[Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Hello group, Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Akira Shirakawa wrote: Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA I do not see anything controversial about it. He almost forgot to multiply the mass of water times 7 kg, but apart from that there are no mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/input values of 6 to 30, I think this parameter needs serious improvemens Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Akira Shirakawa wrote: Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=YrTz5Bq6dsAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA I do not see anything controversial about it. He almost forgot to multiply the mass of water times 7 kg, but apart from that there are no mistakes. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. Considering the temperature of only 100C of the ecat output, the value of the thermal energy is not even 1/3 (as you say). It is probably closer to half that, meaning there is little practical gain from this device at all. In fact, you can buy commercial ground-source heat pumps with COP around 5. Of course the capital cost is much higher, but still, until Rossi gets enough output to power the input, it will not represent a revolutionary product.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Peter Gluck wrote: For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? I have done that calculation many times, but if I were doing it on a blackboard for a video audience in Japanese I doubt I would be as smooth as Rossi was. And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/input values of 6 to 30, I think this parameter needs serious improvemens That's only a matter of engineering. The ratio can be made much higher. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
My only complaint it is that Rossi needs glasses. He finds it difficult to read his own notes.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
THe ratio HAS to be made much higher. The story has started from 200:1 according to Focardi. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? I have done that calculation many times, but if I were doing it on a blackboard for a video audience in Japanese I doubt I would be as smooth as Rossi was. And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/input values of 6 to 30, I think this parameter needs serious improvemens That's only a matter of engineering. The ratio can be made much higher. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with the experiments that you mention of Focardi.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Peter Gluck wrote: THe ratio HAS to be made much higher. The story has started from 200:1 according to Focardi. The ratio has been made infinite in some cases. Rossi has run the cells with no power input. As I am sure you know he says this is dangerous. Assuming that is true, it still means that the input power is for control purposes. It is not amplified in any sense. There is no fixed ratio between input power and output power. Increasing the ratio may take a lot of engineering work, but it is clear from experiments already done that this ratio can be increased, up to any number you want. A small ratio, such as 1:5 (input:output) would not be suitable for small scale electric power generation, but it would be fine for process steam or hot water. Presumably, whatever makes it dangerous (instability, I suppose) can be addressed and the control power can be reduced to a minimal level of a few percent; i.e. 1:50. I expect that would be less than generator overhead such as pumps, or friction at the bearings. A cold fusion generator will probably be run at low efficiency and low temperatures, to reduce wear and tear on the equipment. This is how uranium fission reactors are run, with only ~33% efficiency. Carnot efficiency could easily be improved but the equipment cost would exceed the cost of fuel, so that is not justified. With cold fusion the fuel cost is zero, so I expect they will be roughly 33% efficient. Small, household ones will probably be ~25% efficient. The waste heat will be used for co-generation (combined heat and power). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Excuse me I don't get exactly what you are saying.\ It seems there are 2 problems; a) we don't know exactly how the system has to be controlled to give maxim performance i.e. intensity and efficiency (output/input0; b) Rossi is not mastering perfectly the same parameters - he has made scale down (from 15 KW to 2.5kW) and the output/input ratio has alaso decrease and that's worse.. One obvious but fuzzy problem is heat transfer. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with the experiments that you mention of Focardi. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Peter Daniel, I think the steadiness of the heat transfer is the only real problem and I suspect that the water pump is making it worse. A simple drain valve on the output of the e-cat using a high temperature transfer FLUID would make the rate of heat transfer much more stable and avoid the state change we have with steam. A more stable transfer rate means the device can operate closer to the critical point so less energy is required for the PWM to turn it on hard and the level falls back to more evenly distributed sub critical temperature more easily. I think Rossi was damaging his powder at 15kw because the pump creates a certain amount of thermal noise that results in hotspots even when the average reactor temperature appears steady. I don't believe any heat sinking method can react fast enough to abort a runaway and any self running modes must rely on limiting other parameters like hydrogen pressure or they will self limit by damaging the energy producing geometry as they overheat. I do think powder uniformity of geometry and heat sinking will also improve the ability to operate at higher gain. Fran From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th) Excuse me I don't get exactly what you are saying.\ It seems there are 2 problems; a) we don't know exactly how the system has to be controlled to give maxim performance i.e. intensity and efficiency (output/input0; b) Rossi is not mastering perfectly the same parameters - he has made scale down (from 15 KW to 2.5kW) and the output/input ratio has alaso decrease and that's worse.. One obvious but fuzzy problem is heat transfer. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with the experiments that you mention of Focardi. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
What fluid would you suggest?
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
The best heat transfer liquid is water, any organic heat transfer liquid (Defkalion speak about glycol but this has to be a glycol of higher moleculr weight) is dangerous- comustible toxic and is degrading and fouling the very hot surfaces as in this case.I have worked long years with Diphyl, not a pleasant stuff. I think some alternative engineering solution will be found. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: What fluid would you suggest? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What fluid would you suggest? Jones suggests therminol which is used in solar power applications; but, as Peter points out about glycol, there are also disadvantages. The system would have to be securely closed. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
a mixture of ground coffee and water should do the trick. ;-) Harry - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 5:10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th) On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What fluid would you suggest? Jones suggests therminol which is used in solar power applications; but, as Peter points out about glycol, there are also disadvantages. The system would have to be securely closed. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Joshua Cude, Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that would imply important, accessible new physics...
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude, Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that would imply important, accessible new physics... I make no definite claims. I am saying that the evidence as presented does not require any nuclear reactions to explain it. I do think it is not implausible that the ecat produces some energy by chemical means. I do not see how that suggests new physics.
