RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From: Colin Hercus * Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned. The scenario that best explains many (if not all) of the seemingly irreconcilable issues, including these: 1) the numerous design compromises (is there even a finalized unit?) 2) the perceived need for many units operating together instead of one rock-solid machine 3) the confusing and variable operating results over time, some extremely positive, some not so good (and a few glossed-over null results) 4) occasional unpowered cells producing huge amounts of heat 5) the premature shut-down of some experiments and short runs of other experiments 6) the strange and difficult personality of the inventor ...is no secret when viewed historically. All of these phenomena are consistent with what has been the one keynote issue in LENR and Ni-H for the past twenty+ years: which is that good results are possible, but inconsistent over time - and never on demand. The way Rossi intends to accommodate and overcome this unfortunate truth is that he proposes to effectively present to the public, in his MW unit, what can be described as the average results expected for a chosen number of E-Cats operating together ! This is with the underlying assumption that at any given point in time there will be a distribution of cells performing well, but with lots of them not performing well at all... IOW - he wants to demonstrate the average gain of many cells - and thus avoid the major (historical) impediment of output which is not on demand.. He may realize that on occasion, any cell can produce 20 KW for periods, but more often it will produce far less, and sometimes it can be lossy. So he has designed a compromise that will hide the individual irregularities (in the average results) and yet he must design any individual cell as if it will hit the best results periodically. However, he has never pulled this off this kind of averaging before, as far as we know, so getting positive results is this fashion is now his pipe dream for October. Logically, if all of the units performed at their best, then something like 4-5 MW (instead of 1 MW) would be possible (giving him full benefit of the doubt), but statistically this never happens - and the control unit must be programmed to actually avoid it. I suspect that any individual cell will provide far more than the expected average for prolonged periods. The effective duty cycle could be somewhere around 25%. In fact if you look at past results in LERN you would find something very similar in the performance of many experiments in terms of statistical probability. Again - this is giving Rossi full benefit of the doubt, and even then I am convinced that due to costing issues glossed over by the inventor, and longer-term operating degradation, that it will be considerably cheaper for any investor to buy the equivalent heat output from solar troughs - than from E-Cats. IOW, there nothing of lasting economic value as the E-Cat device in the form it is currently conceived; but it is still a breakthrough. The real breakthrough (if the Rossi strategy of energy averaging proves out) is being able to move from hundreds of watts on occasion (which has happened going back 20 years) to megawatts on demand and to have this result prominently exposed in the public mentality. This is far more important to the rest of us than you might be thinking, even if the device is an economic disaster. The fact that heat produced this way will cost approximately double the heat from solar troughs will be the issue facing the purchaser of the technology, not Rossi - and by the time this becomes clear: Ing. Rossi will be enjoying his retirement on Miami Beach. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Horace Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- capacitors. Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs and renewable energy projects. I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this. It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an associated product for LENR energy conversion. Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of semi-coherency in photonic emission. Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are avoided. Jones
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Jones, you're such a teez! :-) -M -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Horace Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- capacitors. Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs and renewable energy projects. I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this. It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an associated product for LENR energy conversion. Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of semi-coherency in photonic emission. Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are avoided. Jones
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 16, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Jones, you're such a teez! :-) -M I'll second that! 8^) Tell us more Jones! -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Horace Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- capacitors. Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs and renewable energy projects. I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this. It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an associated product for LENR energy conversion. Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of semi-coherency in photonic emission. Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are avoided. Jones Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Nice to see you back in the sand box, Jones. I wuz beginning to get concerned that you may have been abducted by aliens... perhaps for consultation purposes concerning your legal expertise on human affairs. Rumor has it that the Pleiadians and Zeta Reticulians are sparing over the possession rights to modify the human genome. I heard that the Zeta Reticulians were planning on rolling out another upgrade sometime in 2012, whereas the Pleiadians claim the Reticulians had outright stolen the revised code from their own scientists. Shoot! I was getting ready to mainline Kosmic Consciousness via channeled messages from the Ashtar Command, simply by simply tuning in, but now I guess I'll have to wait another hundred years until this mess is sorted out. Litigation is a bitch. Meanwhile... back in the LENR field. Product placement is everything! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:) The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as News these days. When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) it all starts to pick up a peculiar odor ... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner Mark Iverson wrote: Jones, you're such a teez! :-) -M I'll second that! 8^) Tell us more Jones!
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On 11-09-16 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:) The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as News these days. When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) Eh ... CIHT? Chromed Inside Diameter Honed Tube? The reactor consists of a bit more than just /that/, I would think! But then, maybe it's one of these: Certified Industrial Hygiene Technician? Central Institute of Hand Tools? Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation? A little hard to see how any of these relate to BLP, to be honest. Oh, wait, how about this one: Career Institute of Health and Technology That kind of covers Randy's company, doesn't it? After all, he's a doctor, which gets you the Health part, it's a high tech firm, which gets you the Technology part, and it's certainly become his career. In any case, it's nice to hear they're still on the verge of delivering something, even after all these years. (A lot like the hot fusion community, come to think of it.)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Well, I am used to read computer news, so a little bit of Rossi-mania is good for a change. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Date: 2011/9/16 Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:)
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Oops - my mistake . Should have been Dear Daniele blog http://22passi.blogspot.com/ From: Daniel Rocha Well, I am used to read computer news, so a little bit of Rossi-mania is good for a change. Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:)
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? You mean a greek geek gossip column! -M
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 10:34 AM 9/16/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: From: Jones Beene [ mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? You mean a greek geek gossip column! For Defkalion, it's a piqued greek geek gossip column!
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
I think CIHT is for Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-243402945.html Being slightly dislexic I'll have to watch out for exchanging the i and the h, since I pronounce it with a soft c. 8^) On Sep 16, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-09-16 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:) The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as News these days. When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) Eh ... CIHT? Chromed Inside Diameter Honed Tube? The reactor consists of a bit more than just that, I would think! But then, maybe it's one of these: Certified Industrial Hygiene Technician? Central Institute of Hand Tools? Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation? A little hard to see how any of these relate to BLP, to be honest. Oh, wait, how about this one: Career Institute of Health and Technology That kind of covers Randy's company, doesn't it? After all, he's a doctor, which gets you the Health part, it's a high tech firm, which gets you the Technology part, and it's certainly become his career. In any case, it's nice to hear they're still on the verge of delivering something, even after all these years. (A lot like the hot fusion community, come to think of it.) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? - Original Message - *From:* Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark *From:* Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From the report:The impression was that the loss of heating power was minor. Consequently the heat produced by the E-cat in self sustained mode should have been clearly larger than the heat from the power that was lost when the electric resistance was switched off. What a crock! A minor loss of heating power is exactly what one expects from thermal inertia. There is no anomalous heat. Also since 1.8 grams were collected as overflow and only ~3 grams flowed in we have 1!.2 grams at most converted to steam. This means about 2700W. That's close enough for me to the 2600W input. - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner: Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. I think with this new method this is not so important. There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam and metal. So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more. The pressure is above air pressure always. When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees. Fortunately they do now measure the amount of water coming out. This opens a simple method for calculating: To calculate the energy we dont need to know all these values. We must only know how much water /finally/ comes out of the hose, because the hose is thermical isolated. We must measure at the end of the hose, then the water has time to vaporize and the steam has time to expand its volume or time to condense until the temperature is 100 centigrade and the pressure is air pressure. So we can assume the outcoming water is at 100 degrees and the (almost dry) steam is at 100. degrees. If we know the input water flow and temperature and the output water flow the and temperature then we can calculate the energy because the difference must be vaporized at airpressure and 100 degrees. (When output flow input flow then temperature of steam and water at air pressure must be about 100 centigrade. If this is not the case, then something is wrong) Best, Peter
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted without proof. If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 6 11 19:20 7 10 19:30 8 10 19:40 9 10 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a major disappointment. I tend to agree, because power input was high and they did not measure total enthalpy. However, the last 35 min. with no input power redeemed the test. I do not think there is anyway you can explain that except as massive anomalous energy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
It would have been nice to see two identical E-Cats, one is chosen at random and charged with hydrogen, the other not... and power is added to both units the same way. If the active one is clearly spewing more heat and steam, anomalous heat would be assured. Lets imagine that the next test shows conclusive proof of a new energy source... 6 to 10 COP... When do the oil companies react and how? Solar and wind power becomes much less competitive.. What else can we expect? Stock prices, desert real estate prices, etc. The skeptics vision of failure is pretty easy to imagine! But the magic of this technology is the what if factor... - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner: Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. I think with this new method this is not so important. With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a hidden place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry. There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam and metal. This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through insulation losses). The excess energy has to go into heating the steam. So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more. The pressure is above air pressure always. We can assume no such thing. The water shown coming out of the exit port at the top was clearly not at 130°C. The pressure clearly was not high. The pressure appears highly variable, indicating the possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism. When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees. This did not happen at the top exit port in the video. Fortunately they do now measure the amount of water coming out. This opens a simple method for calculating: To calculate the energy we dont need to know all these values. We must only know how much water /finally/ comes out of the hose, because the hose is thermical isolated. We must measure at the end of the hose, then the water has time to vaporize and the steam has time to expand its volume or time to condense until the temperature is 100 centigrade and the pressure is air pressure. So we can assume the outcoming water is at 100 degrees and the (almost dry) steam is at 100. degrees. If we know the input water flow and temperature and the output water flow the and temperature then we can calculate the energy because the difference must be vaporized at airpressure and 100 degrees. (When output flow input flow then temperature of steam and water at air pressure must be about 100 centigrade. If this is not the case, then something is wrong) Best, Peter I'll have to agree with Jed on this one, regarding using a barrel. Much easier to put a kWh meter on the input and sparge all the output into an insulated barrel. Not exactly a professional or high level of calorimetry, but way better than what has been done. Could use two barrels and switch to permit long term operation. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner: Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. I think with this new method this is not so important. With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a hidden place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry. There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam and metal. This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through insulation losses). The excess energy has to go into heating the steam. If more energy is supplied, this will not give false overunity results. It is absolutely unnecessary to know the temperature inside. It is absolutely sufficient if we know the input and the final output. So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more. The pressure is above air pressure always. We can assume no such thing. The water shown coming out of the exit port at the top was clearly not at 130°C. The pressure clearly was not high. The pressure appears highly variable, indicating the possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism. If water at 130° comes out it will immediately start to boil and vaporize until it is cooled down to 100°. Therefore we can assume, that the water that finally comes out of the hose is at 100 degrees. When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees. This did not happen at the top exit port in the video. I think this process is very fast and happened already at the pressure reduction valve. It did happen, when they finally opened the input valve. Steam and water came out. This valve is at the bottom water level and at the coldest level. So if the water where 100° or colder then there wouldnt have been any steam. Of course you can assume this is a tricky fraud, but this is impossible to prove via internet. Only time and Rossi can answer this question, I cannot. Therefore I dont assume fraud or tricks, because this is impossible via internet. Best regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
* 81.3 = 900W so as input power is close to 2600W we only have 900W excess energy. Not very convincing for a module of a 1MW plant! Yes, not convincing with regard to practicality. Also, only direct total energy balance measurements for each test provide any degree of credibility due to the highly dynamic nature of the black box functioning. Power measurements are not meaningful in this case because the thermal power through the various elements changed with time. I'd also like to address the fact that temperature rose after power was turned off. This can be explained by thermal inertia if the point where heat being applied was not the same point where temperature was being measured. The point where heat was being applied could be quite a bit hotter than 130C and even after power was cut we could could continue to get output temperature rising. Just imagine a steel bar and we heat one end and measure the temperature at the other end, there is a lag as heat transfers along the bar, turning off the heat and the the cool end of the bar continues to increase in temperature for a while. Yes indeed. Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a major disappointment. Yes. Colin On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted without proof. If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E- Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E- Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner: Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. I think with this new method this is not so important. With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a hidden place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry. There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam and metal. This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through insulation losses). The excess energy has to go into heating the steam. If more energy is supplied, this will not give false overunity results. It is absolutely unnecessary to know the temperature inside. It is absolutely sufficient if we know the input and the final output. . . How does your response relate to my statement above? I am pointing out that the temperature of the steam can differ greatly from that of the metal, and can be way above that of boiling water, even at atmospheric pressure? The temperature of most of the metal can be way different from that of the water in the system. I certainly agree that it is sufficient if the total *energy* of the output and input can be directly measured. The measurement of momentary *power* of a highly dynamic system is not sufficient. . . So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more. The pressure is above air pressure always. We can assume no such thing. The water shown coming out of the exit port at the top was clearly not at 130°C. The pressure clearly was not high. The pressure appears highly variable, indicating the possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism. If water at 130° comes out it will immediately start to boil and vaporize until it is cooled down to 100°. Therefore we can assume, that the water that finally comes out of the hose is at 100 degrees. . . The water in the video at the top outlet did not do this. There was no sign of flash boiling. . . When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees. This did not happen at the top exit port in the video. I think this process is very fast and happened already at the pressure reduction valve. . . What pressure reduction valve? Are you saying you know there is a pressure reduction valve between the boiler and the outlet at the top of the new E-cat? . . It did happen, when they finally opened the input valve. Steam and water came out. This valve is at the bottom water level and at the coldest level. So if the water where 100° or colder then there wouldnt have been any steam. . . That to me is a sign that both the input water flow and output flow at the top was stopped. . . Of course you can assume this is a tricky fraud, but this is impossible to prove via internet. Only time and Rossi can answer this question, I cannot. Therefore I dont assume fraud or tricks, because this is impossible via internet. . . I did not say there was any fraud or trick. I've seen a lot of self deception in the free energy field over the last 15 years. Some researchers, when they observe an apparent excess energy effect, manipulate the variables to enhance the apparent effect, without regard for the possibility that it is merely an artifact that is being amplified. Other researchers do everything they or anyone else can think of to rule out artifacts. Rossi and associates appear to fall more into the first group than the second, regardless of whether the effect is all artifact or not . . Best regards, Peter Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
of overflowing water. Mat later calculates a Worst Case Scenario and I think he messed up a bit, my worst Case is: 1) Under Water Flow Inlet he reports flow as 11.08 kg/hr during boiling 2) At 21:50 he measures water overflow as 5.0 to 6.5 kg/hr 3) So worst estimate of steam is 11.08 -6.5 = 4.58 kg/hr 4) if this was 90% steam (distinctly possible for a boiler) then we get about 4.1 kg/hr of steam 5) Times heat of vapourisation (628wh/kg) = 2600Watts 6) And heating 11.08 kg/hr to boiling = 11.08 * 81.3 = 900W so as input power is close to 2600W we only have 900W excess energy. Not very convincing for a module of a 1MW plant! I'd also like to address the fact that temperature rose after power was turned off. This can be explained by thermal inertia if the point where heat being applied was not the same point where temperature was being measured. The point where heat was being applied could be quite a bit hotter than 130C and even after power was cut we could could continue to get output temperature rising. Just imagine a steel bar and we heat one end and measure the temperature at the other end, there is a lag as heat transfers along the bar, turning off the heat and the the cool end of the bar continues to increase in temperature for a while. Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a major disappointment. Colin On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted without proof. If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? - Original Message - *From:* Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi Jed, But Mats did not measure steam during that 35 mins and if heat loss was just the cold water in and hot out then the temp would decrease quite slowly. Note we have at least 23kg of hot water and only 11kg/hr in. so 17% change of water in 30 minutes. Input temp is 29C and if we allow another 10kg of thermal mass plus 23kg of water then an approx temp drop of around 12% in 30 min 12%(130 -29) = 12C drop But then how could we have 130C water? Maybe a pressure relief valve? It's very hard to explain this demonstration, too many assumptions. Colin On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a major disappointment. I tend to agree, because power input was high and they did not measure total enthalpy. However, the last 35 min. with no input power redeemed the test. I do not think there is anyway you can explain that except as massive anomalous energy. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Interesting observations. I agree you should publish your findings. I too am disappointed with the demonstration. All they really need to do is vent the hydrogen during operation to convince me. If they had vented the hydrogen at 15mins after power off and observed a change in the cooling rate I would be convinced. From: colinher...@gmail.com Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:00:25 +0800 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hi Finlay, I mean if you take temperature of two chambers to be 130C at time power is turned off, and allow cold water to flow in at 11l/h and hot water to flow out based on the simulated temp in the chimney then the rate of drop in temperature is virtually identical to that reported by Mats. This simulation used a two chamber model with 12kg water equivalent thermal mass in chamber 1 and 21kg in chamber 2. During start up, when the reported the power is added to chamber 1 the simulated temperature matches very well with what is seen until we reach 100C in the chimney, so it looks like the thermal mass estimate is fairly accurate. From the 100C point, if you allow 600W heat loss due to steam the temperature curve is also a very good fit without any added heat from CF. I need to do a little work on the simulation before I can publish it. But I'm convinced the whole temperature curve can be explained without any CF heat being added. However I can't explain why we have back pressure of 1 bar, there would have to be a pretty small opening for the steam. And i can't explain the volume of overflow water measured as this would indicate more steam than 600W. Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned. Colin On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote: Colin, Excellent analysis! Thank you very much for posting this information. Could you clarify what you mean when you say BUT only if during this power off period there is not much power being used to make steam? Are you saying that the result is consistent with the simulation only if all the outflow from the device is liquid water? Thank you again for your well reasoned and detailed post. Hi, I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking. A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the eCat, it's a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal equivalent of water with cold water entering chamber 1, being heated by the heater and reactor and then the same water flowing into a second chamber and supplying heat to it. By adjusting the thermal masses I could get this model to pretty accurately predict the temperatures on the ECat during the warm up period and then I needed to add excess heat beyond the electrical supply to get the temperature charts from Rossi's experiments. This pretty well convinced me that Rossi was onto something. I'll paste a couple of charts from the simulation but I'm not sure if they'll come through. The simulation is not perfect but I think it's close enough. The major issue is that as the reactor chamber heats above boiling we have a mix of steam water in it and moving into chamber 2. Rather than simulate this I just model chamber 1 as water 100C with no steam. That's why the red line goes over 100C, you can think of it as the amount of heat going into the next chamber rather than temperature. Below is simulation from 16 Dec Test. It uses 900W input power with increase to 1800W at 17:47 and two chamber model of thermal mass 0.7kg and 1.3kg. The model also has power dropping to 0 at 18:00, Levi reported that the reaction self sustained for 15 minutes. An interesting point is fast cool down of the real reactor at 18:15 vs the slow cool down predicted by the model. This is 100 consistent with Levi report that water flow was increased to stop the reaction. And now the simulation from 14th Jan test. This first chart shows simulated temperature based on zero excess power. The simulation is overlaid over actual power and temperature charts from the report. The interesting point is that the simulation fits the initial temperature rise and the fall at the end of the experiment. The only explanation for the actual temperature graph is excess heat. These simulations, though not perfect, have convinced me there is excess energy. Now comes this new demo so I just entered all the data provided by Mats, adjusted the thermal mass (33kg) to get the initial rise in temperature to match the data, and ... The charts are pretty consistent with there being no excess energy, the drop in temperature after the power is off can be fully
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. » Rossi has said that his megawatt plant will produce steam with 200°C and thus pressure is 1.6 megapascals. I think that modules are connected paraller, therefore one individual module will operate at 1.6 MPa pressure. This should be in line as demonstrated E-Cat was peak producing 7kW ± 1kW heat, then final product would boost up to 200°C with 27 kW output. i think that the small orifice was there only for demonstration purposes, in order to simulate e.g. steam turbine that is connected into MW-plant. Right now outlet hose was not connected into anything that would cause backpressure or demand work from steam. Therefore work had to be simulated with small orifice. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Mmm.. So you think if they'd used a smaller orifice and changed nothing else the power would have jumped to 27KW? On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. » Rossi has said that his megawatt plant will produce steam with 200°C and thus pressure is 1.6 megapascals. I think that modules are connected paraller, therefore one individual module will operate at 1.6 MPa pressure. This should be in line as demonstrated E-Cat was peak producing 7kW ± 1kW heat, then final product would boost up to 200°C with 27 kW output. i think that the small orifice was there only for demonstration purposes, in order to simulate e.g. steam turbine that is connected into MW-plant. Right now outlet hose was not connected into anything that would cause backpressure or demand work from steam. Therefore work had to be simulated with small orifice. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
In my opinion steam enthalpy is both necessary and sufficient. This is an industrial test not a scientific one. The question is if these two new surprisingly short tests are more reliable and convincing than the former 7 ones. to generate heat and to be a new energy source are not identical. Peter On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3264362.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/** nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3264361.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com The experiment report is very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3264365.ece/** BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+**September+7+%28pdf%29http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r Various problems with other runs fixed. A long run will be even more interesting.Situation is now complex due to no thermal equilibrium being established. Constant dynamics require *measuring* cumulative energy in vs out. Hopefully some kind of calorimetry will be done on the output, and cumulative energy in vs energy out will be measured via kWh meter and independent calorimetry on the steam/water output. It would be nice if everyone could use the standard thermodynamics definition of steam quality or vapor quality. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Vapor_qualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Dear Horace, Yes our points of view are quite similar. These 2 tests can be characterized as partially aborted, unfortunately.Or as an other disfunctionality starting with early DOING AND NOT DOING in the same time, is the house's specialty. Engineers are taught If you do something, do it well and finish it -at the end. Or do not do it.at all. Taught at the school and by Life. Peter On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I am having trouble making sense of your comments. I'll cover the interpretations I have. To be of any commercial value total energy out has to be greater than total energy in for a prolonged period. If not, might as well use a good commercial electric boiler. After all these years discussing the foibles of calorimetry it should be obvious that you can not measure energy out vs energy in for a highly dynamic thermal and electrical system by taking occasional momentary power readings. My comments regarding steam quality is merely aimed at definitions apparently being used by some, i.e. that it involves entrained water droplets only, and not flowing or spurting water. That is strictly about word use, not the actual physics applied. The test was interesting, but not totally convincing, even to Mats Lewan. I only saw a report of one test for this device: http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r I get the impression more is to come. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 14, 2011, at 1:18 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: In my opinion steam enthalpy is both necessary and sufficient. This is an industrial test not a scientific one. The question is if these two new surprisingly short tests are more reliable and convincing than the former 7 ones. to generate heat and to be a new energy source are not identical. Peter On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/** article3264362.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/** nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3264361.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com The experiment report is very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3264365.ece/** BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+**September+7+%28pdf%29http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r Various problems with other runs fixed. A long run will be even more interesting.Situation is now complex due to no thermal equilibrium being established. Constant dynamics require *measuring* cumulative energy in vs out. Hopefully some kind of calorimetry will be done on the output, and cumulative energy in vs energy out will be measured via kWh meter and independent calorimetry on the steam/water output. It would be nice if everyone could use the standard thermodynamics definition of steam quality or vapor quality. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Vapor_qualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Bologna April 19, 2011 Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.1 grams - after: 13652.6 grams Total loaded: 0.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 25 bar Bologna April 28, 2011 Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.2 grams - after: 13652.9 grams Total loaded: 0.3 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 12 bar Bologna September 7, 2011 Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams of hydrogen between April and September. Does this make sense? How much H2 is typically inside the bottle? How ist the weight measured? Does the weight force of the hydrogen-hose go into the result? Am 14.09.2011 11:05, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com The experiment report is very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r Various problems with other runs fixed. A long run will be even more interesting.Situation is now complex due to no thermal equilibrium being established. Constant dynamics require *measuring* cumulative energy in vs out. Hopefully some kind of calorimetry will be done on the output, and cumulative energy in vs energy out will be measured via kWh meter and independent calorimetry on the steam/water output. It would be nice if everyone could use the standard thermodynamics definition of steam quality or vapor quality. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
These test results are indeed difficult to explain. I have one question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course. However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature at local pressure. Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain 130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small, just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating, because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC. But, this seems more plausible 1MW production plant. I think that later development can boost individual module output power at least few orders of magnitude. It should be possible, if sufficient cooling is arranged, that there is 1 GW power plant fitted to the similar sized container. Anyways, my confidence for E-Cat has increased somewhat due to this new experiment. This really is starting to look commercially viable prototype. This would also decrease the main problem with Rossi that he chose very irrational method for bringing this cat out of the closed. He really seems to be ready to go directly into market without spending lots of public resources for RD. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi, On 14-9-2011 12:05, Peter Heckert wrote: Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams of hydrogen between April and September. Does this make sense? Well the following table is what the conditions might have been of the bottle; Presumed the contents of the bottle is 150 liter and the constant for this specific case is assumed 40; other numbers work as well, as long as the data in all fields in the same column for Volume and Constant is kept all the same. I leave it up to you to decide if this is feasible. DatePressureVolume Boyle Temp Bottle P*V/T P*V/c (bar) (liter) (deg. K)(deg. C) April 19, 2011 85 150 40 318,75 45,6 April 28, 2011 85 150 40 318,75 45,6 September 7, 2011 60 150 40 225 -48,15 The difference in 42 grams is easily explained; Rossi has done several other tests in the period between April 28 and September 7, in fact between April 19 and April 28 most likely also a test was performed by Rossi, due to the difference of 0.3 grams. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams of hydrogen between April and September. Does this make sense? How much H2 is typically inside the bottle? It is probably leaking a little. I have not seen the hardware, but based on Rossi's other devices, I doubt it is as gas-tight as something like a laboratory-grade Swagelok connector. Also, it is hard to measure such small amounts of gas accurately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29, I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik These test results are indeed difficult to explain. I have one question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course. However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature at local pressure. Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain 130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small, just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating, because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC. But, this seems more plausible 1MW production plant. I think that later development can boost individual module output power at least few orders of magnitude. It should be possible, if sufficient cooling is arranged, that there is 1 GW power plant fitted to the similar sized container. Anyways, my confidence for E-Cat has increased somewhat due to this new experiment. This really is starting to look commercially viable prototype. This would also decrease the main problem with Rossi that he chose very irrational method for bringing this cat out of the closed. He really seems to be ready to go directly into market without spending lots of public resources for RD. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi, On 14-9-2011 15:05, Joe Catania wrote: I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain. It seems you misunderstood the term filling. It means filling the Rossi rector and NOT the Hydrogen bottle. These numbers apply to the Hydrogen bottle only and not the Rossi reactor. So filling in this case means removing or better said using from the bottle of Hydrogen. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Good catch. Yes I've commented about how I dtested this method of weighing before. I seem to have forgotten how he did it but I can see it is prone to inaccuracy. He only fills it to 20 bars. He'd have to buy me many dinners to convince me of this. All in all the rest of the report is sloppy or full on inconsistencies. A seemingly bad temperature measurement shows up. He admits to water overflow. He guesses about the 130 degree temperature. The curreny number seems to bounce around from 11A to .11A even when the power is off but most glaringly he attributes what is clearly thermal inertia to CF in so many words! - Original Message - From: Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Hi, On 14-9-2011 15:05, Joe Catania wrote: I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain. It seems you misunderstood the term filling. It means filling the Rossi rector and NOT the Hydrogen bottle. These numbers apply to the Hydrogen bottle only and not the Rossi reactor. So filling in this case means removing or better said using from the bottle of Hydrogen. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece This video confirms my previous assumption above, that new E-Cat is operating approximately 170 kPa overpressure. Also it confirms that roughly 5 kW excess heat was produced. I have not yet made accurate analysis for calorimetry, but I think that we have now even better data than previously and we can calculate total enthalpy by at least one significant number. This video also disproofs wet steam hypothesis as steam and hot water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's atomization of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should be according normal steam physics. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece This video confirms my previous assumption above, that new E-Cat is operating approximately 170 kPa overpressure. Also it confirms that roughly 5 kW excess heat was produced. I have not yet made accurate analysis for calorimetry, but I think that we have now even better data than previously and we can calculate total enthalpy by at least one significant number. This video also disproofs wet steam hypothesis as steam and hot water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's atomization of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should be according normal steam physics. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy thermal inertia being the cause. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Any mass has a certain gradient described in temp/time for thermal gain or loss. I think Jed was specifying the period where the temperature rebounded higher than it existed while being heated by input power. That seems anomalous to me made more curious by the initial drop in temp when the input power is initially removed - the extra temp would seem to indicate the reaction has reinitiated without the resistive heating. My posit is that the active heating has opposite effects on the reaction cavities where the dominant heat is being generated by nominal nano scale cavities while there also exist some hot spots of sub nano geometry that are held from runaway by the pulse width modulation - I suspect that these pockets can finally start to run away when the PWM is removed and quickly grow to the point where they start to reignite the larger cavities in place of the PWM. This would also explain Rossi's concern about damage - not only to the pico cavities melting down and losing the ability to operate closed loop but also over stimulating the larger cavities to plastic hot conditions where the stiction forces would alleviate the Casimir geometries.[melting closed or growing perpendicular whiskers] Fran From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy thermal inertia being the cause. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwellmailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.commailto:zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Amazing persistence with consistence by Rossi and unskilled observers, as yet again a flawed demo that provides partial and inadequate evidence and information for settling the issue of whether there is indeed any excess heat or other anomalies... Naturally, a pragmatic skeptic will consider how the electric heater would be the source of the temperature fluctuations... There needs to be detailed information about the location of the thermister, the actual mass and geometry of the interior of the device, and tests to determine its thermal mass and average heat capacity -- also heat capacity may vary with flow rate, temperature, and pressure -- if the heater heats a local region with substantial mass to temperatures much higher than the 130 deg C (water, steam, both?) outside the local region, then with electric power shut off, that heat in the hot local region will continue to flow into the wider region where the water flows, increasing its temperature a few degrees... so not a heat after death LENR miracle, but just complex thermal inertia... As Spock often noted, human behavior is constantly facinating in the variety of its strangeness...
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
No. Admittedly the temperature drop at powerdown may or may not be valid. In fact if there's any magnetic field associated with the heating coils there could be some EMF from shutting it down. It would seem to be an anomaly if we assume it was measuring anything with thermal mass. Just notice that the next valid reading is at the level it was before power off. There does seem to be some inaccuracy (or at least variation) in the thermometry. For instance the anomalous drop in T1 to 21.4 at 21:10. Aside from a couple of obvious glitches there is nothing thyere that dosen't suggest the temperature decay expected from thermal inertia causes. In fact it is not possible to rule out thermal inertia at all as it must exist. It's as likely that the gravitational field suddenly ceased to exist as thermal inertia was eliminated. In any case even if this was a demo of anomalous heat the explanation certainly wouldn't be CF. There's no way to justify that. In my opinion more study needs to be done on the heating core. - Original Message - From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:32 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Any mass has a certain gradient described in temp/time for thermal gain or loss. I think Jed was specifying the period where the temperature rebounded higher than it existed while being heated by input power. That seems anomalous to me made more curious by the initial drop in temp when the input power is initially removed - the extra temp would seem to indicate the reaction has reinitiated without the resistive heating. My posit is that the active heating has opposite effects on the reaction cavities where the dominant heat is being generated by nominal nano scale cavities while there also exist some hot spots of sub nano geometry that are held from runaway by the pulse width modulation - I suspect that these pockets can finally start to run away when the PWM is removed and quickly grow to the point where they start to reignite the larger cavities in place of the PWM. This would also explain Rossi's concern about damage - not only to the pico cavities melting down and losing the ability to operate closed loop but also over stimulating the larger cavities to plastic hot conditions where the stiction forces would alleviate the Casimir geometries.[melting closed or growing perpendicular whiskers] Fran From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy thermal inertia being the cause. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 05:00 AM 9/14/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: These test results are indeed difficult to explain. And (regrettably) incomplete. We know that the power to the resistor was being cycled on and off, but not the actual duty ratio! Water came out -- but we don't know its temperature. I have one question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course. However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature at local pressure. I plugged a couple of values into my calculator just to see the shape of things (I used the total input water flow, and a 100% power duty cycle). First, presuming it boiled at atmospheric pressure, and was then superheated to 130 http://tinyurl.com/ecat-lewan-sep-superheated This is what would happen if it boiled at 130 and produced steam quality of 0.5 (all the overflow water) http://tinyurl.com/ecat-lewan-sep-boil130 The chimney could act as a pressure-reducer. Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain 130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small, just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating, because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC. I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an online calculator) It's hard to explain a temperature increase by thermal storage.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Mr. Catania, What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2 degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been previously recorded to have been dropping. BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a fool is no way to go about winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the thermal inertia situation than you. Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of this forum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
The data after power off are not consistent with a temperature increase from before power off. In fact there is a steady decline from before power of which is completely consitent with thermal inertia. The thermal inertia is of course more than a two minute effect in this E-Cat as examination of the heat-up data and post power-down data confirm. Also this is inline w/ estimates of the mass of metal in E-Cat. You're confused if you think you see anomalous production after power-off. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Mr. Catania, What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2 degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been previously recorded to have been dropping. BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a fool is no way to go about winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the thermal inertia situation than you. Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of this forum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. That data is from: *Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011* Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in this report. We could have used that in previous reports. As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after all. I am still working through this report. Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment attached to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies and magnetic fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple performance, the people observing the experiment would have seen that happen immediately when the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this could not explain the temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off. Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow rate (rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermal inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The highest temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was turned off. I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hello again, Mr. Catania, I realize I'm just as guilty of using this term as you, but IMO the continued use of the phrase, thermal inertia to explain the interesting thermal temperature changes tends to confuse the issue more than it helps. Technically speaking, what's happening here has little to do with inertia, certainly not in a mechanical sense. Inertia implies that there are Newtonian/mechanical forces at play. What we are trying to assess here are the effects of Thermal Propagation - how heat transfers (migrates) throughout Rossi's eCat configuration. A more objective study of query would be to perform a Finite Element Method simulation of the thermal effects in order to observe how temperatures are alleged to propagate through Rossi's eCats. Obviously, the computer model would have to be based on the physical properties of Rossi's eCats as accurately as possible. Alas, I suspect there are none on this forum that might possess the dimensional/physical specifications of Rossi's eCats, or the technical know-how on how to run the appropriate FEM s/w. As for me, I have performed thousands of FEMM, (Finite Element Method Magnetic) simulations, but never on the effects of thermal migration. Alas, I can't be of much assistance. With that said, I have read your comments several times. Your first sentence starts out stating: The data after power off are not consistent with a temperature increase from before power off. You continue with additional comments that confuse me even more. Perhaps your command of the English language is not terribly good. I know I'm dyslexic at times, so I try to give allowances the literary grammatical eccentricities of others. All I know is that I have yet to understand what you are trying to say. I do know that you end by saying I'm ...confused if [I] think [I] see anomalous production after power off. That part I get. ;-) Indeed, perhaps I am confused, Mr. Catania. But then, perhaps the confusion is at the other end. Time will tell. I'm content to wait it out and see what develops. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Here my Analysis: At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure. Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open? Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure reduction valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it closes when the pressure sinks. This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure. Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated: (This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure) 1 bar - 120.2° 1.5 bar - 127.4° 2.0 bar - 133.5° 2.5 bar - 138.9° Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it has a temperature of 120°. Wenn it flows out it will vaporize partially and produce steam. This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose: The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade. When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand to air (over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the steam will cool down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the output water flow at the steam outlet. So far my qualitative steam temperature pressure analysis. There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
2011/9/14 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: 50% fluid water 2.5% drops 47.5% vapour This must be noted that these estimations are when temperature was ca. 118 °C or 90 kPa overpressure. After that temperature rose to 133°C and overpressure to 170 kPa. Therefore 60-80% of water was evaporated and E-Cat did work exactly as it should work. Actually I am somewhat puzzled that indeed E-Cat is working such a perfect way that Rossi can push output power so close to the maximum of the enthalpy absorption ability of cooling water. This is either sure sign that technology is very commercially mature or it is a hoax. It is no more just a lab prototype, but commercially ready prototype. I was glad to see that he DOES have a simple water trap in the outlet hose, which separates the fluid water. I wonder if there is now enough evidence for the steam quality people to see that even after such high pressure difference hot water and steam are clearly separated. I wonder how history will remember this steam quality chapter, when prominent people (such as Krivit and Ekström) were violently discussing about steam quality without knowing what steam quality actually means. When Rossi opens the outlet the pressure of the water and steam is clearly greater than atmospheric. Indeed, for me it is very consistent pressure difference that of in autoclave although I have never dared to open the valve that fast as they did. I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an online calculator) Actually the diameter of the orifice where the hose is attached is probably the tightest place. And of course for steam backpressure, the tightest place is what counts most. The diameter of the orifice is considerably less than the inner diameter of the hose. I would estimate it to be 5-10 mm. This should be consistent with ca. 1.0°C / 3.2 kPa overpressure and the steam volume that was produced ca. 2 kW total power. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. That data is from: Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011 Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in this report. We could have used that in previous reports. As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after all. I am still working through this report. Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment attached to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies and magnetic fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple performance, the people observing the experiment would have seen that happen immediately when the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this could not explain the temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off. Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow rate (rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermal inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The highest temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was turned off. I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure. Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open? This troubled me too and I found it unexplainable until I thought that the valve, valve stem and metal were probably hot from having been previously heated by heater core. If their temperature had'nt dropped below 100C there could be considerable flahing to steam upon exit of water through the valve. - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Here my Analysis: At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure. Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open? Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure reduction valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it closes when the pressure sinks. This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure. Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated: (This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure) 1 bar - 120.2° 1.5 bar - 127.4° 2.0 bar - 133.5° 2.5 bar - 138.9° Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it has a temperature of 120°. Wenn it flows out it will vaporize partially and produce steam. This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose: The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade. When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand to air (over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the steam will cool down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the output water flow at the steam outlet. So far my qualitative steam temperature pressure analysis. There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
They admit themselves that steam quality could be as low as 59%. The pressure in the E-Cat is probably near atmospheric. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik 2011/9/14 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: 50% fluid water 2.5% drops 47.5% vapour This must be noted that these estimations are when temperature was ca. 118 °C or 90 kPa overpressure. After that temperature rose to 133°C and overpressure to 170 kPa. Therefore 60-80% of water was evaporated and E-Cat did work exactly as it should work. Actually I am somewhat puzzled that indeed E-Cat is working such a perfect way that Rossi can push output power so close to the maximum of the enthalpy absorption ability of cooling water. This is either sure sign that technology is very commercially mature or it is a hoax. It is no more just a lab prototype, but commercially ready prototype. I was glad to see that he DOES have a simple water trap in the outlet hose, which separates the fluid water. I wonder if there is now enough evidence for the steam quality people to see that even after such high pressure difference hot water and steam are clearly separated. I wonder how history will remember this steam quality chapter, when prominent people (such as Krivit and Ekström) were violently discussing about steam quality without knowing what steam quality actually means. When Rossi opens the outlet the pressure of the water and steam is clearly greater than atmospheric. Indeed, for me it is very consistent pressure difference that of in autoclave although I have never dared to open the valve that fast as they did. I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an online calculator) Actually the diameter of the orifice where the hose is attached is probably the tightest place. And of course for steam backpressure, the tightest place is what counts most. The diameter of the orifice is considerably less than the inner diameter of the hose. I would estimate it to be 5-10 mm. This should be consistent with ca. 1.0°C / 3.2 kPa overpressure and the steam volume that was produced ca. 2 kW total power. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece [snip] This video also disproofs wet steam hypothesis as steam and hot water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's atomization of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should be according normal steam physics. –Jouni The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. It would have been interesting to see the hose pulled off the older E- cats. I have no doubt whatsoever water poured out of them and out the hose. I see my calculations and assertions thoroughly vindicated. The hose was pulled off as I suggested and water gushed out along with the steam. I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to actually do calorimetry on the output? Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. What is likely indirectly being measured by the thermometer is the build-up of temperature in the large masses of lead, and copper, etc. within the insulation. I expect the thermometer is probably still in a metal well. The only difference this time is the thermal resistance is much lower between that well and the large metal thermal mass. Before the thermal wicking into the thermometer well easily could have accounted for a few °C, now it likely accounts for 30°C. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
2011/9/14 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to actually do calorimetry on the output? I will do it soon. Actually I am right now writing it. There are plenty of ways to do calorimetry. Not all ways are written in the engineer's manual. Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. Untrue. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. What is likely indirectly being measured by the thermometer is the build-up of temperature in the large masses of lead, and copper, etc. within the insulation. Water contains most of the thermal mass, therefore metal temperature is the same as water temperature. I suggest for you to toy around with autoclave. E-Cat behaves here exactly like autoclave. Pay especially attention when they opened the pressure valve and released 121°C water out of the E-Cat. If you have ever operated autoclave you will find this feeling very familiar. There is just something fascinating in high pressure steam. –Jouni
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
JC stated: (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's internal temperature on startup. Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of '5' and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power. Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
2011/9/14 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. Indeed that temperature graph is suggesting that thermal inertia could explain the behavior. This would work, if there is no inlet water pumped. But as there is pumped about 5 kg of inlet water into E-Cat during the self-sustaining mode, this would require that there is metallic thermal mass something like in order of one ton. Of course as there is lots of water, requirements are not that high, but still thermal inertia cannot explain the behavior of E-Cat not, by two orders of magnitude. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 09:52 AM 9/14/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Richard M. Any relation, I wonder? September 14th, 2011 at 3:33 AM Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi, If you could spare a bit of time, I have a few questions. 1)Could you please inform us as to the reactor core volume of the new E-Cat modules? Have they increased in size from 50 cubic centimeter modules? If so, what is their size and volume? AR: 1- same density as before 2) Will the home or domestic units you mention utilize the same reactor cores as the units in the one megawatt system? AR: 2- no info about this is available 3) Will the self sustaining home or domestic units have to utilize an input every 30 minutes, or will they be able to run continually without input? AR: 3- automatic operation 4) In the system featured by NyTeknik (very impressive by the way), is all the liquid water coming out from the system condensed steam that has cooled down while traveling down the tube? If so, the output energy is on the high side of Nytekniks estimates. AR: 4- yes Congratulations on the success you are having with the E-Cat! I hope you obtain the funding you need so the expenses will not have to come out of your own pocket.
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 01:55 PM 9/14/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: We know that the Setting is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states power was at this point constantly switched on, then a setting of 9 is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLCs are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of 5 is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. Lewan did report that at setting 5 the ON and OFF times were equal. So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Lewan did report that at setting 5 the ON and OFF times were equal. So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess. Lewan wrote that PLC/9 is full cycle. Also, that is a single digit decimal display. It don't go any higher than 9. Nine is it. Back in the day it would have gone all hexadecimal on you: 9, A, B, C, D, E, F. The programmers would smile knowingly and the civilians would wonder what the heck that was doing in a numeric display. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better understand that from first principles not from a typo. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/14 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to actually do calorimetry on the output? I will do it soon. Actually I am right now writing it. There are plenty of ways to do calorimetry. Not all ways are written in the engineer's manual. [snip] –Jouni Interesting! You are associated with Rossi? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's internal temperature on startup. Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of '5' and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power. Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Wrong, nothing like that mass is necessary. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik 2011/9/14 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. Indeed that temperature graph is suggesting that thermal inertia could explain the behavior. This would work, if there is no inlet water pumped. But as there is pumped about 5 kg of inlet water into E-Cat during the self-sustaining mode, this would require that there is metallic thermal mass something like in order of one ton. Of course as there is lots of water, requirements are not that high, but still thermal inertia cannot explain the behavior of E-Cat not, by two orders of magnitude. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On 2011-09-14 23:18, Jed Rothwell wrote: Lewan wrote that PLC/9 is full cycle. Also, that is a single digit decimal display. It don't go any higher than 9. Nine is it. Back in the day it would have gone all hexadecimal on you: 9, A, B, C, D, E, F. The programmers would smile knowingly and the civilians would wonder what the heck that was doing in a numeric display. By the way, that PLC works in 1/20 steps, not 1/10. Half steps are denoted by dotted numbers. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
They probably go from 80 to 100% in going from 8 to 9. So its obvious that thermal inertia would take it out about 2hrs. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:07 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik At 01:55 PM 9/14/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. Lewan did report that at setting 5 the ON and OFF times were equal. So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From Catania: For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better understand that from first principles not from a typo. From: Jed Rothwell Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. It has been a constant observation of mine that when Mr. Rothwell's has suspected a potential mistake or perhaps a typo in published data he has been quick to express his suspicions. Jed often quickly seeks to correct previous assumptions, even if it contradicts previous assessments he may have made. Meanwhile, I noticed that Mr. Catania's response to Mr. Rothwell's retraction appears to hinge on assuming a position of superiority by challenging Jed - such that Jed had better understand the first principals. The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. I could say something about that, such as: we are only human. Some more than others. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere in his analysis. I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond. Maybe he is Sun Tzu reincarnated? At least *that* would understandable. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
What was personally communicated to me by JR is, of course, beyond SVJ's ken. You seem to keen to overllok data which shows up the obvious flaw in your CF bias. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik From Catania: For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better understand that from first principles not from a typo. From: Jed Rothwell Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. It has been a constant observation of mine that when Mr. Rothwell's has suspected a potential mistake or perhaps a typo in published data he has been quick to express his suspicions. Jed often quickly seeks to correct previous assumptions, even if it contradicts previous assessments he may have made. Meanwhile, I noticed that Mr. Catania's response to Mr. Rothwell's retraction appears to hinge on assuming a position of superiority by challenging Jed - such that Jed had better understand the first principals. The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. I could say something about that, such as: we are only human. Some more than others. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. If you have nothing to say why refer me to Sun Tzu. Are you saying he does have something to say? - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere in his analysis. I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond. Maybe he is Sun Tzu reincarnated? At least *that* would understandable. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
When Aristotle explains in general terms what he tries to do in his philosophical works, he says he is looking for first principles (or origins; archai): In every systematic inquiry (methodos) where there are first principles, or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way to the elements. It is clear, then, that in the science of nature as elsewhere, we should try first to determine questions about the first principles. The naturally proper direction of our road is from things better known and clearer to us, to things that are clearer and better known by nature; for the things known to us are not the same as the things known unconditionally (haplôs). Hence it is necessary for us to progress, following this procedure, from the things that are less clear by nature, but clearer to us, towards things that are clearer and better known by nature. (Phys. 184a10-21) - Original Message - From: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. If you have nothing to say why refer me to Sun Tzu. Are you saying he does have something to say? - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere in his analysis. I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond. Maybe he is Sun Tzu reincarnated? At least *that* would understandable. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. I have read the Art of War three times in my career of three decades and learned much each time. Regarding SVJ's ken, his art is his self awareness and his objectivity. His Art is impressive. You also impress me. Impressions fill the spectrum. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
If the input water is municipal water, then it contains minerals, which will deposit out as boiler scale within the device, changing its temperature flow characteristics and internal geometry -- for instance, partially blocking and thus constricting the smallest outlet diameter, increasing the resistance to water flow, increasing the internal water/steam pressure within the device, causing increases of temperatures both of water and also of the heater resistor deep within the device, along with the mass of metals, storing increased heat energy in materials at various locations and temperatures -- if the heating resistor starts to deteriorate from overheating and corrosion, developing cracks, then it can short out the input electric voltage, electrolyzing the water into H2 and O2 bubbles, and causing many other complex electrochemical reactions with the impurities and dissolved metals in the water at various locations, temperatures, and pressures within the witch's cauldron -- eventually runaway short circuits can destroy the heater resistor and explode the device...
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 6 11 19:20 7 10 19:30 8 10 19:40 9 10 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Its a first principle. - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted without proof. If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
