Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: All that work, and you didn't come up with an answer? On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: All that work, and you didn't come up with an answer? I think im not interested in this sort of challenge anymore. I've had enough of this sort of thing from Lomax, or whoever he really is. Does it really matter, though? This is the right question to me. Good question. Very good question. Objectively, for a technically savvy and an audience informed on this topic, it makes no difference. The audience is not savvy.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Hot Water Experiment and the Pointless Wrangle over Steam Dryness
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Also, it appears the the results of the hot water test were. OK. There's no evidence this. Yes, there is evidence for this [snip] Let's have some intellectual rigor here. Let us not confuse opinions with facts. Im all for it. Let me know when you get some.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. I agree. People seem to have no experience with teapots or steam cleaners. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. No he did not. He pointed that the water in the hose would condense the steam. He wrote: The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. Good work. This is what I recall Storm posted. His confused account is priceless. It was to me, in any case. It propelled my to ask what was really happening in the hose. Thanks Eddie!
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
It propelled my to ask 'what was really happening in the hose?' This in turn led me to ask about Lewan's remark in his April 19th report where he deduces that steam must reside in the chimney. This is now understandable as a false claim upon the phsical evidence. Thanks for the Leg work, Rothwell. It saved me tracking it down.
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
This is the same old run-around we get from Levi, including willful withholding of information. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Nope. Even if I did, it would prove nothing, since anyone can write a few lines of ascii text and claim they came from an e-mail. That is arguable at least if you use PGP or OpenPGP to sign your bytes. I think anyone that sends data on the public should use some kind of digital signature system, better if it is based on open standards. Let me state this a little more clearly. A little more categorically. I have uploaded 1,200 papers about cold fusion, including some by leading opponents claiming that cold fusion does not exist, and it is fraud. I have uploaded a long, detailed list of reasons to doubt that Rossi's results are real. (The Rossi hints.) I was one of the first one here to describe Rossi and his many personal foibles. I said clearly that these foibles make me nervous, and that I questioned his claims. Until the January demonstrations I was unwilling to believe these claims -- but of course I never disbelieve something without detailed knowledge and good reasons. I am skeptic in the original sense of the word. In short, I have demonstrated many times, in many ways, that I am willing to report the facts about cold fusion, even when those facts are bad for public relations. Even when they are setbacks that hurt the image of the field. I have demonstrated that I do not play favorites in disputes when it comes to uploading papers. I do not ever distort or hide technical facts. I have a proven track record. I have credibility. If Damon Craig does not trust me, and if he thinks I have deliberately uploaded fake data or exaggerated data into the news section, he can go to hell. I am not going to lift a finger or take any steps to reassure him that I am telling the truth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NET Says Little COP
It seems Krivit has Rossi-isms of his own. On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:45 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Terry sez: Our analysis shows a possible energy gain of one to two times. end excerpt I wonder who constitutes Our? Expanding on Terry's question: Is there a specific link that explains these claims in more detail, or are we going to just have to wait? All I see is advertisement. Coming attractions. Well... Rossi has his blog... and so has Krivit. Guess we can call it even. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. However you wish to hold fast the assurtion (am I correct in this?) that this does not happen, but that liquid water exits as suspended droplets and maybe a little sloshing---I don't know how you have exactly formulated your concept. Unless I am mistaken, I don't see that you have commented on the lack of controls to ensure that water does not overflow out of the exit, or that the 'reaction zone' runs dry under steady state operation. As your theory requires (if my asessment of your stance is correct) then water will not overflow but can run dry so that all steam evolution over the long term will be generated within the horizontal section of Rossi's gizmo. If so, upon what evidence would you claim it will run dry? On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Does it really matter, though?
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Still waiting. On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: This is the same old run-around we get from Levi, including willful withholding of information. You make it sound as if this were a police investigation and you are the District Attorney. Let me set you straight. 1. Levi and I are under no obligation to tell you anything. Many scientists keep secrets. 2. I have not withheld technical information, except information I consider incomplete or unreliable. Other information I have is none of your business. 3. If you don't like our information, don't read it. Read Krivit instead. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Hot Water Experiment and the Pointless Wrangle over Steam Dryness
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:39 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Greetings Vortex, IF my memory is correct there was a hot water test on the Rossi Device. Also, it appears the the results of the hot water test were. OK. There's no evidence this. So IF ...this is true, it seems to make all of the wrangling of the NERVOUS NELLIES of Cold Fusion-- Pointless. I am willing to wait and cut Rossi et al..slack. Gasp, ..cannot people wait. , You're not waiting You're posting here, telling everyone else to shut up. A quote from Homer Simpson at a fast food restaurant: 15 seconds..does that mean the I have to wait!! Sad ..all of the crapola generated by such discussions winds up on a google search..perhaps forever. Having ones research discussed on V_L..a SCARRY CONCEPT !!! Respectfully, Ron Kita...I hope that my memory is correct on the hot water test. Rest assured that I will get hit by crap - if it isn t.
Re: [Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
What further amazes me is the degree of disconnect between simple newtonian physics and everyday life experiences displayed by so many. Storms, if I recall, misundersood how steam made its way along a hose that also contained water. Isn't this highschool physics? On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It irritates me to no end. All the rational evidence we have been presented supports the claim that water spills through the outlet. No, that cannot be happening. As Storms pointed out, there would be no steam at the end of the hose. As I pointed out, the temperature would immediately fall below boiling. It would be obvious. - Jed
[Vo]:Wet Steam: Energy required disperse and suspend small droplets in the vapor state
In order to resolve the disagreement between the wet steam hyposesis and the water spill-though hypothesis it's reasonable to ask how much energy it takes to break water into droplets and lift these a few inches before sending them out the exit of the rossi device. The energy requires to increase the water surface area is given by the surface tension in the equation dW = gamma dA. W is the energy input , A is the area of a droplet and gamma is the surface tension. The surface tension of water is 59 mN/m (wikipedia on surface tension of water at 100 C). For a spherical droplet of radius r, W = 59 * 4 * pi * 10^-3 r^2. W is in Joules, and r is in meters. A good value to pick for the volume of liquid required over an hour is a little under 7 liters, or 6.75 liters. The remaining 0.25 liters leave the device as vapor. 7 liters/hr has been one value quoted. Each droplet carries off a volume, (4/3) pi r^3. The most error prone part of this exercise is determining the nominal water droplet size that will be lifted off the surface to exit the chimney. We may be able to establish and upper bound on droplet radius, r_u, where half the droplets of the radius r_u will exit the device, and half will drop back to the surface. It should be noted that smaller droplets carry more surface tension energy per unit mass than larger droplets. If an upper bound on r_u can be established, then a lower bound on the required energy can be established. The mean time it takes for a droplet to leave the surface and find its way to the exit is dependent upon the mean path it takes from the surface to the exit. This is dependent upon the height, h of the exit from the liquid surface, so any results obtained will also depend upon h. The time it takes a droplet to fall is a function of the radius of the droplet and the dynamic viscosity of steam, over microscopic dimensions in the order of the droplet radius. --- The gorrilla in the room that is hard to ignore is the energy efficiency. How efficient is the process of taking water from a surface, breaking off tiny bits of it, and suspending it long enough to leave through an exit at height h. This process is initiated by the energy imparted to vaporized water rising through the liquid, surfacing, and breaking off small pieces in the process. This part of the analysis at first sight seems intractable without emperical evidence. However, steam bubbles will have a terminal velocity in rising through a liquid. If their nominal size could be known, an upper bound on their energy would be known. This would place an upper bound on available surface tension energy. Area increase is proportional to surface tension energy. But we care about the volume of water generated, not the area generated. So the upper bound on the suspendable volume of water also depends upon nominal droplet size.
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Lewan still believes this stuff, hu? On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig wrote: Can you post it here, verbatum? Not the entire email, if you like, just the data. Nope. Even if I did, it would prove nothing, since anyone can write a few lines of ascii text and claim they came from an e-mail. You need to stop harping on this. Take it or leave it. The same data appeared in NyTeknik. I think I can speak for Lewan in saying that neither of us cares whether you believe us or not. As they say in Japanese: iikagen ni shinasai. (Actually in this case it would be iikagen ni shiro.) Lewan and I might be lying to you. Rossi and Levi might be lying to us. Believing this calls for a measure of faith in the whole gang of us. If you don't have that faith, too bad. There is no way I can give you more reassurance even if I wanted to, and I don't. I suggest you look at the totality of the evidence, including all those other Ni cold fusion experiments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Hi Jed. I understand you passed along some information from an insider at Levi's second experiment and sent it to along to be included in an article here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm Some folks saying you skewed the data. I'm not saying you did. And I'm not saying you didn't. It's just hard to tell one way or the other. If you still have this data in some physical form you could scan or reproduce, it would go a long way in clearing this up. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: All true. Consider that Milli is somehow considered alternative, not always representative of the family. But yes when you talk about oil business in Italy their name is the first on the list. Well, I hope they take an active interest in cold fusion, and invest in it. I have long felt that the opposition to cold fusion is weaker than it seems. It is a mile wide and an inch deep as the expression goes. I felt that if we could just reach out to people, and break through the noise and distortions in the mass media, we could get more support. Support is likely to lead to funding. I realize there are powerful people opposed to the research, especially in places such as the DoE. Opponents have often torpedoed funding. They stopped the publication of the ACS book, which was later published here: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf People such as Robert Park have often pulled strings to prevent funding. Others in the establishment say nothing but they tacitly approve of his shenanigans. As Ed Storms says, Park would have no influence if powerful people did not agree with him. He is not the head of an agency. The only thing he has is influence in high places. There is nothing untoward about that. I wish I had such influence! The point is, this demonstrates that opposition to cold fusion is widespread. It is a mile wide, as I said. I have not conducted a public opinion poll of scientists but my impression is that the skeptics are correct in saying that the claims are largely disbelieved in the mainstream scientific community. (Wikipedia) This is because most people in the mainstream scientific community know nothing about the subject, so their views do not count. In any other academic debate no one would dispute this. No one would say, for example: Most American literary critics do not speak Japanese and have never heard of Natsume Soseki so his works have no literary value. They would say the people who know nothing about Japanese literature have no basis to discuss any aspect of it. The editors at most major journals despise cold fusion. It makes them angry, because they are convinced it is a fraud and a waste of funding. The plasma fusion people hate it the most. These opponents are all academic scientists. They despise cold fusion because they are certain it is theoretically impossible. Not because they fear it might be true! They are not such fools they would oppose something they think might be true. I do not know of anyone who opposes cold fusion because they have a vested interest in oil, solar energy, or some other source of energy. So I am not surprised that Milli Moratti is interested. If cold fusion starts to succeed in a big way, then I expect many people in the fossil fuel industry will begin to fear it. At present, I doubt any of them do. But they do not confide in me so I wouldn't know. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Does your psychoanalyst know what you are doing on the internet? Are you currently institutionalized? Do you still see you analyst? I hope so. If you are not seeing your analyst I think you should. Because you should tell him how it makes you feel to mimic him when he whispers into his littlte recorder. You should tell him how it makes you feel more powerful. This is an antisocial behavior you need to correct. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Try to keep up. Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless statements plus what's been copied from before. However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis: 2 * 2 = 4
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
I saw the numbers at lenr-canr. How did you get them. Was it on a scrap of paper? On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I understand you passed along some information from an insider at Levi's second experiment and sent it to along to be included in an article here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm Some folks saying you skewed the data. I'm not saying you did. And I'm not saying you didn't. Of course you are saying that I did! You just said it. And it is a stupid thing to say. The numbers at LENR-CANR are there for everyone to see, including Rossi and Levi. There is a link to that page in Rossi's blog. As you know he filters and approves of every posting. He and the others would have told me if the numbers are wrong. You can compare my numbers to the NyTeknik report. They are pretty much the same. The tap water temperature is different. I do not know which is right. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:ColdFusionNow reports support for research from influential person in Italy
Can you post it here, verbatum? Not the entire email, if you like, just the data. On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig wrote: I saw the numbers at lenr-canr. How did you get them. Was it on a scrap of paper? By e-mail. Also, looking through my e-mail I see that I sent them off to Rossi and others, and they confirmed them. Plus you can compare them to the Nyteknik articles, as I said. The people doing the tests gave the same info to Lewan and to me. Whether these numbers are correct or not I cannot say, but I have no reason to doubt them. Neither do you. They are in reasonable agreement with the earlier steam tests for the same device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Keep going Lomax. You are in over your head, and far out classed. When I arrived at Vortex-L you were stumbling around in the dark stuck on a humidity meter. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Try to keep up. Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless statements plus what's been copied from before. However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis: 2 * 2 = 4
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy. In each case a volume is examined and by mass and by volume are both unitless values. by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3. In no manner will there ever be 97% by mass steam in Rossi's device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets. On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.com de**cra...@gmail.com decra...@gmail.com wrote: The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? I'll answer that, I've never seen anything floating in any kind of steam, except for water droplets, which I see as mist. I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with lower density than that. Joshua is very correct, here, high percentage steam, by mass, is still far lower percentage by volume, and therefore remains low-density. Arrggh. I just realized that I've seen *very* high percentage steam, and, yes, things float in it. It's called boiling water, and it contains bubbles of water vapor. With continuous agitation, one could make any percentage steam one wants. When it becomes dense enough, it will merely fall quickly to the bottom of any vessel, leaving dryer steam at the top and less foamy water at the bottom As to plausibility for the e-cat, extremely high percentage liquid by mass seems implausible to me except as a fraud mode. Could be, and probably isn't.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Corrections: by mass units: int(m dX^3) / int(MdX^3) = unitless by volume units: int(dx^3)/int(dX^3) = unitless We can't just drop the integral out of the units equations and examine the characteristic vectors. This would be a little pretensious dividing a tensor by a tensor to get a scalar. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
I've added an energy balance report under the Files section of the group titled Rossi Does the Math - Then I do the Math Criticisms, anyone? On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: No comments?? If you don't know where to find the report by Dr. G. Levi look here, http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/join This Yahoo group has become my own personal blog and rant about this fiasco. I have included first-hand reports and video evidence under the Files and Links selections appearing in the left-hand column as have seen fit to include. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Make that TEST#2. Notice the divot in the temperature curve. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's a very strange method of control. Damed straight it is. Something appears very wrong. The evidence shows-up in Levi's original report (test #1) showing the device operating in the first quadrant where an increase in input heat energy generates an increase in reaction heat. A decrease in input energy has resulted in a decrease in reation rate. Look at the dimp in the temperature in the second experiment. Levi is a sloppy physicist, but not so sloppy we won't eventially decipher his garbled report. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: http://evworld.com/press/e-**cat_cutaway.jpghttp://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg Two heaters. The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of the external heater that's puzzling. How authoritative is that drawing? It's from Passerini, and is labeled speculative rendering. This is no source at all for the structure. The external heater would rapidly raise the coolant to boiling, thus expediting turn-on. It's a very strange method of control.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Try to keep up. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy. Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing steam quality has its value. In each case a volume is examined and by mass and by volume are both unitless values. by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3. That's right. It's expressed as a percentage. If we want to know vaporization rate, how much water was vaporized to make the steam, we presumably want to know that in mass units. Strictly speaking, we want to know how much was *unvaporized. That's what steam quality percentages tell us, if it's mass percent. However, suppose we want to know how the steam will look. Suppose we have a measure of volume in some way. Then we'll be interested in mass by volume. Steve Krivit went off on a tangent with this. Everyone had been talking mass. But there were some assumptions being made, that high wetness steam would somehow look very different from low wetness. That doesn't happen until *very high mass percentage* In no manner will there ever be 97% by mass steam in Rossi's device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets. That's not to be established by mere assertion. And it's not established by giving us a google search that gives over 8 million hits. And just how large are the droplets? Nothing says they are teenie weenie. In practice, there is no sharp boundary between wet steam and any other biphase mixture, i.e, some level of wet steam above some level of liquid. Consider the liquid at the bottom a really big droplet. Wet steam does usually refer to steam where the droplets are suspended, but that's a generally unstable situation, I think, those droplets will eventually grow and condense unless flow conditions keep breaking them up. Look, Damon, you screwed up. Don't keep compounding it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yeah, your right. What was I thinking?? My boyancy argument is just wrong. Thank's for straightening that out to me. (And, darn it, don't I look stupid.) As such, I can't see any way to solidly determine if the bulk of the liquid water exits the device suspended in vapor, or simply pours out the spout. Any ideas? On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. *Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.*
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Joshua Cude, and other astute observerse:
We could model an exothermic reactions with unlimited (over the course of
the experiment) heat generation as a simple bump function.
A simple bump function for this is p = p_o / {1+[(T-T_o)/T_w]^2 }.
At T=T_o the power, p is maximal.
T_w is the half-width of the bump function. When T-T_o=T_w the power
evolution is halved.
On the rising side of the bump an increase in temperature will result in an
increased evolution of energy. This part of the curve could have
real-time-control problems due to positive feedback such as to make control
nonexistent. More heat evolution results in a higher temperature, and a
higher temperature evolves more heat increasing the temperature, etc, etc.
On the falling side of the bump function, increasing the temperature
decreases the evolved energy and the process is essentially self regulating
and the control problem vanish. It is self regulating.
If there is evidence from the reports that indicate that the alleged
reaction would be operating on the divergent, rising side of the curve, a
disproof of the assertion of thermal energy gains in the order of 5:1, 6:1,
8:1, or better might be made.
There seems to be a maximum dE/dT slope after which there is no possibility
of reducing the reaction rate, but where it will continue to increase when
the control input goes to zero. E is the evolved energy, and T is the
temperature for any given reactant volume.
However there may be an interesting problem with this sort of disproof upon
spatial dimensional rescaling:-
Control heat energy is introduced over an area. Total heat evolution is a
function of volume.
In other words, there may be a disproof for a reactor of typical dimension
X, that is not a disproof for a reactor of typical dimension 10X (or 1/10th
X.)
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip...Stuff said about a sustained exothermic reaction]
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Very well said. There is no obvective measuring stick to measure burden. I was attempting to reveil the hidden hypocracy in the burden of proof argument. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Essentially, burden is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from human conventions. There is no burden meter.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
No comments?? If you don't know where to find the report by Dr. G. Levi look here, http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/join This Yahoo group has become my own personal blog and rant about this fiasco. I have included first-hand reports and video evidence under the Files and Links selections appearing in the left-hand column as have seen fit to include. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Make that TEST#2. Notice the divot in the temperature curve. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's a very strange method of control. Damed straight it is. Something appears very wrong. The evidence shows-up in Levi's original report (test #1) showing the device operating in the first quadrant where an increase in input heat energy generates an increase in reaction heat. A decrease in input energy has resulted in a decrease in reation rate. Look at the dimp in the temperature in the second experiment. Levi is a sloppy physicist, but not so sloppy we won't eventially decipher his garbled report. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: http://evworld.com/press/e-**cat_cutaway.jpghttp://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg Two heaters. The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of the external heater that's puzzling. How authoritative is that drawing? It's from Passerini, and is labeled speculative rendering. This is no source at all for the structure. The external heater would rapidly raise the coolant to boiling, thus expediting turn-on. It's a very strange method of control.
Re: [Vo]:PESN reports that Rossi 1 MW reactor may be self-sustaining
The energy gain is a calculated value, not a measured value. Do you have any idea whatsoever how these values are calculated or are you just spewing? On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: See new article. There are some statements in this article I have not heard, and some stuff I doubt is true: http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501874_Rossis_Self_Sustaining_One_Megawatt_Reactor/ I think it is more likely that it will require minimal input energy. The input to output ratio will be high. People here have described the ratio as 1:6. That it may be in many recent tests, but it has been much higher in some other tests, and it has been infinite in heat after death. There is no reason whatever to think it is stuck at 1:6. That is just a matter of engineering.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi ignores RD question on his blog
Yeah, there's a wholeshitload of _something_ --physicists reporting outside their domain of expertise and making stipid statements and getting fools like me to go along for too long. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Sebastian F li...@sebastianfrehmel.dewrote: Being a scientist (not a physicist, though) I approached the E-Cat story with a fair amount of skepticism and have come to the conclusion that there at least has to be _something_.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
There is no auxilary heater, whater that means--forgetaboutit. In all editions of the device we have had available to view, rendered naked, Mr. Rossi has a band heater to heat the water within the water jacket. Does everyone know what a band heater is? If not, go Google. Mr. Rossi has also incorporated a cartridge heater penatrating into the reaction chamber. This is the primary heating element, and does not deserve the designation auxilary. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Perhaps auxiliary heater is for preheating inlet water so that the temperature gradient of water is smoother. This would help to maintain more constant temperature in the core and thus increase controllability, as heat energy from reactor core is used for making steam at constant temperature, but not for warming water. Finding equilibrium might be more difficult if there is extra variable involved with warming water. This could explain why small reactors do not reduce input power when reaction starts, because it is just diverted to auxiliary heater. With large E-Cats, there presumably was not auxiliary heater, but when reactor was started, input power was just reduced. But as power output was so large, warming little water did not make much of difference. As Rossi was in hurry to build working MW-plant for public demo purpose, this kind of short cut in design would make sense, because control issues could be solved later. And as Rossi and Stremmenos now confirmed, it is now solved. —Jouni On Jul 22, 2011 3:37 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
It's a very strange method of control. Damed straight it is. Something appears very wrong. The evidence shows-up in Levi's original report (test #1) showing the device operating in the first quadrant where an increase in input heat energy generates an increase in reaction heat. A decrease in input energy has resulted in a decrease in reation rate. Look at the dimp in the temperature in the second experiment. Levi is a sloppy physicist, but not so sloppy we won't eventially decipher his garbled report. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: http://evworld.com/press/e-**cat_cutaway.jpghttp://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg Two heaters. The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of the external heater that's puzzling. How authoritative is that drawing? It's from Passerini, and is labeled speculative rendering. This is no source at all for the structure. The external heater would rapidly raise the coolant to boiling, thus expediting turn-on. It's a very strange method of control.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
Make that TEST#2. Notice the divot in the temperature curve. On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's a very strange method of control. Damed straight it is. Something appears very wrong. The evidence shows-up in Levi's original report (test #1) showing the device operating in the first quadrant where an increase in input heat energy generates an increase in reaction heat. A decrease in input energy has resulted in a decrease in reation rate. Look at the dimp in the temperature in the second experiment. Levi is a sloppy physicist, but not so sloppy we won't eventially decipher his garbled report. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:27 AM 7/22/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: http://evworld.com/press/e-**cat_cutaway.jpghttp://evworld.com/press/e-cat_cutaway.jpg Two heaters. The internal heater makes sense for bringing up the Ni-H to operating temperatures (and, presumably, keep it there). It's the purpose of the external heater that's puzzling. How authoritative is that drawing? It's from Passerini, and is labeled speculative rendering. This is no source at all for the structure. The external heater would rapidly raise the coolant to boiling, thus expediting turn-on. It's a very strange method of control.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yeah, maybe i'm confused. When I get my brain back I'll be capable of thinking about it--maybe. the fucks im working for are working me to death. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
No shit Shurlock. I can project as well as you. What's your game? If you don't know, I will tell you. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:49 PM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: I find your statements bewildering. Projection of internal state onto external reality.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Josh: I don't think you read what I wrote. Maybe I didn't get it, Josh. I'll try to get back. My poor brain is too fried at this time. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:30 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Essen and Kullander: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control. This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation. Give me a break, he's just reporting there, the claimed function of a part of the device. No. This is the first unobjective statement within the report presenting hearsay as fact. It's simply poor science probably aggrivated by the fact that Rossi payed for their junket to Italy. However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L. By the way, that claim of function has been ridiculed. How can a heater be used as a safety if heat evolution gets out of control. But EK were probably just reporting the claim here. After all, this part of their report was obviously not based on an observation of what happens during runaway! They seem to have garbbled something they were told. Personally, if I saw signs of runaway with this thing, I'd look for the nearest exit or object that might shield me from shrapnel. The auxiliary electric heater is used, it appears to be claimed, to control the temperature of the reaction chamber when it is operating below runaway temperature (i.e, self-maintaining temperature or anything above it). By requiring this extra heat, there is then some control of the reaction. Rossi also has added cooling power to shut the reaction down, apparently. Looks like Defkalion may be planning on using hydrogen pressure for control. Sometime this weekend I may have something closer to a definative answer on: The control of a large amout of exothermic reaction by a smaller quantity of heat and if the over unity gain claimed by Rossi is physically feasible. My aging version of MathCad has not made the job easy. However, manually changing pressure and water flow is not real time process control. These are not control methods but would be safety measures. It's all bogus anyway.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime having this anywhere near this liquid water content. Keep the eyes open to what everyday experience teaches us about the physical world we live in. As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness, but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way. The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher along in the device toward the exit. For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. I don't either. Do have a sound argument that says it can't happen? I don't. I'm looking for it. A good of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction is the ignition of gun powder. Taking away the match will not stop the reaction. A counter example is the evolution of tunsten vapor from a heated light bulb fiaiment. If, somewhere in the filament is a length that is two or three percent smaller in diameter than the rest, the filament will eventually burn through at this spot. The narrow section runs a little hotter. Because it runs a little hotter, the tungsten in this section vaporizes a little faster than the rest of the filament. This causes it's resistance to decrease faster than the rest of the wire. This in turn causes it to vaporize faster, so there is positive feedback. Eventually the tiny difference in diameter will cause the filament to fail at this point. And this is how most light bulbs eventually fail. But it's easy to control. We just turn off the light switch and we've turned off the run-away reaction. In the same way a heat source that stimulates an small exothermic reaction can be controlled if it requires a large source of heat. SoHow is this quantified, and does it disclude the claims made of Rossi's gadget as non physical? To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. Yes, another good example of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I don't know how to visually estimate the wetness of steam. Why do you think it's less than 5%? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Damon, This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Do you have an online reference or text reference to the 1-2% value for typical wetness of steam? I would like to have a reference source. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of 1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is lots of spilling and water droplet density is high. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
the burden of proof lies with the claimant it does? 1) prove it. 2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to me to prove it? 3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You're just guessing. The pressure at 30 cm of water is enough to raise the bp by about a degree. The chimney height can explain it.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Will I be misunderstood if I don't say this was said with sarcasm and exageration? Actually, the best head of water you can get require both the device is and exit are on the roof. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion). Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago: In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of the output as evidence of an exothermic reaction. This bold and bewildering deduction lead many of us to believe he possessed inside information he was not at the time sharing. At the same he did not share information, if he had it, as to how the input heat may have been varied over time. A pot of water placed on the stove undergoes three phases: warming, simmering and boiling. The temperature curve reported could be described by more common physics in the following scenario. We can identify at least 4 different modes of heating in the Rossi device with different effects on a thermometer measuring liquid in the chimney. 1) The device is divided into two zones; vertical and horizontal. The internal chamber within the horizontal zone restricts water flow between these two zones. An internal heater within the “reaction” chamber and an external band heater supply heat to the horizontal zone. 2) As heat is initially supplied, there is a relatively small rate of temperature increase in the vertical zone through convection of water, and conduction through the metal parts. 3) During a second phase, in which the average water temperature is below the boiling point, the water simmers on the heated surfaces. The agitation provided by simmering increases the rate of convective heat transfer from the horizontal to the vertical zone. dT/dt increase. 4) During a third phase, after the water temperature in the horizontal member reaches its boiling point, a steam bubble collects in the bulb of the horizontal member. Hot water is forced into the vertical member, and dT/dt of the vertical zone increases once again. The steam bubble quickly overflows and steam enters into the vertical column. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:27 AM 7/17/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of exothermic activity? It's unclear what Damon is responding to. However, a change in the slope of a heating curve will generally indicate some variation in condition, such as changed input power or locally generated power. It's a rough calorimetric technique, to determine what slope corresponds to what immediate power. If it were known that input power was constant, a sudden change in slope could indicate additional power being applied. It is thus evidence. But it is certainly not proof, because that shift could be a result of something else, such as a suddenly decreased coolant flow rate. Remarkably, the Kullander and Essen data shows this phenomenon, with apparent power doubling or tripling as the coolant temperature passed sixty degrees. This apparent power is much lower than what was asserted from overall heating on the assumption of full vaporization, but no clear evidence for full vaporization was shown. The Lewan demo shows no such clear increased heating phenomenon, so that data is even more puzzling.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
OK. Excuse my caution. I am simply not comfortable helping witch hunters hunt witches. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it. Then you turn up using the same phrase. I've been using it for some time. I'm not looking back, though. What I see is that the issue of steam quality successfully distracted a lot of people. Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story wide open. Are you helping him? If he reads my stuff, he might get some ideas that will help him, but historically, he's been pretty upset by what I write, since I've criticised his journalism. Long story. Krivit does what he does, he's good at certain things, not so good at others. Most of us are like that, right?
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
Essen and Kullander: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control. This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation. However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L. Rossi's goofball stuff is being exposed right here and now, and there is really nothing you can do to stop us from finding and writing about more irregularities. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply acknowledge them and move on. Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did.
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Essen and Kullander: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control. This is the first mistake: presumption presented as fact. The presumption is that there exists in the device anomalous heat generation. However, I'm not interested in picking these poor guys apart piece by piece, combing every sentence they've written to leverage ridicule. They're going to have enough of this soon enough. They probably already know if they're monitoring anything coming out of Vortex-L. Rossi's goofball stuff is being exposed right here and now, and there is really nothing you can do to stop us from finding and writing about more irregularities. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 03:26 PM 7/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply acknowledge them and move on. Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did.
Re: [Vo]: Prof. Kullander now an Ecat critic?
Excuse me Lomax. My last email was directed to Rothwell not yourself. This email interface is not the best mode of communication.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding about 6. Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically reasonable to either of you?
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I find your statements bewildering. . On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: There are some pretty sloppy statements. I know that Damon is being sarcastic, but that sarcasm is based on certain understandings. Let's be more careful, everyone! At 05:41 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The greatest souce of pressure is the water standing in the hose. Probably not, but it's significant. First of all, what are the starting conditions? Before the heating is started, the hose is full of water, that water is flowing. From the Krivit video, perhaps from others, the elevation of the hose above the floor can be estimated. (For those who haven't looked, the hose is not in a sink, it is in a sink drain, i.e, a hole in the wall where a sink might be installed. You are wrong. If you can point to another source of backpressure, please do so. In one demonstration the hose ran into a sink in another room in my recollection. If the hose end loops up 12 inches to dump into a bucket. There is a head of water was the hose decends to the floor from the device of 12 inches. The steam must push down upon this head to escape raising the pressure in the device. That is, to put it mildly, pucky. The elevation of the hose, to this level, is irrelevant. The weight of the water in the hose will reduce the pressure, were it not for the flow. Steam will *allow* increased flow of the water. The pressure in the chamber will be *reduced* by the water head from the difference in elevation between the chamber and the water level in the bucket. With no boiling, there is a contrary effect, increased pressure caused by the pump with its fixed flow rate. That flow rate through the outlet orifice will increase the pressure in the chamber. Only a little, I think. The elevation is relevant to determining the back pressure. Evolving steam must push down on this head whether the water is flowing or not. See the Lewan video. In the sound track you can hear the steam rising through the water column when the camera focuses on the hose exit. It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here! There is an additional head from the submurged hose end in the bucket. Add these to the submersion depth of the thermocouple and there's plenty of added pressure to acount for 100.4 C, or whatever it takes to cause general confusion. Seems confusion can be caused with very little effort, or maybe even no effort at all. If it rises 30 to dump into a sink, think of all the free energy that's gotta be there because the steam looks so much hotter. If the exit is moved to the roof, you get even more free energy. There isn't any sink. The hose in the Krivit demo goes down to the floor, then rises to a sink drain. That's maybe 35 cm from the floor, a very rough estimate. Since the sink drain is below the table where the E-Cat is sitting, this will reduce the pressure in the E-Cat, not increase it. Yes, in the Krivit video it runs into a sink. In the Levan video a blue bucket. Not all these demos were in the same place that I am aware of. No, what increases the pressure in the E-Cat would be two sources: pump pressure and steam pressure. Yes, steam pressure. This is elementry physics. It can't be all that hard to figure out. Stop the pump, and with no boiling, the pressure in an E-Cat with an outlet hose full of water, leading down to a drain pipe, will be below atmospheric pressure, by the relevant head. If you were to open the steam escape valve at that point, air would flow in, not out. What does leading down to a drain pipe mean? If it leads down, any water drains out of the hose and the pressure in the water jacket will be at ambient pressure.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I was under the presumption that there a few here that understood elementry physics. Good Grief! On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I would think that anyone seriously investigating should have the reports and video evidence closer at hand. It's embedded in Lewans Ny Teknik article. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece It would be nice if someone would post the link, if they have it handy when they are writing here!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get? I don't know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of these will be fround in terms of droplet size at a level above the surface is a duanting theoretical task. I think it's best to find emperical answers with a bit of suspended material such as the styrofoam I suggested, and you-all seem to reject as meaningless. A little imagination could be in order. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You've [Lomax] said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Your idea of a filled chimney with water overflowing makes no sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
If all you had were small bits of various density styrofoam and various means to boil water, I think some of you could eventially come up with the answer to: how wet does steam get under conditions X? On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get? I don't know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of these will be fround in terms of droplet size at a level above the surface is a duanting theoretical task. I think it's best to find emperical answers with a bit of suspended material such as the styrofoam I suggested, and you-all seem to reject as meaningless. A little imagination could be in order. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You've [Lomax] said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Your idea of a filled chimney with water overflowing makes no sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit could be correct on Rossi
Nope On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 05:57 AM 7/18/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Tell me Lomax. Would you destroy the reputations of others to advance your own. I risk my reputation with everything I write, since I'm a known person. And you, Damon Craig? Care to tell us who you are? Which Damon Craig?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
I hope your piping is better than class 150, and your fittings better than schedule 40. Preferably you would want to use class 3000 pipe and schedule 80 fittings of 316/316L stainless steal. The strength of stainless steal decreases rapidly with an increase in temperature. I imaging, the same is true of steel. There's no convincing evidence that Rossi's pressure vessels operate above ~110 C nominal. Therefore you could be running with materials more weakened by temperature than Rossi's. You might google stainless steel yield strength vs temp if interested. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:13 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, I have been trying to replicate the E-Cat transmutations in an open-source kind of way and I'm ready to start asking the community for suggestions on how to proceed. I have two identical reactors that I can pressurize with hydrogen up to 20 bars and heat to 300C. I can measure, graph, and log the temperatures of the two units as they are heated in parallel. One unit contains Ni powder, the other sand, and I am trying to replicate the transmutation of the nickel. (My whole setup is $2K) - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
It took me nearly 2 months to reverse enineer it, and come up with a parts list. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It took Rossi 15 years and hundreds of tests to figure out how to make this work. Highly experienced experts are trying to replicate him, with some success, but nowhere near the high input to output ratios he reports. I do not think there is enough information publicly available to support an open source replication because it is not open source. It is secret. That is unfortunate but it is mainly the fault of the Patent Office. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax. Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water vapor? Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look stupid, doesn't it? Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it will float over a boiling pot of water. Rossi's steam is very dry by the wet-steam-argument standards. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I agree. I hadn't considered the submersion depth of the probe for additional pressure head. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:20 PM 7/18/2011, P.J van Noorden wrote: To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6 cm and 20.4cm water and this is about the hight of the chimney. The difference in temperature of the steam can ofcourse only be explained if the chimney of the ecat is almost completely filled with water. This is ofcourse the big question. That's brilliant, actually.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it. Then you turn up using the same phrase. Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story wide open. Are you helping him? On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview -Dynamic Casimir Effect
That's fairly amazing, as quantum theory says nothing about particles, flittering, flitting or otherwise. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Abstract: One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence...
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview -Dynamic Casimir Effect
Sorry about that. I'm sure the remainder of the article could be interesting. Simply put, my objection is the the inclusion of particles rather than quanitzed fields in this abstract statement. Particles, as existent things, are an addition to quantum mechanics, not part of it. Nothing in quantum mechanics saysmatter 'n stuff comes in particles, unless we are talking about the old quantum mechanics of Niels Bohr or very speculative interpretations of quantum mechanics such as Bohmian Mechanics. The popular science culture always wants to talk about particles like little billiard balls because they are so much easier to understand. What particles? Well, they are an easy cruch for laymen rather than continuous fields. If you want an alternate perspecive to particles, see the Feynman Auckland lectures, presented in a manner accessible to laymen. So, nevermind. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: That's fairly amazing, as quantum theory says nothing about particles, flittering, flitting or otherwise. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Abstract: One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence...
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
Yes it is. How would you explain it? On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The Lewan demo shows no such clear increased heating phenomenon, so that data is even more puzzling.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit could be correct on Rossi
I disagree. There is a lot that can be known beyond which has been commonly discussed here as pertains to Rossi's device in its various incantations. A few Phd's entered the scene with cold feet and limited access, obtained incomplete data then reported their impressions months ago. In these interviening months there has been time to pick-and-needle at these reports for information. Many photographs and videos supply additonal information. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for Rossi, there is really nothing that will be known until October, and it is already looking like he is hedging on the timetable. He has done everyone involved a disservice by calling Julian Brown a clown.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
did you write this, Jed? What is a sparge test in this context? On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly right. Rossi said this, very clearly. When he invited me, I said I wanted to do confirmation test, where I measure temperatures independently and do a sparge test with a short hose. He said no, he does not want any more tests until after the 1 MW demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
Yeap. This is what I expect transpire:- A 1 MW unit will be qualified in the very same way the individual devices have been qualified: volumetric input of liquid water will be compared to electric power input. It should be a marketing success. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Dear people, How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with 600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to 1MW to emulate the big e-cat. If this is a scam, we won't have the means to know that easily in October with the presentation of the big e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit could be correct on Rossi
Tell me Lomax. Would you destroy the reputations of others to advance your own. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
How do you take a 30 minute glance? On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
Uhhh. I give up. How is a kink in a thermal curve evidence of exothermic activity? On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 06:38 PM 7/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 03:21 PM 7/15/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: A new interview to Sergio Focardi has been posted on Passerini's blog here: http://22passi.blogspot.com/**2011/07/intervista-di-focardi-** energylab.htmlhttp://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervista-di-focardi-energylab.html Google translated short link: http://goo.gl/nxcMG It contains some interesting bits of information. I recommend reading it. It confirms the 60-70C ignition temperature, which we suspected from the temperature plots. But that's bad news for Kim's Bose-Einstein condensate paper, which suggests that the ignition temp might be the Curie point -- 348C U... Focardi might just be discussing the behavior of the E-Cat, without disclosing the temperature of the reaction chamber. My understanding was that it was much higher, maybe around 450 C. But what was that based on? I'd have to look back, it might just have been some assumption. If there is low thermal resistance (for some weird reason, I've used the term thermal inertia, someone point out the error) between the reaction chamber and the cooling chamber, then we have a problem, possibly, with scale-up to higher operating temperatures, as has been assumed, and announced by DGE.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
trust. The point was to examine the species to which the Essen and Kullander report belongs. Is it informal or objective? On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Trust but verify. T
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
You're right. Someone of the group of seven attendees had placed an ammeter on the line. The line voltage is either assumed or measured to be 220 VAC. (Levan reports ~236 VAC.) At least once, the ammeter was read. The quoted phrase referring to start up: The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. However:- 1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported. 2) No mention is made of an internal heater that would draw additional power. 3) On all photographs of the device when made visible, I recall two fiber glass insulated wires protruding from the butt end of the thing (one often white and one backwhite stripped.) These could lead to two likely devices: a thermocouple or a heating element. The blue control box has two manually settable control channels visible on the operator side. From this data is likely implied that the edition of the device in question had an internal heater in addition to the external band heater. 4) The calculated energy_output vs. energy_input of Essen and Kullander is about double that reported by either Levan and Levi at around eight to one. On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig wrote: Check out their report. They report the power input as 500 Watts in their energy calculations. Why? That is incorrect. The report says: The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. The electric heater thus provides a power of 300 watts to the nickel-hydrogen mixture. This corresponds also to the nominal power of the resistor. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**EssenHexperiment.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf Please get your facts straight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration
Why did you choose the words red herring for a discriptive? Who uses these? On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: In many discussions of this, it was assumed that the only issue was steam quality. If we were to assume very wet steam, say 20% by weight, we would then be able to infer excess heat, assuming complete boiling (only merely wet), of about 3.6 kW. This is why some think steam quality is a red herring.
Re: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: What the heck are you talking about?!? Of course it delivers more than you put into it. This is a peculiar thing to say. What a pecular thing so say. I've read closely the Levi, Kullander and Essen, and Levan reports and haven't found convincing evidence of exothermic behavior. Have you read these reports? If so, where do you find the evidence? What possible market would it have? Folks like you. Of course he knows the difference! He is an engineer, and a self-made millionaire from his previous energy-related inventions. I'm sure Mr Rossi is an engineer of a sort, etc. How is this relevant psychology?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Hold on boys. Essen and Kullander didn't do any testing. They were passive observers. They brought no equipment. They also reported a lot of things told to them by Rossi as fact, of which they had no direct evidence. Check out their report. They report the power input as 500 Watts in their energy calculations. Why? Because the band heater was imprinted with 500W. Their report did not consist of a carefully presented set of facts and statements, but inferences and and heresay. Their subsequent statements in interview were just as informal and imaginative. On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 06:26 PM 7/12/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: [KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from Uppsala University, and Hanno Essén, with the Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed Rossi’s claimed technology in a news story on Feb. 23, 2011, before they had seen or inspected the device. Essén is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Association, a nonprofit education group well-known in academic circles. Krivit's statement is astounding. It is either terribly confused or an outrageous lie. What could he be thinking?!? Krivit thinks? Seriously, Krivit is just doing what Krivit has long done: do some kind of investigation, form an opinion, then report from the perspective of that opinion. It can then affect his wording and what he says in ways that he might not notice, since he believes his own story. Jed, it's not terribly confused, it is just a possible error. Lots of people have made mistakes about Rossi. It's a set-up for making mistakes! Nevertheless, this report from Kullander and Essen could be interpreted quite in line with what Krivit is claiming: http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article324.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article324.ece The issue would be whether or not this report was an endorsement. Some people might claim that EK did not do adequate testing, or that their methods were not good enough to support their conclusions. That is a legitimate difference of opinion. But it is clear that they themselves think these tests are sufficient to support the level of endorsement they made in NyTeknik. It is 100% clear that they did the tests first, then endorsed. Their endorsement was not unconditional. They left plenty of wiggle room for themselves in case Rossi turns out to be wrong. As they should; as any academic scientist would. What I see is Kullander and Essen believing what they were told, and reporting it as fact. It's quite possible that they hedged their comments, but Lewan didn't report that. The February 23 article cited can be seen as showing endorsement prior to their visit March 29. Scientists are not accustomed to thinking someone might be telling them things that are grossly distorted. So, for example, the factory is reported as a fact, without attribution, according to I'm puzzled by something, by the behavior of Kullander, Essen, and Lewen. There have been some serious objections to their prior reports, such as the apparent assumption that a relative humidity meter can be used to measure steam quality, and the neglect of the possibility that water overflow would be occurring, could actually be expected -- unless some feedback mechanism is operating, which involves varying power to exactly match the allegedly constant water flow -- but they have not responded or clarified their observations or possible errors. The silence of Kullander and Essen is then used by Rossi, who is claiming that these university professors have validated his work. Are they being silent? Or have I just missed more recent comments?
Re: [Vo]:Levi's likely attitude
I think these old boy were given to believe they were among critically objective scientists giving a warm welcome with nothing to hide. I think they all had a little to much trust in each other's obvectivity and the whole think snowballed into what we have today. I don't disclude myself from the little-to-much trust failing, by the way. A lot of small mistakes along the way make an interesting story. It's all present in the series of reports with each small error adding to the varacity. On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The thing that's most amazing about all of this is that 2 doddering Swedish academics were sucked in by it.
Re: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
The plot thickens. It may very well be that the device doesn't have to deliver more energy than put into it. It may have a market even if it fails this criterion. I get odd feeling that Mr. Rossi may not know the difference. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-07-13 02:55, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-07-13 02:31, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/**andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-**part-22http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-22 Ah, sorry, I just noticed (too late...) that you did actually quote that as well. I must be blind to text in italics (as it was rendered on my screen from your message). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
What does NASA have to say about this? On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: http://ecatreport.com/e-cat/andrea-rossi-on-the-e-cat-part-22 *The management team of both Defkalion and AmpEnergo will meet on the 14th July (2011) together with NASA...*
Re: [Vo]:A poll : is the eCat steam quality a problem?
Science by survey? ---but yeah, I put in my two cents. On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I've set up a survey at http://www.zoomerang.com/**Survey/WEB22CPD9867MH/http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22CPD9867MH/ Results can (I hope) be seen at: http://www.zoomerang.com/**Shared/**SharedResultsPasswordPage.** aspx?ID=L26QG6QVBZQLhttp://www.zoomerang.com/Shared/SharedResultsPasswordPage.aspx?ID=L26QG6QVBZQL
Re: [Vo]:First Photo of Mass-Produced e-Cats?
How about common confusion rather than scam. On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: This proves that if this is a scam, a lot of people are on it together!!! Any thoughts?
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets that are carried into the air by the vapor. Steam can be wet. Live with it. OMG Cude! You are so full of it! Have you ever studied any science? T I have more physics than you will ever know and you have not a foot to stand upon.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I Wrote It takes only a one foot head of water to raise the boiling point of water to 101 C. I forgot to include the observation that liquid water would build-up in the exit hose. With the hose exist above floor level a head of water would obtain rendering a 101.1 reading completely meaningless. Also, the Belognia Italy civic center seems to lie only about 56 feet above sea level, so that's a non-issue, though I don't believe anyone bothered to take a barometric reading to see how ambient pressure could make a difference in the boiling point.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I have stumbled upon yet another peculiar engineering design choice. This one I cannot explain as anthing other than a deliberate and studied inplimentation with the sole intent to defraud. Whereas the previous choices might be explained by oversight, or ignorance I see no way to justify this one. It would be easier in terms of cost and labor to route the outlet of the E-car off the top of the chimney. The peculiar choice to route it out of the side means customizing parts as best I can tell. Search among the suppliers of copper pipe fittings. If anyone can find evidence that reducing T such visible is the photographs of the Ecat is manufactured by anyone, let me know. Routing out of the top would require only a couple of pipe reducers and an 90 degree elbow. This choice would not allow water in liquid phase to weep out the exit. Placing it on the top would mean the water would have to rise into the elbow at the top before weeping over into the outlet hose, making it far more difficult to explain to the critical eye.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You really should give up on this claim. The manufacturer makes no claim about steam quality. It calculates enthalpy of humid air from the temperature and RH. As Driscoll has argued, a capacitance measurement could not give steam quality. You're quit right. Either the probe uses a polymer between two capacitor plates that absorbs water and the permeability between the capacitor plates changes accordingly or it measures the permeability directly. If it is a polymer, wet or dry steam makes no difference. The polymer will read 100% humidity in wet or dry steam. If it is measuring vapor directly the increase in capacitance is too high for 100% humidity. So, what's an instrumentation firmware programmer to do in this case? He can either display an overflow condition or call it 100% humidity. Having played the role of an instrumentation firmware programmer yahoo too many times, I would go with the latter choice. Why? The user could very well be using the thing in foggy weather. I still want my instrument to work in fog so I call it 100%. This would be OK. 100% is the humidity in fog.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole source of the dispute. Where have you been? Reading all this crap. Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . Now, you may certainly claim that this *implies* that the device he used can be used to indicate the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. But is that steam quality? He doesn't state that the device is a relative humidity meter. So he definitely does not state that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. He shows no sign of understanding the issue. Therefore using his comment as if Galantini had said that you are wrong, which is what you claimed, isn't being careful. Further, from his lack of understanding of the issue, presenting him as an expert is very shaky. There is no evidence I could find, other than bluster from Rossi, that Galantini would be any kind of expert in this field. He's a chemist. He does not state, there, that the steam is dry. He does not state what the meter read. He does not state what the ambient pressure was, which is critical for determining the boiling point. Note: grams of water per cubic meter of steam is, in fact, a calculated function of the meter he uses. It will display g/m^3. However, this is calculated from the RH and the temperature, and the meter isn't rated to make this calculation for live steam, it seems. No matter what probe. Jed, something has gone off the edge for you, with this. Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You are deriving conclusions outside the scope of the basic purpose and utility of the instrument. The device really only measures several parameters: relative humidity, and temperature (and, I think, pressure). Everything else is calculated. Steam quality is a complex and difficult-to-measure value, and the meter is not sold for it. There is no accuracy rating of the device, as to RH, at the boiling point. It *calculates* enthalpy assuming that this is air, at RH below 100% and temperatures below boiling, it appears. Where does the brochure state that it measures enthalpy? Again, Jed, I've been over this material and have quoted from these brochures many times. You simply make statements. Where does the brochure state that it will measure the enthalpy ... of steam? I've looked, extensively. Methods for measuring steam quality are very complex, compared to using an RH meter. It appears that if we have steam, any steam, high or low quality, at the boiling point, the meter will say the same value, which is the mass of water vapor per cubic meter, if it still works, which is not guaranteed. That is what it will display below that temperature. The device simply is not displaying liquid water that might be present, it has no way to measure it, it would require very complex sensors, certainly not what an RH meter uses. Here is what Galantini may have done: he used the meter and displayed the g/m^3 of water. He then compared this with the value for dry steam, and, amazing! They were close or the same! So he proclaimed that the steam was dry. It looks like Kullander and Essen may have done the same, but they came up with some (small) level of wetness. That might merely have been the measurement error of the meter! Krivit did speak with Kullander and Essen but obviously
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Ahem. From the very article you reference, A gas can only contain a certain amount of steam (the quantity varies with temperature and pressure). When a gas has absorbed its maximum amount it is said to be in vapor-liquid equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor-liquid_equilibrium [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#cite_note-0 and if more water is added it is described as 'wet steam'.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow for days. Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy. The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away. You can witness it somewhere near the end of the video. The SR-71 blackbird would be put to shame if the input liquid water rate of 7 kg per hr. were turned into dry steam spewing out at Mach 6. What we see is a pathtic 1.33 meters per second or so out of his 1 cm diameter tube. These are the numbers for the output products given 750 Watts electrical input at 95% efficiency, with a working fluid of 7 liters water per hr at 26.5 degrees C. 3.1% water vapor by mass. 1.8% liquid water by volume. Steven will have indistputable numbers and facts within the next few weeks and present the evidence in a far more digestable manner than my pathetic attempts here.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow for days. Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy. The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away. You're joking. This is ridiculous. There would be no steam at all if the thing was not producing excess energy. I've asked Check to check my output velocity based on the assumption of 7 kg/hr input and 100% vapor output. I did post it, didn't I? Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what you get?
