RE: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
Mats Lewan told me that the cylinder was not attached to the gas inlet (it just looked that way in some photos) and its purpose was a radiation sensor (probably a gamma scintillator). Mats said the frequency device was behind the eCat - so I keep looking for glimpses of it in the videos. Regards, Bob Higgins From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box AG, I do not remember exactly where Rossi made the statement that the cores were now flat and planar or rectangular in shape. Seems like it was a question I asked him on his blog. I had suggested that he use this form factor many months ago because it had scaling advantages, but at the earlier time they answered that the cylindrical form worked better. I guess they reconsidered. Maybe someone else can help remember exactly when Rossi made the statement. I do not have any form of search for words to go through his archives to locate the exact place where the 600 C is mentioned. The exact temperature (600-1200) applied to the core has been bounced around frequently. You may have to do some digging. The RF leads question seems a little confusing for one main reason. A long cylinder was attached to the gas port at the time the RF device was mentioned. I have always assumed that this was the 'frequencies' device. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box Sure no CPU will survive inside or next to the core but next to the heat sinks, easy to do. 140 deg C chips are available. Please share the data on the rectangular cores. Never read that before. Swedish reporter did say RF leads measured 300ma. Doesn't sound like a sensor. Easy to do PLC (Power Line Comms) to a CPU inside or he is using a 300ma current loop for his internal sensors due to too much interference from the cores. If the core is running at 600 deg C, so too must have the door knob earlier unit. It is hard to see now Rossi could keep that core at 600 deg C while the water was only a mm or so away. Where did you get the 600 deg C data from? I have never read that but then I have just started reading, reading...reading. AG On 11/10/2011 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical. I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600 C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature. Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work. One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device. He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not exhibit LENR. The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self sustaining. The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a microcontroller. 600 C I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency generating device is to mislead. The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores. Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time. It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper
RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
I originally surmised heat exchanger fins on the bottom, but several vorts insisted that there is no evidence for heat fins on the bottom and that the reactor cell is bolted to the bottom (but I didn't show bolts). So I removed the fins on the bottom. Your comment about the internal water flow is interesting. I will consider how to represent that input. I presume when you say hot input you are referring to the top T fitting that is the water/steam outlet. Where is the evidence that it IS 3 bar? Have you identified the part used? The operating steam temperatures are more consistent with operation at ~1 bar gauge. I thought it sufficient to simply mark it as ~1, but if there is evidence that it could be as much as 3 bar (gauge or absolute?) then the figure will need to be revised. I don't really have a problem with adding the ? though. If the internal pressure really is 3 bar gauge, then the reactor must be operating full of water and it is probably superheated liquid water that exits the hot outlet and flashes to steam as it exits into lower pressure, cooling some of the water around it and causing a water/steam mix in the output. Bob Higgins At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins? Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly in the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a ?) Unless see comment c) b) Lead should surely surround the wafer. c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers. d) There IS a 3-bar pressure relief valve at the hot input to the heat exchanger. The 1-bar should be marked ?
RE: [Vo]:Minor progress
I generously considered that the insulation value was R6 in my analysis (an input in the spreadsheet), but much of that insulation may have been lost when the water leaked into the insulation. If you presume R6, and calculate the outside area of the eCat, the calculation of the heat loss is simple but it must be calculated as a function of temp difference between T2 inside the reactor and ambient temperature and thus is not constant (easy in the spreadsheet). Wet insulation being less than R6 would cause the convection losses to be underestimated. Mat Lewan put his hand on the top foil over the insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C. That information might be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will not be as simple as presuming R6 to get a rough order of magnitude. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] The last escape source for heat generated by the LENR process is through the insulated casing of the ECAT. We are in serious need of assistance if we are to get a good handle upon this factor. I casually chose a leakage power of 500 watts for this process due to my ignorance of this form of heat loss. It is my hope that someone with more experience and knowledge of radiation, conduction and convection would help to arrive at a reasonable estimate.
RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
I think the effort of disassembly of the internal cell is being grossly under-estimated by those wishing for/expecting a viewing of the guts. In Rossi's big eCat, the cover seal was leaking water at 15 psi of pressure (maybe less). The cell is far more difficult to seal. Inside is initially ~150 PSI (10 bar) of hydrogen at room temperature. If the catalyst and internal hydrogen is heated to 500-600C, the pressure will probably double to 300 PSI (20 bar). Note that not all of the hydrogen in the cell will be at this temperature, so it doesn't go up by 3x. Hydrogen wants to leak out of anything because the molecule is so small. The point is that this is a high pressure, high temperature hydrogen seal which is extremely difficult to make and maintain. It is not something you casually take apart for a viewing. Further, the catalyst probably requires hydrogen conditioning to be activated. Opening to the air would de-activate the catalyst. In fact, highly activated nickel powders (Raney nickel for example) are pyrophoric - they will spontaneously combust on exposure to air. That could be Rossi's self-destruct mechanism. It wouldn't be very effective protection against a skilled chemist who would open it in a glove box with argon. Am 10.11.2011 20:23, schrieb Mary Yugo: Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. He did that, several times. Even with the big reactor people say they could see the whole thing, under the cell. You can't see much in the photos, but you can in person. It would be a pain in the butt to remove the cell, and there is no point, because we know by displacement that there is nothing else in the vessel. He disassembled it all the way to the core?I have not seen any photos except one of a partially but not totally uncovered large box with some finned device inside. Yes, these fins could help to suck the water out, if there is a vacuum in the output hose. This gives a lot of extra energy. He is really skilled.
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away which he would control by increasing the cooling flow rate or by reducing the hydrogen pressure. We have not seen any demonstration of automated equipment to do this, so I suspect Rossi is the control mechanism. It would be hard for him to run a continuous test for days (when would he sleep?). OR, he would have to divulge the control technique and train a couple of assistants to man the machine (which I think he also doesn't want to do). -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msn bc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
RE: [Vo]: Is the ECAT out of the bag?
And let us not forget Occam’s razor. Dr. Ed Storms, in his book, makes a good point that any theory of the mechanism should explain all of the experimental evidence, not just a convenient subset. It seems to me (Occam’s razor) that there is only one truly new phenomenon taking place in this cold fusion effect as opposed to many. After reading some of the proposed theories, I think that Widom and Larsen (WL) may have at least part of the solution. If we can place some pieces of the puzzle, it may help focus the search for the pieces that still don’t fit. There has been documented cases of tritium and He formation in PF cells. There has been widely documented transmutation. As hard as it is for skeptical physicists to accept the possibility of D+D fusion in solid state, it is even more unthinkable that such high coulombic barrier as a nickel nucleus would have could be crossed by a charged particle. This strikes me as supporting evidence for WL ultra-low momentum (ULM) neutron theory. WL hypothesize that ULM neutrons are formed form hydrogen or deuterium (how is a separate issue). A ULM neutron is a relatively stationary neutron. Once it is formed, it will drop into the nearest nucleus almost immediately – as a neutral particle, it is unaffected by the coulomb barrier. The nearest nucleus could be another hydrogen atom causing formation of deuterium. It could be a nickel nucleus giving rise to an isotopic shift in the nickel that ultimately may decay into something else. If deuterium is present, then this process of ULM neutron creation creates them in pairs because deuterium already comes with one neutron – thus you have formed a neutron pair that can fall into a nucleus. There has been evidence of nuclear weight increasing in multiples. These two neutrons could also fall into another hydrogen and make tritium. Now imagine a flood of such ULM neutrons being created. As these get pumped into nearby nuclei, the nuclei will become unstable and decay into daughter elements by fission giving off energy. Whenever a neutron enters a nucleus, the result is an excited nucleus that will need to give off something (as I understand it). If it decays into a proton as at falls to a ground state, it will give off a beta particle and a neutrino to account for the spin. Some nuclei will get a greater and some a lesser number of neutrons. In this neutron rich environment, nearby nuclei may be constantly undergoing neutron transmutation while the nuclei are still excited, or just after fission. Perhaps when lots of ULM neutrons are present, it statistically results in more rapid upswings in nuclear weight that allows the subsequent relaxation to more stable heavy isotopes like copper. It would be an interesting statistical simulator to write. But on startup, the reaction would go from producing no ULM neutrons to a situation where there is a flood of ULM neutrons being created. Between must come the case where there is a low density of ULM neutrons. Perhaps in this case, it is more likely that the fissions occur to lighter weight elements in a process that yields short term gammas, not as prompt radiation, but due to the fissions. This might explain the reported bursts of gamma at the startup and shutdown of the reaction. Also, it is interesting to note that Focardi’s early reports of isotopic analysis of the ash showed substantial generation of light nuclei. Yet Kullander’s analysis of the ash showed Cu and Fe. Possibly in the early days when Focardi reported the results, the catalyst design was not optimized and resulted in lower ULM neutron density. In that case lower neutron density might have biased the reaction to creation of lighter isotopes more likely to fission into lower atomic number; probably also resulting in more gamma. To me it seems that the ULM neutron mechanism is fairly compelling. It is easy to see how it explains formation of deuterium, tritium, helium, and enables the transmutation despite huge coulombic barrier. It means that it is also likely that deuterium and tritium will be found in the gas in the Rossi reaction and creation of these may supply a portion of the heat. I don’t think there has been a report of a test on the gas product of the reaction – I understand that quantitative analysis for deuterium requires specialized equipment. Widom and Larsen have their own theory for how the ULM neutrons form – they posit creation by SPPs (Surface Plasmon Polaritons). I am not convinced of this, but it is an interesting theory and there is some supporting evidence. There is also evidence that suggest possible collective, perhaps BEC, behavior could be implicated in the ULM neutron formation. How these ULM neutrons form could be a harder piece of the theory to identify, but would be key to understanding how to optimize the reaction. There will certainly be interesting reading to come
RE: [Vo]:Manifold mispositioning makes measurements meaningless
This is a lot of good work, Alan. I am amazed at the number of high quality posts on Vortex. I am having trouble keeping up because each post warrants a good deal of thought. I examined pictures of the manifold and created a diagram to capture the important features. [I made a small .png version of the diagram that I am trying to include.] I am not sure it is schematically correct yet. A characteristic that I believe is very important in the analysis of the possible temperature contamination is the issue of the fittings used in the manifold. These use pipe threads, and appear to be NPT because of the use of pipe dope. At each junction of pipe threads, there will be a large thermal resistance compared to continuous brass. Analysis of these across-the-thread resistances are going to be hard, particularly with pipe dope and or Teflon tape present as is required to seal NPT. The resistance across the thread boundaries will be high and the net effect will be to significantly decouple the Tout thermocouple from the manifold. These thread boundary effects don't appear to be included in your model. If the 35kB .png of the diagram I created doesn't make it through the thread, email me and I will send it to you direct. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:49 PM I have built a SPICE circuit simulation model of the manifold --- and the results are VERY BAD An initial small-scale model indicates that the ENTIRE top of the manifold is contaminated by the HOT side. Even with a stepped manifold (representing the various pipe fittings) , and with the thermocouple at the END of the tube, I get a 10 C ERROR ! My preliminary results are at : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php I can make a more accurate model with Spice, but a Finite Element Model is clearly needed. attachment: ExchangerManifold_sm.png
RE: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Regarding the thermocouples and isolation. I don't believe electrical isolation is responsible for a noticeable error because thermocouple measurements, particularly when measured with systems that accommodate more than one thermocouple, make the measurements differentially. I.E. the thermocouple voltage assessed is the voltage difference between the two wires. I think this eliminates the need for isolation as long as the common mode voltage doesn't saturate the front end to the A/D or cause it to go noticeably nonlinear. Another point to consider about such tiny voltages is that making an electrical contact with thermocouple wires is not like touching two gold objects. The thermocouple junction will be oxidized when it is welded and it will not easily make a contact that breaks through the oxide - particularly at such low voltages. It would be worth a verification experiment. Absent that, I believe that measurement errors from the two thermocouples touching the electrically conductive heat exchanger in two different places and possibly with two different metals will be lost in the noise for a meter designed for more than one couple (as was used). Bob From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:12 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT Why should it be assumed that improper equipment been used in these tests? The meter used with the thermocouples is listed in Mats Lewan's report: * Temperature logger Testo 177-T3 0554 1765 Usb Interface The specification I read listed the temperature range as -40 to +120 C. Does that suggest that its accuracy goes out of specification if the temperature is greater than 120? I assume that it keeps working past that limit. I made an attempt to determine whether or not the inputs were isolated but did not see reference to that in the specifications. How can that be determined as this seems to be a professional meter. This issue would be resolved if it is determined that the thermocouples are isolated. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 5:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Peter Heckert: It is common in science and technics, some people repeat the same error over and over because they refuse to think and instead judge from experience and belief. They think if it worked 3 times for then it will work 100 times for others. But this is junk science, Just want to add this: If Piantelli and Focardi made their thermic measurements (that where much more difficult) with the same care as Rossi, then their research is junk and this all is a waste of time. If they connected their elements directly to the metal, using a non insulated multichannel thermoamplifier, then they measured thermovoltage in the metal and not in the thermoelements and these in the metal can be influenced by the degree of hydrogen adsorption. Peter No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3968 - Release Date: 10/22/11
RE: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Hi David, Yours was a very thoughtful post. It has taken some time to digest, and I can say I have not fully evaluated the implications across the whole experiment. However, I don’t think something so complicated need be invoked to explain the power spike immediately after shutdown. According to Mats’ data, as the hydrogen was released, the input flow rate at the peristaltic pump was increased – in fact, basically doubled. Since the reactor was boiling, the output at the time was pretty much steam and the reactor pressure was high enough to keep the valve open constantly discharging steam. The immediate effect of doubling the T3 input water rate is to double the VOLUME of effluent from the reactor output. Since the temperature at this time remained well above boiling, the output that was doubled was the volume of the steam. This simple explanation seems sufficient to explain the spike in measured temperature – double the steam volume at about the same temperature and you double the heat output measured at the heat exchanger. Most of this is heat already stored in the E-cat – this is not a burst in reactor output. Do you believe a more exotic explanation is necessary? Bob Higgins On 10/21/2011, David Roberson wrote: Another thorn is our paws has been the unusual behavior when the total power has been shut down and water flow maximized at the end of the test run. Look at the data from 19:22. About 14 minutes before this time the power was shut down, hydrogen eliminated and input water flow rapidly increased. A nice 2.1 degree drop is seen in the ECAT output temperature from the last reading. My thought is that the increased water input flow quickly reduces the rapid boiling within the ECAT and allows the vacuum effect to draw the exchanger hot water into the manifold. This water then leads to a large apparent power increase (Tout – Tin = 8.6 degrees) which is an illusion. Temperature just prior to this (Tout – Tin = 5.3 degrees) yields a lot less power.
RE: [Vo]:Steam engines
My PV system uses a 5kW grid tie DC-AC inverter that is all solid state, no moving parts (not even a fan), and is 96% efficient. It has been working beautifully for the last 3 years. Note that unless you make a provision to throttle the E-cat, you will have to at least provide a sacrificial load into which you can dump the excess electricity when the house demand is not as much as the E-cat is producing. This would be the benefit of having the community or large scale grid system - the grid can become your sacrificial load. That's what my PV system does today. I produce far more power during the day than I am using and the excess is pumped into the grid, for which I receive credit. I then can take it back from the grid at night (or any time - when a cloud comes) at the same price as I was credited for putting it in (this is called net metering and is required by the Florida Public Service Commission), resulting in 100% perfect storage in the grid (from my perspective) with no batteries required. Overall, the distributed generation system is more robust against failure and more efficient even if the wires are present because the current in the wires is reduced by your local generation. But if you use even a community system, you still have to deal with the distribution wire problem, cost, and undesirable appearance. The cool new product category is the concept of CHP - cogeneration of heat and power. There is already an industry forming around this for producing power from concentrated solar or some other high grade heat, producing electricity for the home, and then using the waste heat to heat the home. Bob Higgins From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. [mailto:hoyt.stea...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 12:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Steam engines All devices will be self contained with E-ORBO's, M-ORBO's, HephaHeat heaters or as yet uninvented devices-- no connection to any external power sources will be needed at all. They'll be AA batteries that last forever etc. Induction generators are for the near term -- a couple of years, helping to pay for the initial equipment. They'll quicken the phase out the dirty coal plants. All generators (Alternators) are inherently AC which must be rectified unless you want carbon brushes ( you don't ). DC is good for many things, but it has its problems with metal and ion migration, polarization etc. Induction motors don't run on it and they're the cheapest motors.The new Phoenix rapid transit system uses DC but they put in special corrosion mitigation systems. Power companies will fade away and all those ugly high-tension lines will dissappear :-) . Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 7:18 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Steam engines On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: Hoyt: Are you sure the electric company will want unsynchronized AC? I predict that home generators will produce direct current, not AC. DC is safer because it is less prone to cause electrocution. Electric power companies will not purchase this power for two reasons: 1. They will all go out of business. 2. Electric power will be worthless. Selling it would be like trying to rent out 10 MB of hard disk space. This is not an imaginary example. In the 1970s time-share companies rented out hard disk space in increments as small as this. Nowadays, 10 MB of hard disk space can be purchased for about one-tenth of a penny, I think. Unless I dropped one or two orders of magnitude. How will the governments keep the electric companies in business? Why would governments do this? This would be like trying to keep the vacuum tube computer industry in business. I expect there will be some initial attempts to keep power companies, and perhaps even oil companies, in business, but everyone will soon see that this is a futile waste of money. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?
I have seen measurements of RF cavity resonators made out of both type I and type II superconductors. Of course, the cavities made with type 1 were better, but none were infinite Q as you might initially suspect if you believed the resistance was zero above DC. In fact, in the low GHz range, the performance of these cavities was only about 3x better than copper at the same temperature. Superconductor losses go up with frequency. If that were not true, they would optically appear to be perfectly reflecting and anyone who has seen a superconducting type II material knows that doesn't happen. Type I materials in the SC state just look like they did outside of SC state in the optical (like ordinary metals). Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC? RF cavity is used in particle accelerators. Those things are AC yet they dissipate very little, if I recall correctly a stationary RF in one of those lasts for months. They spend more energy for keeping things cool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Radio_Frequency mic 2011/10/19 Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com: Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in the presence of magnetic fields. At that time there are nominally no supercurrents. As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent penetration of the magnetic field into the superconductor. This is not a DC supercurrent because it has not existed in steady state for all time. Initially there will be some loss in the supercurrent because there are components that are not DC. At least that's my understanding. I asked a guy at CERN about this in how they bring up their strong supercurrent in their superconducting electromagnets. It is not a simple process. From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC? How are S-C currents not DC? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation From: fznidar...@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400 thanks for the info -Original Message- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC. At all frequencies above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration. Consider also that true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant. Moving the superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the supercurrents are not DC. Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above the critical temperature so that it drops? Harry On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100 years. The magnet floats on the superconductor. Apply an RF field of 10 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops. That what I saw, so what you say. Now we know how energy is released. Energy is pinned with the atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities. Where are the discontinuities in the atom, here there are below. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition What can you predict knowing the observed release condition? Try the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission, the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of the photon. see below http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper. Here it is below. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion
RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation
Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC. At all frequencies above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration. Consider also that true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant. Moving the superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the supercurrents are not DC. Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above the critical temperature so that it drops? Harry On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100 years. The magnet floats on the superconductor. Apply an RF field of 10 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops. That what I saw, so what you say. Now we know how energy is released. Energy is pinned with the atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities. Where are the discontinuities in the atom, here there are below. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic-limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition What can you predict knowing the observed release condition? Try the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission, the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of the photon. see below http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control-of-the-natural-forces If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper. Here it is below. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur. No it is not. This flux pinning thing is a big deal. The same mechanism accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy levels of the atom. A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for quantum physics. Flux is pinned in the nucleus too. An understanding of the release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion reaction. Flux is pinned at discontinuities. It is shook free by a vibration at a dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second. Thats it. I did the experiment with the superconductor, Horace now has it. Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC?
Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in the presence of magnetic fields. At that time there are nominally no supercurrents. As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet a supercurrent must form that previously did not exist to prevent penetration of the magnetic field into the superconductor. This is not a DC supercurrent because it has not existed in steady state for all time. Initially there will be some loss in the supercurrent because there are components that are not DC. At least that's my understanding. I asked a guy at CERN about this in how they bring up their strong supercurrent in their superconducting electromagnets. It is not a simple process. From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:S-C currents not DC? How are S-C currents not DC? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation From: fznidar...@aol.com Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400 thanks for the info -Original Message- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 19, 2011 8:48 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum levitation Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC. At all frequencies above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration. Consider also that true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant. Moving the superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance because the supercurrents are not DC. Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com? ] Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation Is it posible the RF signal is warming the superconductor just above the critical temperature so that it drops? Harry On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:48 PM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote: A new understanding of flux pinning is the most important relation in 100 years. The magnet floats on the superconductor. Apply an RF field of 10 mega hertz to a small disk and the magnet drops. That what I saw, so what you say. Now we know how energy is released. Energy is pinned with the atom by the same mechanism, discontinuities. Where are the discontinuities in the atom, here there are below. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/10710753/the-elastic- limit-of-space-and-the-quantum-condition What can you predict knowing the observed release condition? Try the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, the intensity of spectral emission, the distribution of electrons in the atom, and the frequency and energy of the photon. see below http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/1078/the-control- of-the-natural-forces If you are so bright, where is your peer reviewed paper. Here it is below. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092 An understating of flux pinning and flux release has the potential to transform the study of physics and our society. That my story and I am sticking to it, no matter what Jones says. Frank Znidarsic -Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Oct 18, 2011 7:20 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation All this talk of pinning is just fine, but all of this is nicely predicted by the basic laws of electrical induction and the zero resistivity offered by a superconductor, you would expect repulsion or attraction to occur. No it is not. This flux pinning thing is a big deal. The same mechanism accounts for the pinning of flux in a superconductor accounts for the energy levels of the atom. A solution that includes both provides for a classical foundation for quantum physics. Flux is pinned in the nucleus too. An understanding of the release mechanism provides for a new understanding of the cold fusion reaction. Flux is pinned at discontinuities. It is shook free by a vibration at a dimensional frequency of 1,094,000 meters/second. Thats it. I did the experiment with the superconductor, Horace now has it. Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:Primary Flow Calculation
The reason that I included the pressure regulator in the diagram of the output of the E-cat was based on two pieces of evidence. First, the temperature, T2, in the 10/6 test gets too hot for room temperature boiling water, but is about right for water at 1 bar (gauge). Second, if you look at the video of the test of the same E-cat design on September 7, (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=enrurl=translate.google.comsl=ittl=enu=http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece) at about 6:40 into the video the water inlet valve is opened with no hose attached, to drain the hot E-cat into a large plastic container. What comes out is water at high pressure and it is flashing to steam (there should be no steam if it is at atmospheric pressure because it is coming from the bottom of the reactor). This suggests that the water really was above 100C inside the E-cat (not just an artifact of T2 probe placement near or touching the reactor body) and of pressure above 1 bar absolute. The ejected water pressure is consistent with about 2 bar absolute (1 bar gauge). Also, the length of time the water comes out at the high pressure is further indication of water flashing to steam as the pressure is released. Bob Higgins From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:08 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Primary Flow Calculation Thanks for the work David, a few questions: -It appears you are assuming the accuracy of the data from the secondary thermocouple (excepting a simple 0.8°C offset) and that there was no water in the reactor at the start (11:00) when the pump was turned on. Do you think it unlikely that the secondary outlet thermocouple error changed with the rate of steam flow through the primary given it's poor placement? -Have you used any of the videos to estimate primary water flow rate, or check for variation? The noisy pump delivers maximum of 2ml/stroke, and I believe this drops at higher pressure (pump rated for max 1.5bar). -How do you explain the temperature variation in the reactor once it gets above 100°C, and in particular the fact that highest temp doesn't correlate with greatest power? Do you think the steam is being superheated? Normally when a fluid's temp is raised above ambient pressure it will rapidly boils off to drop it's temperature to ambient again, do you think there was some sort of variable flow restriction in the outlet from the reactor to prevent this? On 18 October 2011 03:48, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am attaching an Excel simulation which uses the power measured via the secondary water path of the heat exchanger to estimate the primary vapor flow. With this information it is possible to estimate the water mass in grams remaining within the ECAT as it responds to water pump input flow and vapor escape. There are two adjustable variables: Correction Factor for the thermocouple error in the secondary; and, water flow rate into the ECAT in grams per second. There are two types of charts to view. One shows the water remaining within the ECAT in grams as a function of time. The second displays the total vapor flow out of the ECAT at any chosen time. The information contained demonstrates that the ECAT should not overflow under normal operational conditions. Of course this is based upon assumptions which may need adjustments. This is my first post to the vortex and I have my fingers crossed. Dave
RE: [Vo]:How to simulate the four-hour heat after death event in your kitchen
Since the E-cat was leaking, it is likely that the insulation was saturated with water by the end of the experiment. Could that account for the gain in weight? Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Hollins Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:How to simulate the four-hour heat after death event in your kitchen it would also explain the false starts. the solidox might have started burning, then gone out on its own from cooling too much. On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, how about this: Enrico Billi tells us that they weighed the E-Cat before and after, but not why it mysteriously gained a kilogram of weight. I can offer a plausible explanation. On the bottom of the E-Cat housing sits a relatively large volume enclosure, the reactor module, which we are told houses a small reactor core and large amounts of lead shielding. This volume was not opened so its contents were not revealed. In fact, neither were its dimensions given and must be inferred from a photograph and a few other measurements. It is safe to say that it is at least 10 liters and could be as much as 20 liters. Enrico says that there were no smells of anything burning, but one of the best candidates for a hidden fuel would be and alcohol like methanol or ethanol. These are very pure chemicals that burn to produce mostly steam and a small amount of carbon dioxide. Their combustion is odorless. Their combustion products could easily have been emitted through the reactor output hose and never be detected. CO2 is odorless. Of course the obvious question is how would it receive oxygen. The not so obvious answer is a relatively unknown, but actually ubiquitous technology called a chemical oxygen generator. Referred to in the industry as an oxygen candle, it consists of a mixture of a strong oxidizer and a powdered metal. When ignited at about 600C, it smolders slowly, giving off heat and copious amounts of excess oxygen. This is the same process that provides the emergency oxygen in commercial aircraft. Its used in mining, emergency operations, any place a very compact and stable form of oxygen is required. Its storage density, in the case of a Lithium Perchlorate formulation, equals that of liquid oxygen! About 2 liters of propanol, and 2 liters of a Li Perchlorate formulation could provide more enthalpy than was measured in the Oct. 6 demonstration. The propanol, which boils at 98C would have started to emit vapor just before the water came to a boil during its warm up phase. A resistance heater would ignite the oxy candle and the two gasses would meet at the top of the housing, which is the underside of the heat exchange fins. That surface would be plated with nickel or platinum to catalytically help combust the two gasses, just as occurs in an inexpensive camping heater. This would burn for several hours, at which time a covert signal would tell Rossi its time to shut down the reactor, hence his need to be present. During the time the reactor is allowed to cool, small openings would allow water to seep into the reactor module case and make up the weight of the lost fuel and oxidizer, possibly the same openings which vented the combustion products. This would not be an exact process, hence the requirement of weighing with inaccurate scales, and the need to overlook a 1 kilogram weight gain. This example accounts for all of the observations that were reported, as well as the electrical and plumbing connections that were seen. It explains the mysterious weight gain, the need for such a prolonged warm up phase, and the need to stop the demonstration after just 4 hours.
RE: [Vo]:Thermocouple extends beyond steel nut?
As I recall, at the same time the hydrogen was discharged, the water flow rate was increased - basically being doubled. This caused short term stored energy (hot water) to be pushed out of the E-cat output and then measured in the heat exchanger. If you look at the reactor temperature, it begins declining at the moment that the hydrogen is discharged - and, of course, the increased flow rate speeds the cooling of the reactor temperature. If you look at the short term heat output measured at the exchanger, it nearly doubles immediately from the increase in flow rate delivering the stored heat from the reactor more quickly to the exchanger. Regards, Bob Higgins From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 1:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thermocouple extends beyond steel nut? Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: In this case, the skeptics are ignoring the fact that the heat increased during heat after death, instead of declining according to Newton's law. This proves they are wrong. I have not seen a response from any of them trying to explain this fact. This is not ignored. If he makes a 3 degree error in temperature measurement, this reduces the energy by more than 50%. Heat after death is then easier to explain and all calculations how much fuel or current is needed are then invalid. The error could be 90%. You still cannot explain how the temperature can go up without input power. In fact, other analyses show that a 3°C error is unlikely. - Jed
[Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
I was concerned about the high temperatures being seen in the E-cat which were not plausible without elevated pressure. I remembered seeing an account on the web (can't recall where at the moment) where there was mention of a visible spring used in a pressure limiter (think of a pressure cooker pot). I extrapolated that information to a pressure limiter installed at the output causing about 1 bar differential. Also, Mats Lewan told me of a leak of 2 kg/h and Rossi in the video refers to a gasket problem. This implies a leak at the top seal, with the leak not beginning until it was full, and probably not until it pressurized. If it leaked even at no differential pressure - that would be a gross leak and I don't think such a gross leak is plausible. I don't believe the T2 thermocouple was touching the fins. And, I don't think the fins were at a temperature of more than a few tenths of a degree over that of the water - they are too thin. Regards, Bob Higgins From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Obviously a lot of effort went into this. I am curious, where did the information about the 1 bar pressure regulator in the outlet come from? How does that talley with the 124°C temperature that was recorded at 15:58, given that 124°C implies a pressure (saturated steam) of 2.25bar absoulute (1.25bar guage) On 13 October 2011 18:25, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Bob Higgins of Motorola Solutions did an analysis which he sent to Mats Lewans, who copied it to me and a couple of others on Vortex. Hello Mr. Lewan, I am enclosing my spreadsheet analysis of the data you published for Ing. Rossi's October 6 test at U. of Bologna of his E-cat. In this analysis, I tried to incorporate reported items such as water leakage, heat loss through the insulation, difference in source water temperature and the water temperature of Tin, and the final energy stored in the E-cat when the experiment was terminated. If you have the occasion to look through this analysis, I would appreciate hearing of anything you find that may not be consistent with your observation as a first hand witness to the test. You are welcome to share this with others that may also be able to evaluate the analysis for missing features or wrong calculations. We considered the possibility of contamination of the Tout by the hot water/steam of the heat exchanger primary input. However, because the secondary water was flowing up out of the secondary outlet and out of the brass header, and the contamination primary heat would have to pass this water to reach the thermocouple, and because the flow rate was high in the secondary, heat from the primary inlet would quickly be diverted into the secondary outlet water. Thus, very little of this contamination heat would make it to the thermocouple and cause temperature error - we regarded it as a possible minor second order error. If you draw a cross-section picture of this pipe and the flowing water, you can see how possible contamination heat from the primary inlet would likely terminate in the secondary outlet water long before reaching the thermocouple. I would agree with everyone else that there was much that could have been improved the experiment, but the real point now it to understand the data we have and determine what information that can be derived from it with confidence. It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism on the net seems to be switching from doesn't work at all to doesn't work with acceptable commercial COP. Are the skeptics now convinced there was large scale excess energy? In and of itself, this is a physics shattering breakthrough. It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the test had been run for a longer period. I am personally excited by the results and data from the experiment. Thanks to Ing. Rossi for hosting the experiment - he was under obligation to no one to do the experiment - and to you for reporting the data. Regards, Bob Higgins Motorola Solutions I suggested he subscribe to vortex, but meanwhile ... He sent a very large spreadsheet, with a couple of interesting diagrams / plots. I've put some of them (with permission) in my initial draft report http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_a.php I extracted and annotated a couple of pictures from his spreadsheet : a) a very nice schematic diagram of the fat-cat. http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111012_bh_plots0002.png (He shows a pressure regulator at the outlet ... I don't know if this is a guess or new information!) b) Another data plot and comments http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111012_bh_plots0001.png Initially, heat is stored in the E-cat as it is filled with water and the water is being heated. This energy is accounted a lumped addition at the
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
The drawing I included is only meant to be a diagrammatic/schematic representation to help understand the quantities being considered. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins However, I'm not sure if he's got the dimensions of the heat spreaders correct. From all the pics of the fat-cat open, the heat spreader fins look to have a uniform ~3cm clearance from the 4 walls. In Higgins' drawing, he shows the heat spreaders having a much larger clearance on one side... I do not think that is accurate. -mark -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat... -mark
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
Hi Mark, I will consider such a drawing. However, the present diagram is not geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the cross-section so as to highlight the fins. What is needed is a proper drawing from the pictures. I just don't know what useful insight would be obtained from spending the time on that. I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the heat flow. It is my contention, that because of the high secondary flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a significant error temperature rise in Tout. This is because the heat conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an inch through a cross-section of about 1/4. The secondary water tube in that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the high flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in that water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins Hi Bob, I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses and diagrams... I know you say the diagram is only meant to help visualize things, but from what I've read and seen, it seems pretty accurate; not sure about the pressure limiter. I think the water inlet is on the bottom... I'd like to make reference to the assembly which basically 'sandwiches' the reactor core between identical layers of shielding and heat spreaders, both on top and underneath. We never see this assembly removed, so the only way we know what's underneath the top spreader is from comments made by Rossi; and what you've drawn is the image that I had in mind. I'd like to suggest that you look again at all available pics or videos which have the lid off, and look at the clearance between the spreader and the 4 walls. It sure seems to me that there is a consistent ~3cm gap between the heat spreader and the walls, which would make it rectangular and not the square 30cm x 30cm dimensions that Mats Lewan has reported. One request: could you add some measurement dimensions (in cm) to the diagram? Much appreciate your efforts! -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
At this point, I can only say that my involvement is personal. I was around in those Patterson days and was part of a panel that considered Motorola's involvement. Unfortunately, I am one of the few from that group that is still with the company. Patterson really didn't want Motorola's investment - he wanted a bigger share in what he developed. Unfortunately, he passed away soon after the recipe was lost, and I don't think it was ever found again by his son. Patterson Sr. was a very senior chemist, but I don't believe his son, who continued CETI was (a chemist). I hope one day I can have Motorola involved in this technology. It has a huge upside potential and I think Motorola could bring a lot to the productization. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Bob, I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses and diagrams... Yes! Welcome to Vortex, Bob. I'm curious. At one time it was rumored that Motorola was interested in the CETI cold fusion power cell. Unfortunately, Dr. Patterson was unable to replicate the manufacturing process when he ran out of those miraculous beads. Is your interest in the Rossi Reaction strictly personal or professional? Can't say, is a valid answer. :-) T - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3949 - Release Date: 10/13/11
RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
I think the resistor network and finite element approaches discussed below are a great track for understanding the possible magnitude of the Tout error. The big uncertainty is the pipe thread. It may take experiments to estimate the thermal resistance across the pipe thread - particularly if it is NPT instead of NPTF because NPT will require Teflon tape to seal which would provide greater thermal isolation of the outlet pipe. Can anyone discern the thread type or whether Teflon tape has been used? Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins At 03:26 PM 10/13/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote: Hi Mark, I will consider such a drawing. However, the present diagram is not geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the cross-section so as to highlight the fins. What is needed is a proper drawing from the pictures. I just don't know what useful insight would be obtained from spending the time on that. I don't think anything's to gain. The only thing I'd change is to mark the pressure regulator as speculative. I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the heat flow. It is my contention, that because of the high secondary flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a significant error temperature rise in Tout. This is because the heat conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an inch through a cross-section of about 1/4. The secondary water tube in that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the high flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in that water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway. I started on that : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg (but misunderstood the nut that my observer said the thermocouple was connected to -- so I didn't draw the attached pipe segments). See (eg) my 2-resistor models at http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52539.html (Horace Heffner first suggested the resistor model, but I used it in a different way). 21-resistor model http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52547.html He gave me some clear pictures of the manifold : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg Regards, Bob Higgins - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3949 - Release Date: 10/13/11
