frames_v401.php I used Lewan's size of the box as t 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters = 105 liters From his (only) photo I estimated that about 60 litres is still hidden. Power : 3.125 kW Time : 4 hours Based on this, even Lithium-ion batteries would have run for 19 hours ... with no weight change (before OR after lunch). Boron/Compressed oxygen also has no weight-change : 86 hours. (OK,OK .. not feasible) Obvious fake : a small bleed in the heat exchanger from the steam to the water circuit could account for the temperature change. OUTPUT water volume was NOT measured.
[Vo]:Passerini has a couple of articles
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/alcune-considerazioni-preliminari.html (per google xlate) ... Yesterday on electricity - name that is likely to become as famous as that of Via Panisperna - we were less than I expected: about forty people. There were all very-very-very Rossi announced, and this definitely will resume a bit of 'force, the critical bias, pretending not to know that the decision of many very-very-very (Brian Josephson for example) to decline the invitation has weighed the barrage of those who spread the message for months: who touches the E-Cat, academically speaking dies! But there were normal very , serious, honest scholars, not at all fans academic suicide simply curious and eager to check with their own eyes and touch with their hands' s E-Cat on a Hot Tin Roof . Were present, with their observers, is that the Uppsala University in Bologna, increasingly in the barrel and in tandem in this affair, there was a delegation of Confindustria (Piacenza), there was a major European industrial group; magazines Focus and Ny Teknik , Radio24 (Il Sole 24 Ore) and Cape Town Radio . If there had not been behind the hand of a certain Ocasapiens, maybe the game would also Science Today .There were Belgians, Dutch, Americans, etc. ... will present a list of common day. ...
[Vo]:Short interview by PESN to Andrea Rossi regarding Oct.6 test
Hello group, Have a read at this short interview by PESN to Andrea Rossi October 7, 2012: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/News:Real-Time_Updates_on_the_October_6,_2011_E-Cat_Test * * * Earlier today, we sent an email to Andrea Rossi, that contained a number of questions, about the test that was performed yesterday on October 6, 2011. He has promptly responded with answers, although he states some issues are confidential. I would like to thank him for taking the time to answer our questions. - - DEAR ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUOUS ATTENTION. PLEASE FIND THE ANSWERS IN BLOCK LETTERS ALONG YOUR TEXT: Dear Andrea Rossi, In regards to the latest test of the Energy Catalyzer, I have a number of questions I hope you can answer. 1) My understanding is that if a reactor core is not adjusted to be under-powered (below its maximum potential) in self-sustain mode, it can have a tendency to become unstable and climb in output. If the reactor is left in an unstable self-sustaining mode for too long, the output can climb to potentially dangerous levels. Can you provide some information about how the reactor core in the test was adjusted to self-sustain in a safe manner? NO, VERY SORRY a) For example, there was only one active reactor core in the module tested. How was the single reactor core adjusted to be under-powered? CONFIDENTIAL INFO b) Is adjusting the reactor core as simple as lowering the hydrogen pressure? 2) What is the power consumption of the device that produces frequencies that was mentioned in the NyTeknik article? Although the power consumption of this device is probably insignificant, providing a figure could help put to rest the idea (that some are suggesting) that a large amount of power was being consumed by the frequency-generating device, and transmitted into the reactor. THE ENERGY CONSUMED FROM THE FREQUENCY GENERATOR IS 50 WH/H AND IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED, BECAUSE THIS APPARATUS WAS PLUGGED IN THE SAME LINE WHERE THE ENERGY-CONSUME MEASUREMENT HAS BEEN DONE a) Can you tell us anything more about this frequency generating device and its function? NO, SORRY, THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE b) Is the frequency-generating device turned on at all times when a module is in operation, or only when a module is in self-sustain mode? CONFIDENTIAL ISSUE c) Some are suggesting that this device is the catalyst that drives the reactions in the reactor core. However, you have stated in the past that the catalyst is actually one or more physical elements (in addition to nickel and hydrogen) that are placed in the reactor core. Can you confirm that physical catalysts are used in the reactor? YES, I CONFIRM THIS 3) Does the reaction have to be quenched with additional water flow though the reactor, or is reducing the hydrogen pressure enough to end the reactions on its own? NEEDS ADDITIONAL QUENCHING a) If reducing the hydrogen pressure (or venting it completely) is not enough to turn off the module, could it be due to the fact some hydrogen atoms are still bonded to nickel atoms, and undergoing nuclear reactions? YES b) If there is some other reason why reducing hydrogen pressure is not enough to quickly turn off the module, could you please specify? Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions, and for allowing a test to be performed that clearly shows anomalous and excess energy being produced. Hopefully, the world will notice the significance of this test. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, SINCE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT TIME TO ANSWER (I MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU) PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE THE SELF SUSTAINING MODE THE REACTOR WAS ALREADY PRODUCING ENERGY MORE THAN IT CONSUMED, SO THAT THE ENERGY CONSUMED IS NOT LOST, BUT TURNED INTO ENERGY ITSELF, THEREFORE IS NOT PASSIVE. ANOTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION: IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SPOTS OF DRIVE WITH THE RESISTANCE HAVE A DURATION OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES, WHILE THE DURATION OF THE SELF SUSTAINING MODES IS PROGRESSIVELY LONGER, UNTIL IT ARRIVES TO BE UP TO HOURS. BESIDES, WE PRODUCED AT LEAST 4.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 6 HOURS AND CONSUMED AN AVERAGE OF 1.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS, SO THAT WE MADE IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 25.8 kWh AND CONSUMED IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 3.9 kWh. iN THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, WHICH MEANS NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE CONSUME IS MAINLY MADE DURING THE HEATING OF THE REACTOR DURING THE FIRST 2 HOURS, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT THE WORST POSSIBLE RATIO IS 25.8 : 3.9 AND THIS IS THE COP 6 WHICH WE ALWAYS SAID. OF COURSE, THE COP IS BETTER, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THE REACTOR, ONCE IN TEMPERATURE, NEEDS NOT TO BE HEATED AGAIN FROM ROOM TEMPERATURE TO OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE. WARMEST REGARDS TO ALL, ANDREA ROSSI * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
On 11-10-07 09:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: Someone else suggested that there might be a Castro gas hidden in the table leg. A canister of gas, for crying out loud. A... Thanks for the correction. I was thinking this must be yet another odd thingy which I'd never heard of before: Castro gas. Sort of like Brown's gas, I suppose, but with higher energy density. There is no gas, no wires and no batteries. Get that through your heads. That is nonsense. - Jed
[Vo]:Radio 24 report
http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi More pictures. The actual heat exchanger IS outside the eCat ..
Re: [Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper data
On 11-10-07 11:03 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: You say there was [a 0.1°C bias] between the inlet and outlet thermocouples. That is also a disgrace. It is ridiculous. Such things are easily corrected, and should be corrected before the test begins. [Dedicated, computer-based instruments should have a smaller bias than that. Handheld instruments usually show only 0.1°C increments. They may vary by 0.1 or 0.2°C.] Oops. Excuse me. He said 0.5°C. Quote: It should also be noted that after half an hour of water flow, before starting any heating, the temperature at the inlet and the outlet of the heat exchanger still showed a difference of 0.5 degrees centigrade, the outlet water being cooler than the inlet water (at that time, the primary circuit was still empty as the E-cat was still filling up) I assume this is an instrument bias. The device cannot act as a refrigerator cooling the water down as it passes through. but perhaps the water sat in there for a long time and ambient was less than tap water, and it cooled down. Or the inside of the machine was cold. I don't know what to make of it, but this kind of problem should be addressed before you begin the test for crying out loud. You have to do a calibration. You have to flow water through the thing and prove that the two thermocouples are less than 0.1°C apart. Blank runs are nice, too -- you know, leave out the catalyst so there's no fusion taking place, and measure the heat produced simply from the electric heaters and from hydrogen adsorbing onto the nickel powder. That sort of thing. Too bad Rossi's never done one (or at least, never done one in public).
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
I have to disagree that the change in hydrogen pressure wouldn't be almost immediately obvious. IYou should get an immediate rise in delta T across the reactor which would immediately boost heat flow. Helium should confirm a null result- ie no CF and would be used as a control. You should be able to subtract out the helium data to account for thermal inertia and warm up and cool down w/ the heater.--- Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test 2011/10/7 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com: Lewan's report states that hydrogen pressure was lowered during shut-down. This is the angle they should have exploited. With constant heating and water flow conditions they should vary the hydrogen pressure and record the results. They should also try an inert gas like helium. Of course, but unfortunately there was not time to do such thing (doing such correlative analysis would take several days) . And also, reaction speed did not react too much for the reducing the hydrogen pressure. But test excluded all possible hidden power sources (E-Cat was weighted before and after the test). Therefore what would be the point of injecting helium? –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Peter Heckert wrote: BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then its energy loss is zero, That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat. If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the housing is hotter and radiates more heat than it would if there were no heat exchanger inside it. It does not matter where you put the thing must produce heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
At 11:23 AM 10/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Peter Heckert wrote: BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then its energy loss is zero, That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat. If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the housing is hotter and radiates more heat than it would if there were no heat exchanger inside it. It does not matter where you put the thing must produce heat. The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat exchanger.
Re: [Vo]:Radio 24 report
Am 07.10.2011 20:17, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?articolo=ecat-fusione-fedda-bologna-andrea-rossi More pictures. The actual heat exchanger IS outside the eCat .. Yes it is outside, I learned this now. Inside the e-cat there is also a device that they name heat exchanger. Possibly this is not quite the right word, they should name this heat spreader to avoid confusion. From Matts Lewan's video I learned that the external heat exchanger is a ready made industrial device. So technical data should be available. Its also visible from the video (because they show it without and with thermal insulation) that the insulation is really thick and the energy loss should be low.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Golly... I finally looked, very briefly, at the Nyteknik report. (I've been, and am, tied up with other stuff these days.) For some reason I had assumed it was friendly to Rossi. The report is eight pages long, and uses the word supposedly seven times. I'm not used to seeing that word used /at all/ in papers. That doesn't seem very friendly, after all. Interesting... On 11-10-07 10:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [ ... ] I believe the heat exchanger plus the reactor itself can radiate 2 kW. They look crude to me. Such things are inefficient. See photo of the two of them (in one box): http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Alan J Fletcher wrote: The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat exchanger. I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers? One to condense the steam maybe?? I thought that's what the secondary loop exchanger does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Am 07.10.2011 20:23, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: BTW, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing of the e-cat, then its energy loss is zero, That can't be. That would violate CoE. All heat exchangers lose heat. If the heat exchanger is inside the housing, that means the housing is hotter and radiates more heat than it would if there were no heat exchanger inside it. It does not matter where you put the thing must produce heat. I politely ask to disagree. What I mean is, if the heat exchanger is inside the housing, then the outer surface is unchanged. So the thermal resistance to ambient air and the thermal infrared radiation to ambient is unchanged. So in this case the heatexchanger does not cause /additional/ energy loss. I know, you will not believe me. Ask an expert for thermal machines. I am not an expert, but I know how to calculate cooling dissipators for power transitors and so on, based on the data that is given by the manufacturers. Have done this many times successfully and measured temperatures afterwards. I think, I have basic understanding. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
At 11:44 AM 10/7/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher wrote: The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat exchanger. I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers? One to condense the steam maybe?? I thought that's what the secondary loop exchanger does. This is the pic Lewan posted : http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg corrugated I presumed (wrongly) that THAT was the heat exchanger between the primary (steam) and secondary (water) circuit This one shows the actual steam-water exchanger : http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-1.jpg The radio24 video won't show on my system.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Eric Hustedt made new graph that shows power output without considering the efficiency of heat exchanger, what is probably 60-80% http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg This is very informative, that I significantly underestimated the total output of E-Cat in my previous estimates. If we correct the heat loss, then max output was ca. 10 kW. Although as was pointed out by Horace and others, we really do not know how trustworthy actually this calorimetry is. There are too many unknowns like was the water flow constant and were the temperature probes correctly placed and what was the primary circuit water temperature after it exited from heat exchanger? –Jouni Ps. here is the temperature graphs: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=231409333581939set=o.135474503149001type=1theater and for the heat exchanger: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=202076193195962set=o.135474503149001type=1theater
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Jouni Valkonen wrote: Eric Hustedt made new graph that shows power output without considering the efficiency of heat exchanger, what is probably 60-80% http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg This is very helpful. Thanks for pointing it out, and thanks to Eric as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Am 07.10.2011 13:37, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: TV: New test of the E-cat enhances proof of heat http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece Test of Energy Catalyzer Bologna October 6, 2011 http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 I think, the delta_th was too low (4.5 centigrade). A small error in temperature measurement gives a big error in energy. It is impossible to feel the difference. It is very difficult to verify. This is the same problem as Levi had in his private undocumented 18 hour test. I have now measured the heat radiator in my main living room. Water input temperature is 60 centigrade. (I can read this from the boilers thermometer) I cant touch the input for a long time. Output temperature is 30-40 centigrade. (I cant measure it, but I estimate, it is comfortable bathing temperature) I can touch it for unlimited time. Rossi said some time ago, the setup was proposed by the scientists. Why doesnt he ask his plumber? These guys know how to build a heating system, and calculate the temperatures, water flow and energy needs. Or, if they dont know, they have tables and software that give the needed data. He should let his plumber design the system, then the only thing he must do, is measure and demonstrate this. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Passerini also has a few photos
On 2011-10-07 19:45, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/alcune-considerazioni-preliminari.html (per google xlate) Have a look here as well: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Passerini also has a few photos
On 2011-10-07 21:50, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-10-07 19:45, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/alcune-considerazioni-preliminari.html (per google xlate) Have a look here as well: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html And also here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cis7yB5dj08 Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Alan J Fletcher wrote: The radio24 pics show the heat exchanger outside. The corrugated section inside the eCat is part of its internal core-to-steam heat exchanger. I don't get it. Please explain. Are there two heat exchangers? One to condense the steam maybe?? I thought that's what the secondary loop exchanger does. This is the pic Lewan posted : http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/Foto/articoli/ecat071011-3.jpg corrugated I presumed (wrongly) that THAT was the heat exchanger between the primary (steam) and secondary (water) circuit Okay I read the report again, and watched this video more carefully: http://media.shootitlive.com/talentummedia/1/GruKSTyuBVhX8hi2ZTaKGPjV3Wq_768.mp4 This makes it easier to understand. The video inspires confidence. There are definitely two heat exchangers, #1 for the water loop, and #2 inside the reactor. 1. The external one is a commercial heat exchanger that transfers heat from the steam to the secondary cooling water loop. After the test, Rossi removes the insulation and shows the equipment more clearly. He points to where the thermocouples are mounted. You can see them during the run but the position is more clear after the insulation is removed. The position of the thermocouples looks fine to me. No problem. They are using a laboratory grade handheld dual thermocouple to measure the temperature difference, similar to this one: http://www.omega.com/pptst/HH11B.html. Cravens, I and others have purchased various models of these things and we have found them highly reliable. During the video the thermocouple indicates a 6°C Delta T. As shown in the video, the water condensed from steam in the external heat exchanger is not recycled back into the cell. It goes out the hose into the drain. So it is not accounted for in the flow calorimetry. In the plans for this test, someone mentioned that the condensed water would be recycled back into the cell. This would reduce heat loss. I am sure that the condensed water is still quite hot. As I said, this is not detected by the flow calorimetry. It is not recovered. 2. There is a crinkly internal heat exchanger inside the reactor. I do not understand what its purpose is. Lewan told me it transfers heat from the cell to the steam primary loop. Why do you need a heat exchanger for that? . . . The design of this thing baffles me. It is a mistake to jump to conclusions about a machine when you do not understand the design. Rossi is not good at doing demonstrations, but he sure does understand thermal engineering and he probably has a good reason for using the reactor heat exchanger. Anyway, Lewan described the crinkly heat exchanger: After cooling down the E-cat, the insulation was eliminated and the casing was opened. Inside the casing metal flanges of a heat exchanger could be seen, an object measuring about 30 x 30 x 30 centimeters. The rest of the volume was empty space where water could be heated, entering through a valve at the bottom, and with a valve at the top where steam could come out. Inside the [reactor] heat exchanger there supposedly was a layer of about 5 centimeters of shielding, and inside the shielding the reactor body, supposedly measuring 20 x 20 x 1 centimeters and containing three reactor chambers. . . . Unfortunately the reactor heat exchanger obscures the view of the equipment below it. I asked Lewan if he thinks there is room in there to hide something a battery or butane canister. He said no. He added that it would be very dangerous. There is very little room unaccounted for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell: As shown in the video, the water condensed from steam in the external heat exchanger is not recycled back into the cell. It goes out the hose into the drain. So it is not accounted for in the flow calorimetry. In the plans for this test, someone mentioned that the condensed water would be recycled back into the cell. The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. This would reduce heat loss. I am sure that the condensed water is still quite hot. As I said, this is not detected by the flow calorimetry. It is not recovered. 2. There is a crinkly internal heat exchanger inside the reactor. I do not understand what its purpose is. Lewan told me it transfers heat from the cell to the steam primary loop. Why do you need a heat exchanger for that? . . . The design of this thing baffles me. I think that is the additional big heat spreader in the fat cat. It increases efficiency and stability, but also increases weight and volume. Rossi often said this in his forum. Of course a heat spreader is also a heat exchanger, but heat spreader is more specific. Peter
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
At 02:00 PM 10/7/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell: The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. The video says NO ... it goes to his usual drain. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. He says so on the video.
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Peter Heckert wrote: The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. I know he did, and this confused me. As you see in the video he changed his mind. You can clearly see the hose form the primary goes down the drain instead. Lewan says this. - Jed
[Vo]:Hustedt graph proves there is energy generation
At the risk of starting too many thread . . . There is the graph Jouni Valkonen mentioned: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg Here it is with a discussion: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater You should read this discussion. In this discussion, it took Hustedt a while to figure out that the condensed water from the primary loop is being flushed down the drain rather than recycled back into the cell. The original plan called for it to be recycled back into the cell. In his latest comment he notes correctly that heat lost with the warm condensate going down the drain from the primary loop would only add to the performance of the eCat. . . . Excess heat wasted out of the condensate side will be additional heat output from the e cat not included above, ie it will only make the ecat look better when this is included. These are the data points from the handheld dual thermocouple measuring the temperature in the secondary cooling water loop. That is why they are scattered. They are shown in the spreadsheet and also in Lewan's log: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 The first one is at spreadsheet row 71. As I mentioned, this is probably an instrument artifact. Hustedt thinks so, and so do I. I believe this is what the graph shows: They turn on at 11:10. The initial 3 kW is an instrument artifact as Hustedt says. It does nothing much until 18:47. That must have been frustrating. Yesterday I said that in most cases the thing fires up after 10 or 20 min., and in previous tests they have abandoned the effort after an hour or so. That is what people observing previous tests told me. Apparently sometimes they keep trying. At 15:37 the reaction takes off. Soon after that they decide to turn off the input power completely since it now seems to be self-sustaining. At 16:26 the reaction tapers off. Then comes the important part. It picks up again and goes to much higher levels, peaking at 8 kW. This is proof that there is energy generation within the cell. If this was stored heat or anything like that the temperature can only fall. You can never have an increase without some source of energy. (Of course, it could be electric or chemical heat.) This peak is at spreadsheet row 9685, time 16:60, Delta T temperature 10.8°C, which indicates 7.6 kW by my calculation, but Hustedt has it at 8 kW. Power falls gradually down to around 3.5 kW, and then at 16:50 it suddenly kicks up again to 6 kW. Again this proves there is some source of energy. Here's something interesting about the second peak. The log shows that the second burst of heat came after the cell was degassed, at 19:08. That's surprising! At 19:40 it goes right back to the decay curve it was on previously. As Pons says, cold fusion has a memory of how much power it should be producing for a given lattice configuration. Or a given NAE, as Ed Storms describes it. These fluctuations and the instability are what I expect from an anomalous reaction. Most cold fusion reactions are far more unstable than this. Hystedt made the same observation, that this feels anomalous. He says that somewhere; I can't find the comment. (Facebook keeps asking me to sign on, so it is hard to read. Perhaps someday I should join up and find out what Facebook is all about.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Am 07.10.2011 23:32, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 02:00 PM 10/7/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell: The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. The video says NO ... it goes to his usual drain. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. He says so on the video. Here Rossi says (shouts, because he is embarrased about Krivit) both circuits are closed: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=15#comment-83748 Here Rossi says the primary circuit is closed and doesnt mention the secondary circuit: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=13#comment-81345 Here the same and he mentions the internal heat exchanger: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=12#comment-76009 Here the same: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=11#comment-73188 It is however not always clear to me if he speaks about the latest test or about the upcoming test in Upsalla. Its confusing. Its a waiting game. He promises 100% and then delivers 50% as always. If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously with big success. Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true?
[Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
GoatGuy is very skeptical of e-cat, but he was very positive this time! http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html It seems the gain was 144% above the input, at least. Well, that convinced me of having some hope on the device.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
On 2011-10-08 00:18, Daniel Rocha wrote: GoatGuy is very skeptical of e-cat, but he was very positive this time! http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/bologna-061011-galleria-fotografica.html I think you posted the wrong link. Correct one: http://goo.gl/5QrM1 Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
I wrote: The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. I know he did, and this confused me. As you see in the video he changed his mind. This is in the video at around 1:26. We just get rid of it . . . The camera follows the outlet pipe to the pipe in hole in the wall that serves as a drain an this lab. This video is worth watching several times. It makes many things clear, such as the nature of the flow meter. The video shows why Lewan had to manually log the temperatures from the cooling water loop, instead of recording them on a computer. As you see, the temperature was logged on a multi-input handheld thermocouple. A meter. It is not plugged into a computer so he had to read it manually. I asked Lewan if this is the Testo 177-T3 he lists in his report. I looked that up on the Internet and it does not look the same to me. Anyway, they used some sort of handheld meter that can have up to four thermocouples attached, as you see on the meter's screen in the video. I wish he had held the camera more steady so I could read the make of the meter. (By the way, when you make a video of an experiment, you should let the camera linger for a long time on each component. There is no need to keep moving the camera around. Do not try to make an exciting video. Don't worry about production values.) I think this is the meter that Lewan says had a 0.5°C bias. I cannot imagine why! That's strange. These things are highly reliable and internally consistent. The meter may not show the actual temperature but all of the thermocouples attached to it should show the same temperature when they are all immersed in well-stirred water. Honestly, even though the data had to be manually logged in this case, is a good thing that Rossi used a handheld meter rather his own computer interface. Even the skeptics will have to admit there is no way he can monkey with one of these. It is a clean, stand-alone interface. It could be that all the data points were recorded internally in this meter, and someone can figure out how to dump them over the USB port. That would be nice. They might even be time-stamped! It would be great to move this project right up into 1970s technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Am 08.10.2011 00:35, schrieb Jed Rothwell: I think this is the meter that Lewan says had a 0.5°C bias. I cannot imagine why! That's strange. These things are highly reliable and internally consistent. If they are well maintained. A thermocouple delivers only microvolts that must be amplified and linearized. Lewan also mentioned strange instability. If this is the same meter, it is easily explained: Dirty and contaminated and bended contacts. For example skin-fat can generate electrochemical voltages on a bad contact.
Re: [Vo]:Hypothesis explaining FTL neutrinos
On 10/04/2011 08:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here, says the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. It made its way to the news http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gone-in-60-nanoseconds/2011/10/06/gIQAf1RERL_story.html Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna. He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual error, a big one. No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com kirjoitti: GoatGuy is very skeptical of e-cat, but he was very positive this time! It seems the gain was 144% above the input, at least. Well, that convinced me of having some hope on the device. goatguy is no skeptcal, but he is insane. writing such a long analysis and then getting basic measured values all wrong. he asumes that test lasted 3 hour, but actually cold fusion was producing excess heat more than 6 hours and almost 5 hours in self-sustaining. And he asumes that electricity was on for four hours, but actually it was less than 2.5 hours. Having such way false basic assumptions, tells very much about persons capasity for reasoning. luckily GoatGuy was not there in Bologna, because then we would not have any useful data in hands. This also tells how difficult science is, when you are forced to think with your own brain and you do not have possibility rely on expert knowledge. Because E-Cat science is completely unexplored ground and no one has personal experience of such a device. There are no E-Cat experts outside Vortex and some Swedish and Italian discussion boards. —Jouni
[Vo]:frequency generator
Does anybody know if the frequency generator(I am assuming a 50 watt microwave source) was powered and functioning all throughout the self-sustaining phase of the Rossi demo. This seems to be something new in the Rossi design and may be how the self-sustaining mode was engineered.
[Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E- cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved reliability of the power out values. Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water temperatures Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially when large values of delta T was present. The thermometers should be relocated down the rubber hose a short distance and insulated. Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or obtained and read at the same time the other electric meters were used. Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-cat power supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to ensure no such pulses were imposed on the input current. Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded at the same times temperature readings were recorded. GENERAL COMMENTS A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C minimum error in the delta T for Tin and Tout. No kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by P(t) = d E(t)/dt than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and integrate to obtain E(t). Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the time stamped volume data. It is much more accurate, depending on flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as: f(t) = d V(t)/dt than to integrate: V(t) = integral f(t) dt (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues. The flow rate chosen was too large, resulting in a max delta T of about 8°C and thus unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples had not been placed on insulated metal parts, i.e. connected directly, metal to metal, to the heat exchanger itself. They should have been separated from the heat exchanger by low conductivity material, such as a short length of rubber hose, to avoid thermal wicking problems through the metal. The same applies to the output temperature measurement for the E-cat. This is the same problem as before, when the thermometer was buried in the earlier E-cats, but compounded. This makes the temperature data highly unreliable. From the report: Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C. 18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/ s. Temperature 23.2 °C. These values indicate a significant problem with temperature measurement. The most serious problem is the output temperature recorded for the condensed steam. Perhaps that was a repeated recoding error. The condensed steam is measured leaving the heat exchanger at a temperature lower than room temperature by at least 5° C, and lower than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C. It is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may
[Vo]:Rossi statement regarding 7 Oct 2011 results
From: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/nyteknik-information-on-rossi- energy.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A +blogspot%2Fadvancednano+(nextbigfuture)#comment-329052535 http://goo.gl/5QrM1 THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND, SINCE I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOT TIME TO ANSWER (I MADE AN EXCEPTION FOR YOU) PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE THE SELF SUSTAINING MODE THE REACTOR WAS ALREADY PRODUCING ENERGY MORE THAN IT CONSUMED, SO THAT THE ENERGY CONSUMED IS NOT LOST, BUT TURNED INTO ENERGY ITSELF, THEREFORE IS NOT PASSIVE. ANOTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION: IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE REPORT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE SPOTS OF DRIVE WITH THE RESISTANCE HAVE A DURATION OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES, WHILE THE DURATION OF THE SELF SUSTAINING MODES IS PROGRESSIVELY LONGER, UNTIL IT ARRIVES TO BE UP TO HOURS. BESIDES, WE PRODUCED AT LEAST 4.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 6 HOURS AND CONSUMED AN AVERAGE OF 1.3 kWh/h FOR ABOUT 3 HOURS, SO THAT WE MADE IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 25.8 kWh AND CONSUMED IN TOTAL DURING THE TEST 3.9 kWh. iN THE WORST POSSIBLE SCENARIO, WHICH MEANS NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE CONSUME IS MAINLY MADE DURING THE HEATING OF THE REACTOR DURING THE FIRST 2 HOURS, WE CAN CONSIDER THAT THE WORST POSSIBLE RATIO IS 25.8 : 3.9 AND THIS IS THE COP 6 WHICH WE ALWAYS SAID. OF COURSE, THE COP IS BETTER, BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THE REACTOR, ONCE IN TEMPERATURE, NEEDS NOT TO BE HEATED AGAIN FROM ROOM TEMPERATURE TO OPERATIONAL TEMPERATURE. WARMEST REGARDS TO ALL, ANDREA ROSSI I show a net energy balance of zero at 15:56, 284 minutes into run. Unless I have a mistake in my spreadsheet at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf the COP never rises above 3.3, or 2.7 if no correction to thermocouple reading delta T is made. The energy to heat the reactor is recovered when the power is turned off. If the power off and cool down period were extended well beyond 19:58 the COP might have been much larger. Some energy is lost to the environment. This amount could have been determined if a calibration run had been made. With a little patience, a little more data recording, and moved thermocouples, this test might have been a stunning success. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Hustedt graph proves there is energy generation
On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: [snip] In this discussion, it took Hustedt a while to figure out that the condensed water from the primary loop is being flushed down the drain rather than recycled back into the cell. The original plan called for it to be recycled back into the cell. In his latest comment he notes correctly that heat lost with the warm condensate going down the drain from the primary loop would only add to the performance of the eCat. . . . Excess heat wasted out of the condensate side will be additional heat output from the e cat not included above, ie it will only make the ecat look better when this is included. [snip] - Jed 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. There is a serious problem with the output temperature recorded for manual measurement of the condensed steam. It was repeated. Perhaps that was a repeated recording error. The condensed steam is measured leaving the heat exchanger at a temperature lower than room temperature by at least 5°C, and lower than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C. This is not possible. However, if even close to true, the efficiency of the heat exchanger is very high. Since it is a commercially built model that can be expected. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test. This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the efficiency of heat exchanger, because we do not know how much heat went down the sink from open primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed. Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. But your calculations were absolutely brilliant. It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of 100-150 MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity. Although I did consider also something for the innefficiency of heat exchanger. for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the temperature of primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would be very important bit of information. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net kirjoitti: The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved reliability of the power out values. Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water temperatures Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially when large values of delta T was present. The thermometers should be relocated down the rubber hose a short distance and insulated. Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or obtained and read at the same time the other electric meters were used. Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-cat power supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to ensure no such pulses were imposed on the input current. Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded at the same times temperature readings were recorded. GENERAL COMMENTS A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C minimum error in the delta T for Tin and Tout. No kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by P(t) = d E(t)/dt than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and integrate to obtain E(t). Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the time stamped volume data. It is much more accurate, depending on flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as: f(t) = d V(t)/dt than to integrate: V(t) = integral f(t) dt (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues. The flow rate chosen was too large, resulting in a max delta T of about 8°C and thus unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples had not been
[Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
Hello group, Have a read at this new blogpost by Steven Krivit. There's also an email from Brian Ahern in the comments. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:frequency generator
frequency generator was shutdown 19:00, but E-Cat continued runing still some 40 minutes before reactions stopped because of increased water inflow rate. Curiously hydrogen pressure seems not to be that important for E-Cat. It does seem that frequency generator is not necessary, but it certainly boosts the output power. When it was initialized when the main input power was reduced to zero, output power jumped from 3 kW to 6 kW although electric power was reduced by 2.7 kW. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com kirjoitti: Does anybody know if the frequency generator(I am assuming a 50 watt microwave source) was powered and functioning all throughout the self-sustaining phase of the Rossi demo. This seems to be something new in the Rossi design and may be how the self-sustaining mode was engineered.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis. What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater (and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the secondary circuit until 13:22. Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then.
Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
hmm... it is very hard to describe how stupid Steven is. Perhaps we should bet some two cents how long time it will take when he notices his slight errors in calculations. But being such a stupid in basic reasoning ability, it gives some respect to Levi et al. how difficult it is to understand things when you do not have no one other to think for yourself. But luckily Steven was not there in Bologna, because if he had been there, we would not have had any useful data, because as scientist Steven is completely incompetent. It is just a shame, how foolish people can get when they have destroyed their scientific credibility. —Jouni ps. hint for Steven. minumum total output was 120 MJ... And input was 31 MJ. I think, that total output will rise over to 180 MJ when we analyze the heat exchanger efficiency more carefully. lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com kirjoitti: Hello group, Have a read at this new blogpost by Steven Krivit. There's also an email from Brian Ahern in the comments. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
a little intemperate, using stupid to dismiss a journalist who mobilized over 20 experts to contribute to a over 200 page critical review of Rossi's demos, with no name calling... within mutual service, Rich Murray On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: hmm... it is very hard to describe how stupid Steven is. Perhaps we should bet some two cents how long time it will take when he notices his slight errors in calculations. But being such a stupid in basic reasoning ability, it gives some respect to Levi et al. how difficult it is to understand things when you do not have no one other to think for yourself. But luckily Steven was not there in Bologna, because if he had been there, we would not have had any useful data, because as scientist Steven is completely incompetent. It is just a shame, how foolish people can get when they have destroyed their scientific credibility. —Jouni ps. hint for Steven. minumum total output was 120 MJ... And input was 31 MJ. I think, that total output will rise over to 180 MJ when we analyze the heat exchanger efficiency more carefully. lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com kirjoitti: Hello group, Have a read at this new blogpost by Steven Krivit. There's also an email from Brian Ahern in the comments. http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/10/08/e-cat-test-demonstrates-energy-loss/ Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
But there was not temperature difference before until the temperature in the inner circuit topped, and after until the self sustaining mode, it seems was all the heating was caused by the heater and not by an excess heating. I don`t see where you claim there was an evidence of excess energy before the self sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
I posted this response, which I expect Krivit will not allow -- Krivit wrote: However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy. The implication here appears to be that during 4 hours in advance, the 33.88 MJ of input were somehow stored in the device. If that had been the case, the device would have remained at room temperature. There would a heat deficit. There was no such deficit, and it is physically impossible for there to be one. Nearly the entire 33.88 MJ that went in during this period came right out again. There was a balance. Actually it was slightly exothermic. In any case, even if 38 gigawatts had been input before the event, that would make no difference if all of that heat came out as soon as it went in. The heat after death event can only have been caused by heat generated internally during the event. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. That was my conclusion also. T
Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
I wrote: In any case, even if 38 gigawatts had been input before the event, that would make no difference if all of that heat came out as soon as it went in. Other people here have confused this issue. For example, Robert Leguillon wrote: I take an old blacksmith's anvil. I warm it in a kiln over two day to roughly orange-hot (it is going to hold this heat for a LONG time, especially if well-insulated). . . . The energy expended in getting the anvil up to operating temperature would more than balance this equation, and is necessary beyond a doubt. Think of it as potential energy, just like a coiled spring or a raised weight. The second statement is correct, but as I pointed out before, the first statement is a misunderstanding. After 10 minutes in the kiln, the anvil reaches the highest temperature it will reach. It does not get any hotter after that, so it does not store any more heat. You can leave it for two days or 20 years, it will not store any more energy. The potential energy is limited. To extend the analogy, once you raise the weight as high as it can, to the top pulley, you can hold it up there for two days but you will not add any more potential energy to the system. In the case of the Oct. 6 Rossi demonstration, as soon as the heat out balances the heat in (taking into account the low calorimetric recovery rate), no more heat energy is stored in the system. As I said, whether the heat added amounts to 33 MJ or 33 GJ makes no difference whatever; it all comes out, except for a little added at the beginning to bring the cell up to the terminal temperature. You can determine how much heat a substance stores at a give temperature by looking up the specific heat. Assuming that the thermal mass of the Rossi cell is 30 L of water (which has by highest specific heat), then it is easy to determine what temperature it would have to reach in order to store up 33 MJ. The temperature would rise 263 deg C, ignoring pressure and boiling. As I mentioned, if it stored up this heat instead of dissipating it, the cell would get hot but the cooling water loop would magically refuse to diffuse any of this heat (since it is storing up) and the cell would appear to remain at room temperature. If the cooling water loop warmed up and a Delta T appeared, then it would not be storing heat. Needless to say, that's impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
here is the proof for abundant excess heat. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg you can also review Horace's calculations if you prefer numeric data. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com kirjoitti: But there was not temperature difference before until the temperature in the inner circuit topped, and after until the self sustaining mode, it seems was all the heating was caused by the heater and not by an excess heating. I don`t see where you claim there was an evidence of excess energy before the self sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
Yeah, thanks. I am convinced. 2011/10/7 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com here is the proof for abundant excess heat. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg you can also review Horace's calculations if you prefer numeric data. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com kirjoitti: But there was not temperature difference before until the temperature in the inner circuit topped, and after until the self sustaining mode, it seems was all the heating was caused by the heater and not by an excess heating. I don`t see where you claim there was an evidence of excess energy before the self sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis by GoatGuy
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: But there was not temperature difference before until the temperature in the inner circuit topped . . . I do not know what you mean by topped. Do you mean when the steam or hot water emerged? Nothing registered in the cooling water loop until 13:20, which is presumably when that happened. As Fletcher and Blanton just pointed out. It was heating up before then, and no doubt most of the heat was radiating away. Between 13:20 and 15:50 when heat after death began, the overall reaction was exothermic. There was some excess heat. There would have been much more if this calorimeter had a better recovery rate. With the primary steam loop open no doubt it lost a lot of heat. , and after until the self sustaining mode, it seems was all the heating was caused by the heater and not by an excess heating. As I said, it not possible that the heating during the self-sustaining period was caused by the heater. Nearly all of the heat from the heater left the system the moment it entered it, as you see in the graph. If there had been no heat generation, the temperature would have fallen immediately. It would have declined even faster than it did after 19:30. You can see that it would reach ambient temperature in less than an hour. I don`t see where you claim there was an evidence of excess energy before the self sustaining mode. The output curve is higher than the input! It is right there! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. That was my conclusion also. In other words, there was no steam or water going into the external heat exchanger, so nothing reached the cooling water. The hot water going into the eCat sat there getting hotter and hotter. You would not have seen this with previous tests, where the steam or flowing water went directly through the cell, and could not avoid carrying off heat from the start of the test. This does not mean that all of the heat entering the cell before 18:22 stayed there. Much of it must have radiated away. For Krivit's hypothesis to be correct, the output line would have to stay flat, at zero at the bottom, right up to 15:50. The steam would have to be magically prevented from carrying out any heat; the surface of the reactor would be at room temperature, not radiating anything; the heat exchanger would exchange nothing. Then at 15:50 you would see a tremendous burst of heat. I do not know how the laws of physics would work in this pretend Krivit universe, but I suppose Newton's law of cooling would still be in effect, so the temperature would fall steadily, and it would never increase. It would look like this: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/ozone/ozone1.html Since the curve does not fall monotonically, but it also rises, we know there must be heat generated in the system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously with big success. Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true? I can understand why he would not want to recirculate the condensed water from the heat exchanger. It would be difficult to keep track of how much water is in the loop, and what temperature it is. Some would escape. Some might not condense and you might have steam going out of the heat exchanger back into the cell. That would not carry off as much heat as liquid water. Inputting tap water makes things more predictable. He probably tried recirculating, or thought about it, and found that it does not work well. I expect he found you cannot control it, and it might be dangerous, so he changed his plan. This does reduce the recovery rate of the calorimeter by a large margin, but I doubt Rossi cares about that. As long as there is indisputably large excess heat and it exceeds the limits of chemistry during the heat after death, he has proved his point. That is the case. Despite the problems in this test, no rational or plausible skeptical objections have been raised, and I am sure none will be. The best that the skeptics can come up with is a gas canister hidden in the table leg that connects magically to the cell without a tube, or Krivit's magic heat storage, or various other preposterous notions that fly in the face of fundamental physics and common sense. This was a very poorly done test, but the effect is so large, even a poorly done test is irrefutable. It is annoying to me. Intensely annoying, because I like to see things done professionally. Rossi's methods confuse and confound the observer. They force the audience to dig for the answer through the noise and confusion. I prefer elegant tests that make the results obvious. But the truth is, I am quibbling, and as I am sure Rossi would say, my objections have no impact on the conclusions. The debate somewhat resembles the 1980s confrontation between the he-man, text-based computer operating systems with cryptic commands such as grep versus the emerging Mac or Windows icons that made things easy to understand, and intuitive. Rossi is old school. He doesn't care how much work you have to do to understand his experiment. That's your problem. Many elderly cold fusion researchers are like this, especially Arata. They expect YOU to do YOUR homework. They will not life a finger to make it easier for you to understand them. The only criterion that matters to Arata or Rossi is how much effort he himself has to do, and how convenient it is for him to do a test in a certain way. That is not to say that Arata or Rossi are lazy. On the contrary, they are fantastically productive, accomplishing as much as a dozen other people might. Arata has over 100 patents (as I recall). They do not want to waste 5 minutes making it easier for other people to grasp their work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This is irrefutable? Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously with big success. Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true? I can understand why he would not want to recirculate the condensed water from the heat exchanger. It would be difficult to keep track of how much water is in the loop, and what temperature it is. Some would escape. Some might not condense and you might have steam going out of the heat exchanger back into the cell. That would not carry off as much heat as liquid water. Inputting tap water makes things more predictable. He probably tried recirculating, or thought about it, and found that it does not work well. I expect he found you cannot control it, and it might be dangerous, so he changed his plan. This does reduce the recovery rate of the calorimeter by a large margin, but I doubt Rossi cares about that. As long as there is indisputably large excess heat and it exceeds the limits of chemistry during the heat after death, he has proved his point. That is the case. Despite the problems in this test, no rational or plausible skeptical objections have been raised, and I am sure none will be. The best that the skeptics can come up with is a gas canister hidden in the table leg that connects magically to the cell without a tube, or Krivit's magic heat storage, or various other preposterous notions that fly in the face of fundamental physics and common sense. This was a very poorly done test, but the effect is so large, even a poorly done test is irrefutable. It is annoying to me. Intensely annoying, because I like to see things done professionally. Rossi's methods confuse and confound the observer. They force the audience to dig for the answer through the noise and confusion. I prefer elegant tests that make the results obvious. But the truth is, I am quibbling, and as I am sure Rossi would say, my objections have no impact on the conclusions. The debate somewhat resembles the 1980s confrontation between the he-man, text-based computer operating systems with cryptic commands such as grep versus the emerging Mac or Windows icons that made things easy to understand, and intuitive. Rossi is old school. He doesn't care how much work you have to do to understand his experiment. That's your problem. Many elderly cold fusion researchers are like this, especially Arata. They expect YOU to do YOUR homework. They will not life a finger to make it easier for you to understand them. The only criterion that matters to Arata or Rossi is how much effort he himself has to do, and how convenient it is for him to do a test in a certain way. That is not to say that Arata or Rossi are lazy. On the contrary, they are fantastically productive, accomplishing as much as a dozen other people might. Arata has over 100 patents (as I recall). They do not want to waste 5 minutes making it easier for other people to grasp their work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Since the curve does not fall monotonically, but it also rises, we know there must be heat generated in the system. Yep. It looks like 5 kW out when the heater is turned off when you normalize Hustedt's plot. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I understand the names of the attendees will be released soon. I think I have left the fence behind. I do, however, look forward to the eSabertooth being fired up. Soon? I hope. T
[Vo]:Bias offset knob on Omega HH12B range is 9 deg C
I wrote earlier that the bias offset adjustment knob on the Omega HH12B thermocouple only adjusts to a fraction of one degree. That's wrong. I remembered that wrong. Or I hesitated to turn the screw the whole way. Anyway, just now I set it to the T1-T2 mode, and then turned the OFFSET all the way for T1. It goes from +4.3 to -4.8 deg C. In other words, it goes up or down about 4 degrees. So obviously, a 5 deg C bias in one of these instruments is not unheard of. In fact, right now I am trying to turn the knob back to zero to make it go away (to make T1-T2=0) and I find it is a little tricky. You have to put both probes into water I think, and turn slowly. I cannot easily bring it down below 0.3 deg C, in air. Perhaps someone was impatient and did not want to bother evening out the bias, after adjusting the OFFSET screws. On a completely unrelated subject, you might want to see this video of a wild turkey chasing a television producer: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/10/07/turkey-attacks-producer.kxtv - Jed
[Vo]:New E-Cat Music Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu_iwdjf1gI It's a laugh for the Rossi-FanBoys.
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This is irrefutable? Unless someone refutes it, I suppose. I have not seen any credible refutations yet. If the Krivit hypothesis is the best the skeptics come up with, I would say the debate is over. I cannot fully believe a claim until it is widely replicated. This is experimental science and replication is the acid test. There is no substitute for it. How many replications you need is a matter of taste. I would like to see 4 or 5 other labs observe this before I am fully convinced it cannot be a mistake or fraud. Apparently this claim has been independently replicated by Defkalion. If I see credible proof from them that will pretty much wrap it up. If this was a brand new unprecedented claim such as Steorn's, or an antigravity machine, or a particle moving faster than light, I would probably hold out for 10 or 20 solid replications, rather than 5. However, this is similar to many other cold fusion claims. We already have Mills, Piantelli and several other Ni-H claims, so this is not such a stretch. There is a very slight chance of fraud, but it is so small I do not take it seriously. The likelihood that some skeptic such as Krivit, Murray or Park will come up with a credible, believable explanation is even smaller. They have nothing. Zip. Bupkis to 5 significant digits. I find it hard to believe they themselves take their hypotheses seriously. I thought that Krivit understood more about heat and calorimetry, and he would not come up with that ridiculous notion that you can store heat such that not one joule comes out until you wave a magic wand, and then it comes out in varying levels, rising and falling, in complete disregard for Newton and his silly old law. Ignorant people have been saying that sort of thing since 1989. You would think Krivit has heard that before, and understands why it is impossible, but apparently not. It reminds me of Steve Jones and his claim that recombination can magically explain all results, including McKubre's in a closed cell where total heat far exceeded I*V. These things are not explanations. They are magic spells. You are confronted by an ugly truth. A fact you cannot face. You have made a dreadful mistake, and you are far out on a limb. You repeat recombination, recombination, recombination or heat storage, heat storage until the ugly facts vanish, and you are back safely in the world of your own imagination. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I posted this response, which I expect Krivit will not allow -- Krivit wrote: However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy. The implication here appears to be that during 4 hours in advance, the 33.88 MJ of input were somehow stored in the device. If that had been the case, the device would have remained at room temperature. There would a heat deficit. There was no such deficit, and it is physically impossible for there to be one. Nearly the entire 33.88 MJ that went in during this period came right out again. There was a balance. Actually it was slightly exothermic. In any case, even if 38 gigawatts had been input before the event, that would make no difference if all of that heat came out as soon as it went in. The heat after death event can only have been caused by heat generated internally during the event. - Jed It is not outside the laws of conventional physics that some or all of the initial input energy was converted to mass and temporarily stored as mass. Usually when we think of E=mc^2 we think of mass being converted into energy, but it does allow for the reverse transformation of energy into mass. It would mean the Ecat asks for a little electrical energy before it can give back *more* heat energy. It would be interesting know how hot the reactor was before it entered self sustained mode. Did it get as hot as one would expect if all the electricity was being converted into heat energy? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis. What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o. 135474503149001type=1theater (and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the secondary circuit until 13:22. Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. 19:22: Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. This indicates pump flow is probably 1.82 ml/s. The heat showed up in the exchanger at about 130 min, or 7800 seconds into the run. See graph attached, or spreadsheet at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf This means the flow filled a void of (7800 s)*(1.82 ml) = 14200 ml = 14.2 liters before hot water began to either overflow or percolate out of the device, and thus make it to the heat exchanger. If you look at the graph you clearly see the Pout data points are all over the place when Pin ~= 0. As I noted in my Preliminary Data Analysis: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg52405.html it is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into output stream, as before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased temperature from the Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. That's my take on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ inline: RossiGraph.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis. What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o. 135474503149001type=1theater (and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the secondary circuit until 13:22. Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. 19:22: Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. This indicates pump flow is probably 1.82 ml/s. The heat showed up in the exchanger at about 130 min, or 7800 seconds into the run. See graph sent with separate email, or see spreadsheet at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf This means the flow filled a void of (7800 s)*(1.82 ml) = 14200 ml = 14.2 liters before hot water began to either overflow or percolate out of the device, and thus make it to the heat exchanger. If you look at the graph you clearly see the Pout data points are all over the place when Pin ~= 0. As I noted in my Preliminary Data Analysis: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg52405.html it is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into output stream, as before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased temperature from the Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. That's my take on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:[NET] E-Cat Test Demonstrates Energy Loss
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: It is not outside the laws of conventional physics that some or all of the initial input energy was converted to mass and temporarily stored as mass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvGJvzwKqg0 :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
inline: RossiGraph.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. Or that the reactor is highly unstable as claimed by Defkalion. T
