Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Let's see ... The total length of that section looks to be about 10 cm. Let's apply your resistor calculation. As a first approximation, consider only the shortest path from the thermistor to the fluid. Vin = 100 (Voltage :: Temperature) Steam Vout = 30 : Output of heat exchanger. The resistance is proportional to the length of brass between the thermistor and the heat source. For the steam output .. the closest it gets to the thermistor is about 5 cm (half the total length) For the heat exchanger it's the thickness of the tube .. say 0.2 cm We have a loop of Vin -- Rin -- Rout -- Vout (Kirchoff) and V = IR (good old ohm) Since Vin and Vout oppose, V = Vin - Vout = 100 - 30 = 70 Rin and Rout are in series, and their resistance is proportional to distance ... arbitrarily 1 ohm/cm. (The actual resistivity/thermal conduction would just cancel out). R = Rin + Rout = 5 + 0.2 = 5.2 I = V/R = 70 / (Rin + Rout) = 13.5 (I'm rounding all values off a spreadsheet) Then we can calculate the voltage (temp) drop across Rout -- Vdrop -- which is the error due to heat conduction from the steam input. Vdrop = I * Rout = 70 * Rout / ( Rin + Rout) = 70 * 0.2 / (5 + 0.2 ) = 2.7 Since the measured drop across the heat exchanger was about 6 C, that's a bit close for comfort. I suspect that if you actually did a 2D or 3D FEM calculation would come out a LOT smaller. - Original Message - Attached is a jpg of the fitting for the hot end of the Rossi heat exchanger. The finger points to where the Tout themocouple was located. The other side of this big brass fitting was the entry point for the steam/water from the E-cat. You can see white streak marks on the tape both sides of the fitting. I wonder if those are footprints of the thermocouples used. Best regards, Horace Heffner [image/jpeg:Tout.jpg]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I think that the sensor is under the black tape near the END of the pipe -- you can see the wire going under it -- which I estimated as 5 cm from the center. I did my calculation before you posted that ... if Mario Masso used HIS sensor position that would increase the calculated error. - Original Message - Two more pictures of the thermocouple (from user agoz on 22passi blog) http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg Another user on 22passi (Mario Massa) computed that the thermocouple in that position could give a reading as higher as 5 deg C more then the water temperature (given the thermal resistance of brass and of the contact surface water-brass )
[Vo]: ATTENTION: request for expertise...
Attention all in the Vort collective: I hope you all don't mind if I take a few bytes of bandwidth to request some help with the RD I've been working on... which is noninvasive blood glucose measurement using RF/microwaves. The attached pic shows the results for just one of the diabetics tested; for this one we could get a good calibration on 82 data points (taken in Feb 2010), and then the calibrated equation accurately estimated the remaining 120 samples which were taken thru March. Follow-up testing in June also gave good results with little degradation. Predictive accuracy over time is a major accomplishment in this work. We have a database of ~87GB, most of which was on five Type-1 diabetics over the course of 2 months; clinical lab-grade blood chemistries for most of that data. During RF scans we are also taking skin temperature every 100 millisecs... Our investor has given us until the end of the year to improve our calibration/predictive algorithms as much as possible before we market the technology for the next phase of development. We are currently at +-20% accuracy for ~80% of our samples (~1000 samples on the 5 test subjects). The technology is not optimized, so this may be all we can hope for with the current sensor design and algorithms. But, we need to use the time left to make whatever improvements we can... I am in search of some very bright individuals with expertise in mathematical modeling and bioelectromagnetics; perhaps statistics, but targeted toward medical device testing. Knowledge of RF Scattering Parameters (S-Params) which come out of a modern Network Analyzer (Agilent PNA-5230) would also be very helpful. We already have some very extensive MatLab code which builds mathematical models, one term at a time, and it may be better to add to this rather than creating from scratch. IF you're very competent and like a real challenge, and want a break from the E-Cat fiasco, then please contact me @: m...@rfstx.com or markiver...@charter.net There are now 366 million diabetics in the world, and they have been in need of a truly painless way to measure their blood sugar. You could be one of the keys to solving the challenges which make this a reality for them... Thanks for your time... Now back to your regularly scheduled E-Cat frustration! :-) -Mark Iverson attachment: TS11_CalPred.jpg
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan: Thx for doing the calcs... I too saw the TC lead wires going under the black tape which is on the fitting where they push on the flexible hose. However, if you look closely, the lead wires continue for at least another 2 inches after the black tape, so I think the actual TC was mounted closer to the center of the heat exchanger manifold. Jed, can you contact Mats, and include the pic being referred to, and see if he can locate exactly where the Tout TC was mounted??? -m -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting I think that the sensor is under the black tape near the END of the pipe -- you can see the wire going under it -- which I estimated as 5 cm from the center. I did my calculation before you posted that ... if Mario Masso used HIS sensor position that would increase the calculated error. - Original Message - Two more pictures of the thermocouple (from user agoz on 22passi blog) http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg Another user on 22passi (Mario Massa) computed that the thermocouple in that position could give a reading as higher as 5 deg C more then the water temperature (given the thermal resistance of brass and of the contact surface water-brass )
[Vo]:Focus.it article on the Oct. 6th test adds small details about the device producing frequencies
Hello group, An preliminary article on the October 6th E-Cat experiment appeared on the italian science magazine Focus website: http://goo.gl/bLzun (in Italian. http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre_C12.aspx Interestingly, it provides some more details to the device producing frequencies as mentioned by Lewan. http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/autosostentamento-3-ore-o-4_PC12.aspx Alle 15:53 l'alimentazione elettrica è stata definitivamente sospesa ed è stato acceso un generatore di radiofrequenze (esterno all'E-Cat) per il quale Andrea Rossi non ha dato spiegazioni. At 15:53 electric current was interrupted and a radiofrequency generator (external to the E-Cat) was turned on; Andrea Rossi didn't provide any explanation for this. http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre/le-domande-del-giorno-dopo_PC12.aspx E un'altra: a che cosa serve il generatore di radiofrequenze, mai apparso prima, aggiunto nel locale del test solo quando l'E-Cat è passato in autosostentamento (e poi tolto prima dell'ispezione finale)? Sappiamo per certa una sola cosa: è già fonte di spiacevoli speculazioni. And more: what purpose serves the never seen before, brought to the test room only when the E-Cat went into self-sustaining mode (and then removed before the final inspection) radiofrequency generator? Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Focus.it article on the Oct. 6th test adds small details about the device producing frequencies
(This is a second copy. It looks like the original message didn't make it to the group. I've removed a few URLs from the message body just to be sure they weren't the cause) Hello group, An preliminary article on the October 6th E-Cat experiment appeared on the italian science magazine Focus website: http://goo.gl/bLzun (in Italian). http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre_C12.aspx Interestingly, it provides some more details to the device producing frequencies as mentioned by Lewan. Alle 15:53 l'alimentazione elettrica è stata definitivamente sospesa ed è stato acceso un generatore di radiofrequenze (esterno all'E-Cat) per il quale Andrea Rossi non ha dato spiegazioni. At 15:53 electric current was interrupted and a radiofrequency generator (external to the E-Cat) was turned on; Andrea Rossi didn't provide any explanation for this. E un'altra: a che cosa serve il generatore di radiofrequenze, mai apparso prima, aggiunto nel locale del test solo quando l'E-Cat è passato in autosostentamento (e poi tolto prima dell'ispezione finale)? Sappiamo per certa una sola cosa: è già fonte di spiacevoli speculazioni. And more: what purpose serves the never seen before, brought to the test room only when the E-Cat went into self-sustaining mode (and then removed before the final inspection) radiofrequency generator? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 8, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Alan: Thx for doing the calcs... I too saw the TC lead wires going under the black tape which is on the fitting where they push on the flexible hose. However, if you look closely, the lead wires continue for at least another 2 inches after the black tape, so I think the actual TC was mounted closer to the center of the heat exchanger manifold. Jed, can you contact Mats, and include the pic being referred to, and see if he can locate exactly where the Tout TC was mounted??? -m Mark, In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it. inline: Tout.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it. Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water. I wrote to some friends complaining about the test. My conclusion: Despite these problems . . . I think this test produced irrefutable proof of anomalous heat. Here is why I think so -- Look at the graph here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat exchanger. At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam, which they poured down the drain. At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous heat, the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same rate it did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25. Actually, it would have approached zero before that, based on Newton's law of cooling. In other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours. During that time, 1.8 tons of water went through the cooling loop. It is inconceivable that an object of this size with no power input could have remained at the *same high temperature* the whole time. Yet Lewan reports that the surface of the reactor was still hot, and boiling could still be heard inside it. As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused this. You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and the reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof. It is possible that the placement of the outlet thermocouple was flawed, and it recorded a value midway between the outlet cooling water temperature and the steam in the pipe next to that. I do not think much heat can cross from the steam pipe to the water pipe next to it. Alan Fletcher did a rigorous analysis to demonstrate this. The thermal mass of the cooling water was much larger than the steam, so the average temperature was closer to the water than the steam. However, for sake of argument let us assume the temperature was too high. In that case, we can ignore the actual temperature and look only at the temperature trends. We can look at relative temperatures. Whatever the temperature was, it goes *up* after the power turns off. It stays up. It stays at a higher level than it was when the power was on! Even if the actual temperature was half this value, it still should have fallen monotonically, as I said. This behavior is simply impossible without some source of heat, at some power level. I think that very little wicking from the hot water pipe occurred, so I expect the peak anomalous power was ~8 kW as shown in this graph. (I also ran this analysis and my complaints past Rossi himself.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
That's terrible, then. The thermistor is (my eye) 2.5 cm from the closest point of the incoming steam line (the center of the block) through solid brass. My 2-resistor calculation then gives a 5V (5C) offset. (I couldn't find the 22passi link). I tried a triangular resistor mesh with 21 elements (a crude approximation of a tube with a 0.2cm wall thickness) and it gets even worse, not better ... 10V/10C. I'll have to double-check my methodology, but I think I'm doing it right. I might try to simulate a rectangular mesh (Spice or Elmer) -- but I'm short on time for a couple of weeks. - Original Message - In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it. Horace Heffner
[Vo]:is my newsletter banned from Vortex?
I am not able to send no 476 of my newsletter to Vortex. If it is banned, please let me know thanks, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Ecat october - primary input flow?
Hi, i cannot find data about the primary input flow. The primary output flow was measured, but not continuously. (So far I know) The input flow was made -as before- with a peristaltic pump and so it should be precisely known. Because the temperatures are logged we could calculate an upper energy limit, if we assume all water was vaporized. This should be compared against the results in the secondary circuit. Of course factor between primary energy and secondary energy should be almost without discontinuity. Of course, the secondary energy must not exceed the best case primary energy. If not, then the apparatus or measurements are unstable. So we get a simple plausibility test.
Re: [Vo]:is my newsletter banned from Vortex?
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I am not able to send no 476 of my newsletter to Vortex. Probably too big. How many kilobytes is it? This is an old server, with a limit of 40 kB as I recall. - Jed
[Vo]:Ecat october - primary input flow?
Hi, i cannot find data about the primary input flow. The primary output flow was measured, but not continuously. (So far I know) The input flow was made -as before- with a peristaltic pump and so it should be precisely known. Because the temperatures are logged we could calculate an upper energy limit, if we assume all water was vaporized. This should be compared against the results in the secondary circuit. Of course factor between primary energy and secondary energy should be almost without discontinuity. Of course, the secondary energy must not exceed the best case primary energy. If not, then the apparatus or measurements are unstable. So we get a simple plausibility test.
Re: [Vo]:Focus.it article on the Oct. 6th test adds small details about the device producing frequencies
Both messages made it to the group! :-) 2011/10/9 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com (This is a second copy. It looks like the original message didn't make it to the group. I've removed a few URLs from the message body just to be sure they weren't the cause) Hello group, An preliminary article on the October 6th E-Cat experiment appeared on the italian science magazine Focus website: http://goo.gl/bLzun (in Italian). http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-**cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-** rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre_**C12.aspxhttp://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat-fusione-fredda-andrea-rossi-il-test-del-6-ottobre_C12.aspx Interestingly, it provides some more details to the device producing frequencies as mentioned by Lewan. Alle 15:53 l'alimentazione elettrica è stata definitivamente sospesa ed è stato acceso un generatore di radiofrequenze (esterno all'E-Cat) per il quale Andrea Rossi non ha dato spiegazioni. At 15:53 electric current was interrupted and a radiofrequency generator (external to the E-Cat) was turned on; Andrea Rossi didn't provide any explanation for this. E un'altra: a che cosa serve il generatore di radiofrequenze, mai apparso prima, aggiunto nel locale del test solo quando l'E-Cat è passato in autosostentamento (e poi tolto prima dell'ispezione finale)? Sappiamo per certa una sola cosa: è già fonte di spiacevoli speculazioni. And more: what purpose serves the never seen before, brought to the test room only when the E-Cat went into self-sustaining mode (and then removed before the final inspection) radiofrequency generator? Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Mr. Murray sed: ... It is indeed high time to welcome the likes of Park, Shanahan, Cude, Little, Krivit, Heffner, and the bit player Murray into the shared forums -- for if any voices are denigrated, then all are enfeebled, with the chorus of collaboration needlessly crippled... High time? Surely you haven't forgotten the fact that Mr. Krivit used to participate in discussions here in the Vort Collective. What's stopping him now? As a former Board of Director member for Krivit's New Energy Times, I wish Mr. Krivit's would once again return and share in the discussions. However, it was Mr. Krivit who excused himself after demanding that Mr. Rothwell publicly apologize to him for slights imagined against his own character. I don't remember what the specifics were, nor do I care. Nevertheless, Mr. Krivit responded in a manner that suggested he had been personally dishonored when Rothwell continued to speak his own mind, and no such apology was received. I sure looked to me as if Mr. Krivit was simply no longer willing to stand the heat in the kitchen. Mr. Krivit's demand that Rothwell publicly apologize struck me more as the modus operandi Krivit chose to exploit as an effective self-justified reason to excuse himself from further discussions going on in the kitchen. I could see how constantly having explain and defend some of his investigative actions and the opinions and conclusions he personally drew was becoming exceedingly draining on the psyche. Nevertheless, by all means, Rich, please welcome Mr. Krivit back. No one's stopping Krivit from returning and expressing is positions on various matters. Of course, many are likely to once again challenge Mr. Krivit and his views on various matters. But isn't that what a discussion forum is all about? As for Park, well, he never participated here. Park has his own What's Up newsletter where he can say anything he wants and in any manner he sees fit, where everyone is invited to absorb his wisdom. As Mr. Storms once quipped about Park commentary and I'm paraphrasing here: Park seems to be very much in love with the cleverness of his own words. Nevertheless, I ask you, Rich, has Park had ANYTHING to say about the Rossi Saga? ...anywhere? Don't you find that just a little bit odd that, for someone who since 1989 has gone out of his way to criticize the whole Cold Fusion community as nothing more than a sociological phenomenon that depicts the principals of misguided pseudo science in action, why is it that after repeatedly being asked for his thoughts on the Rossi matter Park continues to remain uncharacteristically silent. His apparent self-imposed silence in the public arena is unprecedented. It speaks volumes. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no precipitous drop. Nor would there be after many grams of water. In fact 40MJ is stored in the metal. This is enough to boil ~20kg of water. Where are you getting 1.8 tons? - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 4:59 PM Subject: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it. Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water. I wrote to some friends complaining about the test. My conclusion: Despite these problems . . . I think this test produced irrefutable proof of anomalous heat. Here is why I think so -- Look at the graph here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg Nothing happens until 13:22 when the steam begins to flow through the heat exchanger. At 15:13 output is a little higher than input, even though there is a great deal of heat unaccounted for, especially the water from the condensed steam, which they poured down the drain. At 15:50 the power is cut off. If there had been no source of anomalous heat, the power would have fallen off rapidly and monotonically, at the same rate it did after 19:55. It would have approached the zero line by 17:25. Actually, it would have approached zero before that, based on Newton's law of cooling. In other words, it would have been stone cold after 3 hours. During that time, 1.8 tons of water went through the cooling loop. It is inconceivable that an object of this size with no power input could have remained at the same high temperature the whole time. Yet Lewan reports that the surface of the reactor was still hot, and boiling could still be heard inside it. As you see, the temperature did not fall. It went up at 16:26. The cooling water flow rate was unchanged, so only a source of heat could have caused this. You can ignore the thermocouple data, and look only at the fact that it continued to boil for more than 3 hours after the power was turned off, and the reactor surface remained hot. That alone is rock solid proof. It is possible that the placement of the outlet thermocouple was flawed, and it recorded a value midway between the outlet cooling water temperature and the steam in the pipe next to that. I do not think much heat can cross from the steam pipe to the water pipe next to it. Alan Fletcher did a rigorous analysis to demonstrate this. The thermal mass of the cooling water was much larger than the steam, so the average temperature was closer to the water than the steam. However, for sake of argument let us assume the temperature was too high. In that case, we can ignore the actual temperature and look only at the temperature trends. We can look at relative temperatures. Whatever the temperature was, it goes up after the power turns off. It stays up. It stays at a higher level than it was when the power was on! Even if the actual temperature was half this value, it still should have fallen monotonically, as I said. This behavior is simply impossible without some source of heat, at some power level. I think that very little wicking from the hot water pipe occurred, so I expect the peak anomalous power was ~8 kW as shown in this graph. (I also ran this analysis and my complaints past Rossi himself.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Focus.it article on the Oct. 6th test adds small details about the device producing frequencies
On 2011-10-09 21:41, Daniel Rocha wrote: Both messages made it to the group! :-) Good, it appears I just had to wait for the message to appear. By the way, this is a list of people who attended the test, from the same source: http://goo.gl/acDyt . Sven Kullander or Hanno Essen weren't there. Cheers, S.A.
[Vo]:Ecat october - primary input flow?
Hi, i cannot find data about the primary input flow. The primary output flow was measured, but not continuously. (So far I know) The input flow was made -as before- with a peristaltic pump and so it should be precisely known. Unfortunately I cannot find this data. Because the temperatures are logged we could calculate an upper energy limit, if we assume all water was vaporized. This should be compared against the results in the secondary circuit. From this we can get a simple plausibility test.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Thx for posting that pic... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 1:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Mark, In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it.
Re: [Vo]:is my newsletter banned from Vortex?
It's here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/10/informavores-sunday-no-476.html T On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: I am not able to send no 476 of my newsletter to Vortex. Probably too big. How many kilobytes is it? This is an old server, with a limit of 40 kB as I recall. - Jed
[Vo]:second sending INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY
I think this did not get through for the first time My dear Friends, It's Sunday again and Informavore's Sunday no 476 is here. Nothing special just selected information, good against E-cat nausea. http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/10/informavores-sunday-no-476.html Enjoy and please send it to people who can appreciate a celebrityless and non-kitschy newsletter. Very, very truly yours, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On 2011-10-09 22:59, Jed Rothwell wrote: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg This is another graphical analysis which shows an overall energy gain: http://imgur.com/a/oix51 (conveniently grouped in a single image gallery with swapped colors for clarity by me. Original source with downloadable data: http://www.scribd.com/doc/68116335/Temp-Data-Ecat-6-10-11-Edited-by-MAP-v2 ) Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik report on October 6th test
Castro? Castro! Just as I suspected. Rossi is part of a commie plot to undermine our way of life. Harry On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Thanks for the analysis, Jed. Will be interesting to read what others have to say. BTW, what did Rossi have to say? * * * * * When I look at the graph I continue to be drawn to the curious fact that the input power is cycled on and off a total of three or four times starting from around 13:59 to finally ending at 15:50 when it is permanently turned off. Looks to me as if Rossi's team may have been trying to get their eCat airborne way before the time stamp of 15:50. My apologies if the following has already been discussed or speculated since there has been so much discussion in the past three days - I can't keep track of it all. The characteristics of the input data gives me the impression that Rossi's team is trying to capitalize on what I would describe as the Sweet Spot, where Rossi feels that the core reaction is finally beginning to take off without further need for an input power source to sustain the output reaction. It's analogous to the Wright Brothers hand cranking the propeller of their first air craft where the first couple of spins don't necessarily catch on with the engine. As already speculated by a few here, Rossi continues to give me the impression that he operates very much on intuition. Recording scientific data is almost incidental to him, a characteristic I suspect probably drives a few of his colleagues to distraction. Rossi has probably acquired a reasonable amount of instinctual horse sense as to when he thinks his mysterious eCats are likely to take off in self-sustain mode. The following is what I speculate is happening between 13:59 to 15:50: Rossi initially tries at 13:59... It's catching It's catching... Ah, shoot! It petered out. Ok guys! Crank her up again. Input Power turned back on 14:11. Rossi tries again at around 14:24... Well, Shoot. Still didn't catch! Maybe I need to prime the pistons. Where's my canister of Ether. Ok guys. Crank her up again. Input power turned back on at 14:36 Looks like Rossi tries for the third time at around 14:48, but I suspect the there are data anomalies here (human error?) and Rossi actually turns off the input power at around 15:00. It's turning... It's turning... Come on! Come on You can do it Shoot it's going down again. We're close guys! I can feel it in my ancient Italian bones! Ok, let's crank'er up again. Input Power turned back on at 15:25. For the fourth time, Rossi turns off the input power around 15:50. Meanwhile the output signal has been strong and rapidly rising starting at around 15:40 or so. Rossi's Italian bones sense that this is probably the Big One. .TURN THE INPUT POWER OFF Got it! Hand me my goggles, guys! It's Steam Punk Rock'N'Role time! Here are some final personal interpretations: It looks to me as if in every case input power is turned off several minutes after the Rossi senses that the output power is on a steady rise (in self-sustain mode) towards the 3000 mark and above. I wonder if Rossi may have initially been trying to hit that sweet spot early in the data recordings starting at 13:59. Perhaps he initially turned input power off back then in order to help minimize the potential of introducing skeptical arguments such as those presented over at Krivit's blog having to do with the total accumulation of input power from the start of the experiment and how the entire collection of data appears to be greater than the total accumulation of recorded output power. In any case, it looks to me as if Rossi had three false starts before he finally hit pay dirt on the fourth crank. Comments? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Regarding the Michelson-Morley experiment and similar
Hi The Michelson-Morley experiment and similar linear interferometers are actually rotating when they are in use. They are thus similar to Sagnac-interferometers. A rotating Michelson-Morley interferometer looks like in the attached picture. [image: image.png] The black interferometer in this picture rotates and thus has different positions at different times. The light-ray however is moving along a straight line and hits the end of the interferometer at time t0+dt and is reflected back at the origin at t0+2dt. As is seen in the picture the light is moving a somewhat shorter distance than the length of the interferometer. The path length of the light ray can be easily calculated. With angular velocity omega and length L of the interferometer and speed of light c the light ray path l becomes l = L*cos(omega*L/(2*c)) or relative to the interferometer length l/L = cos(omega*L/(2*c)) = sqrt(1-sin(omega*L/(2*c))^2) which for small angles approximates to sqrt(1-(omega*L/(2*c))^2) Compare this with the Lorentz-contraction L/L0 = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) The expresions are definitely similar. They imply that v = omega*L/2. For an 11 meter long interferometer, the length that Michelson and Morley used in later experiments, v becomes 7.3 *10^-5 *11/2 = 4 * 10^-4 m/s which is a very low speed. Much lower than is detectable with such an interferometer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Early_experimentsThe null result of the Michelson-Morley-interferometer is explained by Lorentz contraction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Length_contraction So, would you say that the interferometer is shortened as special relativity says or that the light rays are shortened as shown above? David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370 image.pngattachment: rotating_interferometer.png
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On 2011-10-10 01:12, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: In any case, it looks to me as if Rossi had three false starts before he finally hit pay dirt on the fourth crank. I haven't thought of this before, but after pondering a bit about it I believe it really might have been the case. I wonder if Rossi himself could confirm this. It would make the experiment outcome even more positive if he did, in my opinion. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
I don't know if Rossi would consider them false starts. From what he has said in the past it seems that cycling the input on and off is now standard operating procedure to run the E-Cat in a stable mode. He has said that in commercial models this cycling will be automated. On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-10-10 01:12, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: In any case, it looks to me as if Rossi had three false starts before he finally hit pay dirt on the fourth crank. I haven't thought of this before, but after pondering a bit about it I believe it really might have been the case. I wonder if Rossi himself could confirm this. It would make the experiment outcome even more positive if he did, in my opinion. Cheers, S.A. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com Author, The Secret Power Beneath https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/
RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
From Akira: This is another graphical analysis which shows an overall energy gain: http://imgur.com/a/oix51 The I/O energy values listed at Imgur certainly bear little resemblance the values reported over in Mr. Krivit's blog: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/ Of particular interest to me, Krivit's blog claims that according to Lewan the total recorded output energy in self sustain mode (3.5 hours) was around 31.5 MJ of energy, whereas over at the flashy imgur site a total of 101.3 MJ had been recorded. That's a HUGE discrepancy in recorded values. I can't make heads or tails of this. Does this discrepancy have something to do with who may and who may not have been taking into consideration the energy speculated to have been produced from BOTH the primary and secondary heat exchangers? I hope someone with more math skills than I can clarify why there appears to be such a discrepancy. Who is taking WHAT into account. Likewise, who is NOT taking WHAT into account? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Ultrasonics E-CATs
Ah, so now I have some insight from you mentioning frequencies: An ultrasonic transducer inside the E-Cat Reactor fludizes the nickel power bed and shakes loose reaction products and contaminates -- that's the trick! Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no precipitous drop. Please see Newton's law of cooling: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/ozone/ozone1.html The other point you are overlooking is the drop is monotonic, that is Varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases. When heat is released from a system the way you describe, the temperature can only drop. It NEVER NEVER RISES. That is a fundamental physical law. Note also that this device was at 80 deg C, not 900 deg C. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. An insulated metal block that loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link). - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 8:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: With 40MJ of heat in the system it would be impossible for the temperature to drop suddenly. I heat a block of steel to 900C, then I stop heating it, and drop a gram of water on it. What's the temperature? 900C. Notice there was no precipitous drop. Please see Newton's law of cooling: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/ozone/ozone1.html The other point you are overlooking is the drop is monotonic, that is Varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases. When heat is released from a system the way you describe, the temperature can only drop. It NEVER NEVER RISES. That is a fundamental physical law. Note also that this device was at 80 deg C, not 900 deg C. - Jed
[Vo]:Missing posts
I sent a number of posts last night which have not shown up. I'll resend and see what happens. Sorry if they end up being duplicates. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Missing posts
According to the Eskimo yahoo site, the email server was down late yesterday and this morning. Regards, Terry On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I sent a number of posts last night which have not shown up. I'll resend and see what happens. Sorry if they end up being duplicates. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Let's see ... The total length of that section looks to be about 10 cm. Let's apply your resistor calculation. As a first approximation, consider only the shortest path from the thermistor to the fluid. Vin = 100 (Voltage :: Temperature) Steam Vout = 30 : Output of heat exchanger. The resistance is proportional to the length of brass between the thermistor and the heat source. For the steam output .. the closest it gets to the thermistor is about 5 cm (half the total length) For the heat exchanger it's the thickness of the tube .. say 0.2 cm On this we may disagree significantly. Take a look at the photos kindly provided by Enzo: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg The central brass fitting is very thick. Given the hose ID is about 1.5 cm I would guess over a cm thick. It appears the thermocouple was placed not far from it. The intermediate section looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick From the location of the tape, and the protruding thermocouple, in: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg it looks like the thermocouple may have been taped to the intermediate section and oriented axially toward the large steel nut. We have a loop of Vin -- Rin -- Rout -- Vout (Kirchoff) and V = IR (good old ohm) This is the equivalent of a simple voltage divider. I would have drawn it like so: Tw -- Rin -- Tout - Rout -- Thot where Tw is the *actual* secondary loop (cooling water) exit temperature, Thot is the actual steam/water temperature at the primary circuit entry to the heat exchanger, and Tout is the thermocouple location. Tout is the equivalent of a voltage probe, and Tw and Thot are equivalent to a low and high voltage respectively. Rin and Rout are the equivalent to resistors of course. The temperature Tout is thus given by: Tout = Tw + Rin/(Rin+Rout)*(Thot-Tw) and the error Terr is: Terr = Tout - Tw = Rin/(Rin+Rout)*(Thot-Tw) Which is essentially your formula below. The analog of current need not be calculated. At any rate, we seem to be in good agreement on this part. Now I wonder if it is even that relevant. If you look at: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg You can see the thermocouple wire is still taped at its base. You can see it probably extends to about the location of the steel nut. It appears it rested right on the middle sized fitting, which looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick. However, I wonder how relevant that is. If you look at: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg you can see the piece of tape is back a bit from the tip of the thermocouple. It thus can not direct significant force on the thermocouple. Besides, the thermocouple is round, the brass fitting is round, so the surface contact should not be very good. If this is all true then the temperature the thermocouple is sensing is largely the air temperature at that location under the silicon wool. Since Vin and Vout oppose, V = Vin - Vout = 100 - 30 = 70 Rin and Rout are in series, and their resistance is proportional to distance ... arbitrarily 1 ohm/cm. (The actual resistivity/thermal conduction would just cancel out). R = Rin + Rout = 5 + 0.2 = 5.2 I = V/R = 70 / (Rin + Rout) = 13.5 (I'm rounding all values off a spreadsheet) Then we can calculate the voltage (temp) drop across Rout -- Vdrop -- which is the error due to heat conduction from the steam input. Vdrop = I * Rout = 70 * Rout / ( Rin + Rout) = 70 * 0.2 / (5 + 0.2 ) = 2.7 This is essentially the same method I posted earlier, except I did not calculate an analog to current. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Here it is again: At the heat exchanger side of things, a similar formula applies, but the water does not even have to be 100°C, merely hot enough to obtain a small delta T to the Tout temperature. If we designate Thot to be the temperature of the water arriving at the steam/hot water entry port, then there is some composite thermal resistance R1 from the Tout water to the Tout thermocouple, and a similar thermal resistance R2 to the Thot water/steam, then the thermocouple will be at a temperature of 24°C + (R2/(R1+R2)*100°C. To get an 8°C difference all is needed is for r=(R2/(R1+R2)) to satisfy: r * (100°C-24°C) = 8°C r = 8/76 = 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In your equation above I would use 0.75 instead of 0.2 here, based on the photos. This gives an r of 0.13 and: Vdrop = 70 * 0.75 / (5 + 0.75 ) = 9.1 °C which is in the ball park. However we don't know the effect of the large fitting on the air temperature under the silicon wool blanket there, or the magnitude of the effect of air temperature on the thermocouple there. Since the measured drop across the heat exchanger was about 6 C, that's a bit close for comfort. I suspect that if
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 8, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Alan: Thx for doing the calcs... I too saw the TC lead wires going under the black tape which is on the fitting where they push on the flexible hose. However, if you look closely, the lead wires continue for at least another 2 inches after the black tape, so I think the actual TC was mounted closer to the center of the heat exchanger manifold. Jed, can you contact Mats, and include the pic being referred to, and see if he can locate exactly where the Tout TC was mounted??? -m Mark, In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it. inline: Tout.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if there is not energy input and the flow rate does change. An insulated metal block that loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link). Right here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg The temperature rises several times after the power is turned off. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if there is not energy input and the flow rate does change. An insulated metal block that loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link). Right here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg The temperature rises several times after the power is turned off. - Jed Good point. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Let's see ... The total length of that section looks to be about 10 cm. Let's apply your resistor calculation. As a first approximation, consider only the shortest path from the thermistor to the fluid. Vin = 100 (Voltage :: Temperature) Steam Vout = 30 : Output of heat exchanger. The resistance is proportional to the length of brass between the thermistor and the heat source. For the steam output .. the closest it gets to the thermistor is about 5 cm (half the total length) For the heat exchanger it's the thickness of the tube .. say 0.2 cm On this we may disagree significantly. Take a look at the photos kindly provided by Enzo: http://www.redmatica.com/**media/Thermo1.jpghttp://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/**media/Thermo2.jpghttp://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg The central brass fitting is very thick. Given the hose ID is about 1.5 cm I would guess over a cm thick. It appears the thermocouple was placed not far from it. The intermediate section looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick From the location of the tape, and the protruding thermocouple, in: . . . Okay TIME OUT. Stop worrying about this. Forget about the damned thermocouples altogether. Pretend they were not there. Stop obsessing over small technical details and Look At The Facts: When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the surface was around 80 deg C. Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The surface was still 80 deg C. Whether the thermocouples were properly placed or in the wrong places altogether, all of them still showed elevated temperatures. This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went through the heat exchanger. Deal with that! Explain it. You know perfectly well that if no heat had been generated inside, every temperature sensor would have equaled ambient air or the tap water temperature soon after the power was turned off. You can see that from the decay curve after the power finally went off. There was a tremendous flow of water going through. What else could happen?!? Forget all about the cooling water outlet thermocouple. Or, if you like, assume that it was placed as badly as it could be, so that it picked up the steam temperature and the air temperature more than the cooling water. Question: what temperature would it be 1 hour after the power is turned off? 25 deg C. What would it be 2 hours later? 25 deg C. Four hours later? 25 deg C. ALL THE OTHER SENSORS WOULD ALSO BE AT 25 deg C. They are not. Lewan would have put his hand on the reactor and find it is stone cold. He would hear no boiling. That is not what happened. Deal with the irrefutable first-principle physical evidence that you have in abundance, and stop fretting about details you do not have and will not get. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Excuse me I meant to say that the cooling rate must obey Newton's law if there is NO energy generation and the flow rate does NOT change. In other words, if it passive cooling in unchanging conditions. Lewan's observations and report show that the flow rate and other essential parameters did not change. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
Here are some charts of possible interest. RossiT2Pout.jpg shows a scaled plot of T2 overlaid on a plot of Pout and Pin. In addition, an exponential moving average (EMA) of Pout is shown in yellow. The RF (frequency device) on and off times are denoted on the graph as well, using magenta lines. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.jpg RossiT2_RF.png shows a scaled plot of T2 (i.e. T2/1000) overlaid on a plot of Pin for the period in which the RF source was on. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png It appears the RF power was ramped up at 16:38 (326 min)and down at 18:53 (461 min). The T2 curve mysteriously responds, despite the input RF power being nominal. The thermal mass of the metal and water is huge. This response of T2 to RF Pin should not be possible unless the T2 thermocouple reading is directly affected by the RF. Some obvious questions arise. Did Rossi manually adjust the RF power at 16:38? Did the RF device have controls? Is there a photo or video of it? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Jed, I hate to ask, really. You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny Teknik results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the logged E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way. A quick example is between 19:03 and 19:22: In that time frame, E-Cat temp is steadily decreasing, hydrogen is purged, the frequency generator is turned off, and water flow increased (in the primary). But in the following 20 minutes, the output supposedly increases from 3.9 kW to 6.1 kW. This doesn't seem to be an issue for you, so I was wondering if you could explain it to the rest of us. Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if there is not energy input and the flow rate does change. An insulated metal block that loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link). Right here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg The temperature rises several times after the power is turned off. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Horace Heffner - Original Message - On this we may disagree significantly. Take a look at the photos kindly provided by Enzo: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg The central brass fitting is very thick. Given the hose ID is about 1.5 cm I would guess over a cm thick. It appears the thermocouple was placed not far from it. The intermediate section looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick From the location of the tape, and the protruding thermocouple, in: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg it looks like the thermocouple may have been taped to the intermediate section and oriented axially toward the large steel nut. I'm not vested in the dimensions. Taking the tube as 0.75 cm thick, and the distance from the center-line as 2.5 cm I calculate the temperature error (100C to 30C) as 16 C --- and the 2-resistor and 20-resistor triangular mesh agree to 0.7 This is VERY worrisome. This is essentially the same method I posted earlier, except I did not calculate an analog to current. We're using the same equations, but you were (I think) using the observed temperature difference to calculate R, and I am using the dimensions to calculate R and from that, the temperature difference. This analysis presumes that there is similar coupling of heat from the two streams. On the output (water) side the coupling is from water to brass, which is efficient. On the input (steam) side we have an unknown selection of any/all a) Superheated 120C (1 bar) steam (efficient) b) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) vapour (inefficient) c) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) fluid (efficient) which have a different coupling coefficient to brass (I can't think of the technical term),which limits the heat transfer from one side to the other. In a circuit simulation like Spice I could use a current source (= heat) rather than a voltage source (= temperature). In the absence of any new information (eCat flow) I'm inclined to go with the output from Lewan's Sept experiment -- 50% vapour, 50% fluid -- supported by your slug hypothesis -- which means that the coupling is the same on both sides (water-to-brass) and the resistor-model is valid. The specific heat (if needed) can be modeled with capacitors, but I'm only considering the DC solution. Rossi put the cold thermistor as far from the heat exchanger as it could go, and the hot thermistor very close to the steam inlet. Carelessness (or couldn't-care-less-ness)? Or . ? I have to say that my trust level is decreasing. [ This was posted while doing three things at once ... (Rossi's gum-chewing?) ... so I hope it's what I meant. ]
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
When you zoom in on the end of the sensor lead wire, where the frayed insulation is, you clearly see the bare metal thermocouple wires. And from the length of that section of lead wire (~1.5 to 2 inches), the most likely location for the actual TC was on one of the flat surfaces on the shiny steel nut. They probably laid it on one of the flats, and wrapped black tape around the circumference of that shiny nut, more or less covering the entire shiny surface. Horace, I doubt if they would have just assumed the insulation would hold the TC against the nut; I vaguely remember reading that ...the TCs were held tightly against the outer metal surface by tape. But then, that would be one less thing for us to get frustrated about! Can't have that, now can we... -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 5:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting On Oct 8, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: I think that the sensor is under the black tape near the END of the pipe -- you can see the wire going under it -- which I estimated as 5 cm from the center. That tape is not on the the sensor per se but on a wire leading to the sensor. The wire looks to be long enough to make it to the steel nut. Look again at http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg The red arrow points to the tip of the thermocouple I think. There appears to be some frayed insulation pealed back near there. It looks like a bug. The thermocouple protrudes to the left of that. The sensor appears to have a clear tape on it, like Scotch tape, but back from the tip, and way forward from the black tape. In: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg you can see that there is enough room for the sensor to extend out over the top of the big steel nut. You might have to blow up the section next to the red arrow to see the sensor tip. I have attached a clip of the sensor tip in which you can see the nut at the bottom and the red arrow tip at the left. The stuff to the bottom of the sensor, bottom left of photo, looks like either Scotch tape or frayed insulation.
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny Teknik results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the logged E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way. It cannot track them. The eCat is boiling water at a given pressure, somewhat above 1 atm. The temperature cannot rise. If power increases, it will boil more water but the temperature will not rise. If you capture the steam from the pot on your stove in a heat exchanger, and you turn the gas light up, you will see no change in the boiling water temperature but the heat exchanger will capture more heat. There are minor fluctuations in the eCat steam temperature. I do not know what causes them. Perhaps hot water, or just instrument noise. Note also that the cooling water outlet thermocouple of attached to the outside of the pipe. A pipe is a large heat sink, and a way to average out or blur the heat signal. This has been talked to death here, but people have not noted that this is actually a recommended technique. It prevents rapid fluctuations and local hot spots in the water from affecting the thermocouple. In this case, it may be picking up heat from the steam pipe as well, so it may be a little too high, but it is still an excellent way to smooth out the signal and be sure that the heat is homogeneous and real. If it turns out to be a little high that has no impact on the overall conclusions. Note that it can only be a little too high. Not a lot. Compare the thermal mass of 10 kg/min of cooling water to 55 g/min of steam. Try it! Sparge 55 g of steam at 120 deg C in 10 kg of tap water and you will see that the final temperature is a lot closer to the tap water than the steam. Or just do it in your head. It takes roughly 34,000 calories to raise water from 25 deg C to steam at 120 deg C. Divide that into 10,000 g of water, and the water goes up about 3.4 deg C. For most of the test, the temperature rose 5 deg C. That's in the same ballpark. Maybe the actual temperature rise was only 3.4. So what? An hour after the power was cut it would have been 0.000 deg C, in the absence of anomalous heat. There may have been more than 55 g of steam per minute at times. No one kept track of the input water to the reactor. There was no need to. That is not relevant to the calorimetry, in this case. A quick example is between 19:03 and 19:22: In that time frame, E-Cat temp is steadily decreasing, hydrogen is purged, the frequency generator is turned off, and water flow increased (in the primary). But in the following 20 minutes, the output supposedly increases from 3.9 kW to 6.1 kW. That is a different issue. That is when the eCat is being degassed and the flow through the eCat is turned up, according to Lewan's log. Conditions are no longer stable and the calorimetry no longer works. Calorimetry requires steady state conditions, in which only the heat flux varies. When you open valves or change flow rates, conditions are not in steady state. It is difficult to model the system. Also, there may have been a burst of heat then. It is hard to judge. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
- Jed wrote ... - Original Message - Okay TIME OUT. Stop worrying about this. Forget about the damned thermocouples altogether. Pretend they were not there. Stop obsessing over small technical details and Look At The Facts: When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the surface was around 80 deg C. Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The surface was still 80 deg C. Whether the thermocouples were properly placed or in the wrong places altogether, all of them still showed elevated temperatures. This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went through the heat exchanger. Deal with that! Explain it. You know perfectly well that if no heat had been generated inside, every temperature sensor would have equaled ambient air or the tap water temperature soon after the power was turned off. You can see that from the decay curve after the power finally went off. There was a tremendous flow of water going through. What else could happen?!? A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. Forget all about the cooling water outlet thermocouple. Or, if you like, assume that it was placed as badly as it could be, so that it picked up the steam temperature and the air temperature more than the cooling water. Question: what temperature would it be 1 hour after the power is turned off? 25 deg C. What would it be 2 hours later? 25 deg C. Four hours later? 25 deg C. ALL THE OTHER SENSORS WOULD ALSO BE AT 25 deg C. They are not. Lewan would have put his hand on the reactor and find it is stone cold. He would hear no boiling. That is not what happened. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. Deal with the irrefutable first-principle physical evidence that you have in abundance, and stop fretting about details you do not have and will not get. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Here are some charts of possible interest. Thanks! Put the first one up there too, in jpg or pgn format. I don't understand why your renditions come out so small but the images are sharp so that's good. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Ultrasonics E-CATs
It also occurred to me that Nickel has a large magnetostrictive property, so if there's an alternating magnetic field in the reaction chamber, the nickel would be alternately expanding and contracting, so when it's expanded it could absorb some hydrogen, then when it contracts, that's squeezed. I think the same would happen if the electrostatic potential of the nickel was alternately changed from + to - high voltages. -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 6:55 PM To: hoyt.stea...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ultrasonics E-CATs On Oct 9, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. wrote: Ah, so now I have some insight from you mentioning frequencies: An ultrasonic transducer inside the E-Cat Reactor fludizes the nickel power bed and shakes loose reaction products and contaminates -- that's the trick! Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US http://HoytStearns.com Interesting idea. Could be. Could also be the RF heats a small thermal mass around the T2 thermocouple. Could also be that a sonic transducer is located close to the T2 thermocouple. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Re: Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
My graphs are now present at these URLs: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiGraph.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png The last one was updated to provide a better Y axis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was loaded and then unloaded, *the temperature would have to drop*! -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what loading or storing heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were stored in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about stored heat that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I wrote: You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. Meant: . . . and to make the insulated reactor surface HOT. The whole box, in fact. A 6 surfaces. You can't do that with a tiny amount of boiling water inside. That takes kilowatts of heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the Rossi camp? I only ask, because multiple references have been made to tons of cooling water to quench the reaction during H.A.D. In reality, the water flowing through the E-Cat (as the heat exchanger primary-side output) was measured twice: The first time, it was .91 grams/sec and the second time it was just shy of 2 g/s. If the E-Cat were indeed 14.2liters (14.2 kg), the entire contents of the E-Cat would take 2-4 hours to be completely replaced. All the while, a device that generates frequencies is still running. When it is turned off, the E-Cat temp begins declining. S many questions. Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: You seem to be impressed by that graph. If you look closely at the Ny Teknik results, the output at the heat exchanger doesn't seem to track the logged E-Cat temperatures in any meaningful way. It cannot track them. The eCat is boiling water at a given pressure, somewhat above 1 atm. The temperature cannot rise. If power increases, it will boil more water but the temperature will not rise. If you capture the steam from the pot on your stove in a heat exchanger, and you turn the gas light up, you will see no change in the boiling water temperature but the heat exchanger will capture more heat. There are minor fluctuations in the eCat steam temperature. I do not know what causes them. Perhaps hot water, or just instrument noise. Note also that the cooling water outlet thermocouple of attached to the outside of the pipe. A pipe is a large heat sink, and a way to average out or blur the heat signal. This has been talked to death here, but people have not noted that this is actually a recommended technique. It prevents rapid fluctuations and local hot spots in the water from affecting the thermocouple. In this case, it may be picking up heat from the steam pipe as well, so it may be a little too high, but it is still an excellent way to smooth out the signal and be sure that the heat is homogeneous and real. If it turns out to be a little high that has no impact on the overall conclusions. Note that it can only be a little too high. Not a lot. Compare the thermal mass of 10 kg/min of cooling water to 55 g/min of steam. Try it! Sparge 55 g of steam at 120 deg C in 10 kg of tap water and you will see that the final temperature is a lot closer to the tap water than the steam. Or just do it in your head. It takes roughly 34,000 calories to raise water from 25 deg C to steam at 120 deg C. Divide that into 10,000 g of water, and the water goes up about 3.4 deg C. For most of the test, the temperature rose 5 deg C. That's in the same ballpark. Maybe the actual temperature rise was only 3.4. So what? An hour after the power was cut it would have been 0.000 deg C, in the absence of anomalous heat. There may have been more than 55 g of steam per minute at times. No one kept track of the input water to the reactor. There was no need to. That is not relevant to the calorimetry, in this case. A quick example is between 19:03 and 19:22: In that time frame, E-Cat temp is steadily decreasing, hydrogen is purged, the frequency generator is turned off, and water flow increased (in the primary). But in the following 20 minutes, the output supposedly increases from 3.9 kW to 6.1 kW. That is a different issue. That is when the eCat is being degassed and the flow through the eCat is turned up, according to Lewan's log. Conditions are no longer stable and the calorimetry no longer works. Calorimetry requires steady state conditions, in which only the heat flux varies. When you open valves or change flow rates, conditions are not in steady state. It is difficult to model the system. Also, there may have been a burst of heat then. It is hard to judge. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the Rossi camp? I only ask, because multiple references have been made to tons of cooling water to quench the reaction during H.A.D. I do not know of any any such references. H.A.D. is quenched by degassing the cell and then subjecting it to a cold thermal shock. That's how you do with Pd-D anyway. I assume it is the same with Ni-H. Lewan indicates that's what they did. It does not take much water to give it a shock. The water capacity of the eCat reservoir does not matter. Just fill it up rapidly and keep overfilling it to cool down the cell in a hurry. S many questions. But many are not germane. Many are distractions. Many are the result of people asking so many questions about trees they fail to see the forest. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
The rapid overfilling was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s was for quenching) I've wanted to look at these numbers, and back-of-the-envelope, 381 watts would raise the water entering the E-Cat by 100 degrees (from 24 to 124 degrees C). An additional 2,056 watts is required for the phase-change, but, of course, we have no idea how much is boiling away. Greater than 2,437 watts would completely vaporize the input water. Of course, this means that the water in the E-Cat would be running dry and getting super-heated if there were prolonged excursions over 2.5 kW. But, of course, this didn't happen, did it? Hmmm. If my numbers are off, I apologize. I didn't recheck. Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the Rossi camp? I only ask, because multiple references have been made to tons of cooling water to quench the reaction during H.A.D. I do not know of any any such references. H.A.D. is quenched by degassing the cell and then subjecting it to a cold thermal shock. That's how you do with Pd-D anyway. I assume it is the same with Ni-H. Lewan indicates that's what they did. It does not take much water to give it a shock. The water capacity of the eCat reservoir does not matter. Just fill it up rapidly and keep overfilling it to cool down the cell in a hurry. S many questions. But many are not germane. Many are distractions. Many are the result of people asking so many questions about trees they fail to see the forest. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT - Sunday's Sermon: Peace-Of-MInd
I am happily amazed to see a wonderful confirmation of my own good intentions mirrored back to me within today's dream unfoldment within my own realm of evolving yet changeless awareness-being... A Zen saying: two thieves who happen to meet one another by chance at night in a wealthy target urban area, recognize one another instantly... I know two others within Vortex-L who allow nondual transformation. A few will read this, and some very carefully, so I will offer some catalytic comments: 1. we volunteer to be here in this daily mutual virtual reality simulation, which happens to have no effect whatsoever, regardless of how wonderful, tedious, painful, horrible, and frightful the play may vividly seem, on the single invulnerable infinite source... 2. the play does its best in every game (incarnation, including doing quite a large number of games, ah, simultaneously) to keep us really hooked on the virtual reality avatar (body brain image and its programming) within its personalized surrounding world game virtual environment, social and physical -- none of this is factual, real, reasonable, fair, understandable, controllable, predetermined, random, or causal... 3. besides fear and attachment, ambition and duty, curiosity and adventurousness, the almost infallible recipe for ensnaring souls is competition and conflict on all levels -- kill or be killed -- he, she, it versus me -- which always plays out as a competition to be a winning victim, who deserves, because of another's selfish attack, to attack back and win, no matter what -- we see this dramatized in our lives, and in virtually every media plot -- victim-perpetrator vs victim-perpetrator, actually perfect mirrors, colliding and fragmenting, seemingly forever... so we exclude the only thing there is, the single infinite awareness-being, as a source far beyond us, or who has abandoned us, or who is testing and judging and punishing us in the savage coliseum (colossal collision) of life, or who is insanely evil itself, or who has its own invincible equal perpetrator, Satan... 4. the stronger and more vivid the dream of separation from the only thing that really exists, inevitably creates a multidimensional restoring dynamic, called grace or Holy Spirit, that patiently acts in collaboration with our forever free will to become self-motivated to choose relaxation away from the dramas, and choices for benign patterns of life that allow actually unlimited restoration of free unfettered awareness-being... be a bystander, said Joel Sol Goldsmith... 5. it takes just a little effort to relax from effort... increasing peace and expanded awareness experience are potent motivators for relaxing more and more... the journal of a thousand miles starts with a first step... we are simply pivoting easily towards a benign source hyperinfinity that is helplessly welcoming, the fullness of our own identity, always already, all ways, most intimately and radically forever here, within us as identity, as we allow our ears to hear, our I's to see, our IS to be... 6. so, drawing on modern patterns of thought, we can pee within the ocean by saying, Each of us is already all of single entire unified creative fractal hyperinfinity... 7. even a single mirror without effort increases the coherence of any incoherent light that shines restlessly on it, via self-resonant stimulated emission -- as in the laser in 1960, two mirrors in exact parallel facing one another can produce intense self-coherence, effortlessly relaxing the over-abundance of highly excited, over energized states between them -- the source infinity operates without effort in a similar way, profoundly harmonizing every wrought up, hyper complex thought stream that starts to move back towards it -- and each such thought stream with the multidimensional fractal infinity likewise serves as an extension of this effortless harmonizing impersonal influence, Love... 8. we forget entirely the previous savagely entrancing video games of life in the coliseum -- starting to participate effortlessly in the joint harmonies of spontaneously coherent cocreation, the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, and as well consciously participating in multidimensional infinity realms of stupendous variety within the source fractal hyperinfinity... 9. ask for help in plain language... 10. welcome unplanned spontaneous change without limit... 11. pay close attention to as many streams of spiritual blah-blah as come along easily, while studying the reality of a subtle level of awareness within your ordinary mind that senses instantly what to trust and apply in your own infinitely unique unfoldment within the absolutely allowing, appreciative, fractal source, equally within you as well in everyone else without exception... 12. always remember to laugh... Within mutual mumbling, Rich Murray 505-819-7388 Skype audio, video rich.murray11 On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
A thermal imaging camera would have made this visually clear to people who were not present and could not feel heat. Maybe bring one or a few such cameras to the next test? Harry On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. Meant: . . . and to make the insulated reactor surface HOT. The whole box, in fact. A 6 surfaces. You can't do that with a tiny amount of boiling water inside. That takes kilowatts of heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
On Oct 9, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Here are some charts of possible interest. Thanks! Put the first one up there too, in jpg or pgn format. I don't understand why your renditions come out so small but the images are sharp so that's good. - Jed They are not small on my computer. It must be the way you are displaying them. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
