Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I obtain 3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This is 4.75 hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill in the 5.5 hour period. Do you agree? You're right about the flow rate. I slipped a decimal point, so the water only changes 1.1 times in 5.5 hours. It's a simpler calculation than you did though (and I still got it wrong): 675 L/h is 675/107 = 6.3 L/h per ecat, so in 5.5 hours that's 34.7 liters or about 1.1 ecat. That changes the requirement for accurate flow rate to satisfy your condition to 10%, but I no longer think that's relevant, and as it happens, unnecessary to counter your argument. Here's why. If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the water level. In this case, the steam has to be at the boiling point, because there is nothing to heat the steam after it is formed. If you agree that the measured output temperature is at the boiling point though, then the question about why it's so stable is not necessary. Because that's what I was trying to establish in the first place. If the output were 1% steam, it would also be at the boiling point. Since the temperature is the only thing measured, it does not constitute evidence for dry steam. The reason I asked the question about the stable temperature, was to counter the claim that the temperature was above the boiling point, and therefore the steam must be dry. I think F. made that claim in his interview with Lewan, or at least implied it. If the steam is above the boiling point, then part of the heaters must be exposed to heat the steam. And in that case the level would be regulated pretty tightly by the need to balance the ecat power with the output power, since the power transfer would depend strongly on the amount of the heater submerged. With the level relatively stable, the output flow rate would be pretty constant, and then fluctuations in power would result in fluctuations in steam temperature. An increase in the power would cause a brief increase in the boiling rate, but that would reduce the level, causing the boiling rate to decrease, restoring the level, so the increased power would have to be removed by hotter steam. It is undoubtedly not as simple as the formula I gave, but if the steam is already a few degrees above the boiling point, it seems pretty reasonable that power fluctuations would result in significant temperature fluctuations. So, the relatively stable output temperature indicates that it is at the boiling point (including in your scenario), or the power is stable to 1% (in the second scenario). But I think we agree that the output is at the boiling point. And to my mind, that means there is no evidence of dry steam. The issue of the 8-fold power transfer increase suggests that dry steam is not reached for at least several hours after the onset of boiling, and of course, there is no evidence that it is ever reached.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my calculations for the October test. The results come very close to what Rossi claims for his 3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant. I'm not surprised. It seems to me that you start from the assumption that Rossi is right, and that he is producing nuclear energy, and adjust your analysis to fit.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Joshua, when I look at the pictures of the 1 MW module, I see an awful lot of pipes, tubes, valves and connections. Now pipes etc. are quite removed from my trade, so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions on how the structure of the system is. I suppose Rossi did not provide you with a detailed plan. Maybe you could draw a schematic of how you think this system is connected. Then you could explain your power level fluctuations imply that e-Cat modules overflow or whatever argument calmly and in detail. As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics. Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc. are not allowable arguments since they imply willful deception, a needlessly complicated hypothesis which is easily subsumed by the simple claim that all the data is simply fake. Now the 1 MW module has a control system; wires run to the pumps, of which there are at least four; we don't really know what kind of piping is inside the reactors. We know that the power of each reactor can be controlled, but not to what extent or how fast. Why couldn't there be overflow valves or other appropriate mechanisms to keep the water level or pressure in check? What makes you think that Rossi can't properly control his reactors, the input flow rate, the power level, or any other combination of variables to keep the thing running? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I obtain 3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This is 4.75 hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill in the 5.5 hour period. Do you agree? You're right about the flow rate. I slipped a decimal point, so the water only changes 1.1 times in 5.5 hours. It's a simpler calculation than you did though (and I still got it wrong): 675 L/h is 675/107 = 6.3 L/h per ecat, so in 5.5 hours that's 34.7 liters or about 1.1 ecat. That changes the requirement for accurate flow rate to satisfy your condition to 10%, but I no longer think that's relevant, and as it happens, unnecessary to counter your argument. Here's why. This was one of the easier things for us to agree on. I am sure there are many more if we continue to evaluate the system. If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the water level. In this case, the steam has to be at the boiling point, because there is nothing to heat the steam after it is formed. If you agree that the measured output temperature is at the boiling point though, then the question about why it's so stable is not necessary. Because that's what I was trying to establish in the first place. If the output were 1% steam, it would also be at the boiling point. Since the temperature is the only thing measured, it does not constitute evidence for dry steam. I think we both think that the system operates as you described above. The heater is submerged and the dry steam exits the output check valve heading toward the dissipaters. We are beginning to make a lot of progress. I hope that we reach a good consensus as I would be happy to admit a problem with the ECAT if we uncover one. I want to be sure that Rossi delivers what he suggests. The reason I asked the question about the stable temperature, was to counter the claim that the temperature was above the boiling point, and therefore the steam must be dry. I think F. made that claim in his interview with Lewan, or at least implied it. If the steam is above the boiling point, then part of the heaters must be exposed to heat the steam. And in that case the level would be regulated pretty tightly by the need to balance the ecat power with the output power, since the power transfer would depend strongly on the amount of the heater submerged. With the level relatively stable, the output flow rate would be pretty constant, and then fluctuations in power would result in fluctuations in steam temperature. An increase in the power would cause a brief increase in the boiling rate, but that would reduce the level, causing the boiling rate to decrease, restoring the level, so the increased power would have to be removed by hotter steam. It is undoubtedly not as simple as the formula I gave, but if the steam is already a few degrees above the boiling point, it seems pretty reasonable that power fluctuations would result in significant temperature fluctuations. Super heating is not in the cards in my opinion. The system design did not suggest that to me so I have never really thought about it in any detail. So, the relatively stable output temperature indicates that it is at the boiling point (including in your scenario), or the power is stable to 1% (in the second scenario). Yes, I agree that the boiling of the water within the ECAT devices is linked to the output via the check valve and thus the temperature is controlled to a reasonable degree. The interactions among the various ECATs can get very interesting with the non linear behavior associated with the valve performance. But I think we agree that the output is at the boiling point. And to my mind, that means there is no evidence of dry steam. We are in agreement that the output is at the boiling point plus any strange valve modifications. But to me the fact that the steam must exit through a small aperture that sits above the water level suggests that it will be pretty dry. And, the lack of water collection in the capture vessel suggests pretty dry steam. The layout of the piping for the steam path was arranged to allow the HVAC engineer to capture any significant water that flows inside these pipes. I have to assume that he is experienced in this type of testing and would understand any mechanism that demonstrates low quality vapor. This is the type of trick one learns on the job. The issue of the 8-fold power transfer increase suggests that dry steam is not reached for at least several hours after the onset of boiling, and of course, there is no evidence that it is ever reached. I have not evaluated this issue yet. I assume that we can get to
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:17 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have a report that is in the hands of Ny Teknik that shows my calculations for the October test. The results come very close to what Rossi claims for his 3 core ECAT that is used in the 1 MW plant. I'm not surprised. It seems to me that you start from the assumption that Rossi is right, and that he is producing nuclear energy, and adjust your analysis to fit. Actually that is not the way I approached the problem. If I find an error in Rossi's calculations I will report it. I have strongly defended the thermocouple error due to placement and am extremely careful to pick points that are least influenced by those errors. There as several time stamps where the output is high quality vapor at the beginning of the test which appear accurate. The temperature delta for the accurate points is only about 3.8 C corrected. And I used the measurement data obtained by Mats Lewan to get accurate output water flow rate. If you review my report, you will see that my figures are substantially below what other suggest. You should not assume that I am not going to be fair in my attempt to analyze the ECAT. I wish others were so inclined.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics. Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc. are not allowable arguments since they imply willful deception, a needlessly complicated hypothesis which is easily subsumed by the simple claim that all the data is simply fake. Why are you rejecting the possibility that Rossi faked his data? Perhaps he did it with deliberately bad measurement methods that he knew would mislead his guests in the early demonstrations. And when he introduced an entirely different and much larger module on October 6, along with an entirely different measurement system, maybe he also faked that and knew in advance what the erroneous measurements would show. And maybe there is no client for the October 28 device other than someone working with Rossi. You seem to reject the above hypotheses because they imply willful deception which you think is too complicated. But scamming wasn't too complicated an explanation for Steorn, Tilley, Dennis Lee, Priest, Geller, Mylow and many other scammers, was it? Yes, it would be daring and tricky to fool the scientists and reporters but such foolery has been successfully accomplished many times before. And the easiest to fool are often the eager early investors. You expect the skeptics to counter the argument that the E-cat produces excess heat but maybe it does. Maybe it does it only for the short times Rossi allowed it to run and only because there is an extraneous source of conventional energy in it. At the risk of boring the others, I have to remind you that it is Rossi who refuses to run long enough to rule out the scam hypothesis. It is Rossi who won't properly calibrate the measurement system as a whole by a blank run. It is Rossi who didn't allow complete disassembly (down to the cores, no need to go inside them) in the October 6 test. It is Rossi who has never availed himself of independent testing, even when Celani, an LENR proponent recently proposed it. It is Rossi who gives tangential and lame responses when asked about independent testing. It is Rossi who claims that he's sold 14 container sized nuclear fusion reactor and won't reveal who the clients are, much less the details of how they tested and the data they took. The skeptics can't prove the E-cat is phony because they can't take it apart or test it properly. And Rossi has not, in my estimation, done enough to prove it's real. I admire the efforts to analyze the details of the steam generation and I hope an answer will be found there since Rossi and his perhaps mythical clients are not disposed to provide one. But given the scattered data we have, it's a difficult proposition. Nor is it obvious from first principles as Jed Rothwell insists. Now the 1 MW module has a control system; wires run to the pumps, of which there are at least four; we don't really know what kind of piping is inside the reactors. We know that the power of each reactor can be controlled, but not to what extent or how fast. Rossi's devices have always been crude, poorly instrumented and with no evidence means of fine control -- hardly what one would expect in an experimental nuclear fusion device. Where are all the thermal, pressure and flow sensors and readouts we'd expect of such a potentially hazardous and powerful device? Where are the automated controls for the megawatt plant? How was it made safe? How was it proven to work? What was that honking huge generator doing running during the entire experiment and supplying unknown amounts of power to the device? These are all valid issues Rossi could provide answers for without compromising any trade secrets. Try asking him on his blog. Either he'll not allow the question to be seen or he'll give a brief, almost always tangential, evasive or equivocal response. Ask yourself if that's what you'd do if you had the greatest invention of the century.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the water level. In this case, the steam has to be at the boiling point, because there is nothing to heat the steam after it is formed. If you agree that the measured output temperature is at the boiling point though, then the question about why it's so stable is not necessary. Because that's what I was trying to establish in the first place. If the output were 1% steam, it would also be at the boiling point. Since the temperature is the only thing measured, it does not constitute evidence for dry steam. I think we both think that the system operates as you described above. The heater is submerged and the dry steam exits the output check valve heading toward the dissipaters. No. I don't think that at all. That operation is consistent with the temperature being at the boiling point, but it is not by any means necessary. And in fact the 8-fold increase in power required makes it completely implausible. The thing we agree on is that the output is at the boiling point. We are beginning to make a lot of progress. Polite debate is fine, but please don't get patronizing. You have not understood my argument yet. And it's not that complicated. I think progress is minimal, so far. The reason I asked the question about the stable temperature, was to counter the claim that the temperature was above the boiling point, and therefore the steam must be dry. I think F. made that claim in his interview with Lewan, or at least implied it. If the steam is above the boiling point, then part of the heaters must be exposed to heat the steam. And in that case the level would be regulated pretty tightly by the need to balance the ecat power with the output power, since the power transfer would depend strongly on the amount of the heater submerged. With the level relatively stable, the output flow rate would be pretty constant, and then fluctuations in power would result in fluctuations in steam temperature. An increase in the power would cause a brief increase in the boiling rate, but that would reduce the level, causing the boiling rate to decrease, restoring the level, so the increased power would have to be removed by hotter steam. It is undoubtedly not as simple as the formula I gave, but if the steam is already a few degrees above the boiling point, it seems pretty reasonable that power fluctuations would result in significant temperature fluctuations. Super heating is not in the cards in my opinion. The system design did not suggest that to me so I have never really thought about it in any detail. If the power exceeded the power necessary for complete vaporization, superheating would be the only way to remove the heat faster. At the flow rate given, 470 kW is the power you get for complete vaporization. So, imagine if the power was 670 kW. The only way to remove 670 kW at the given flow rate, would be if the steam heated above the boiling point. In fact way, way above it. So, the relatively stable output temperature indicates that it is at the boiling point (including in your scenario), or the power is stable to 1% (in the second scenario). Yes, I agree that the boiling of the water within the ECAT devices is linked to the output via the check valve and thus the temperature is controlled to a reasonable degree. The interactions among the various ECATs can get very interesting with the non linear behavior associated with the valve performance. You're complicating matters with something we don't know anything about. If the heating elements are submerged or at least wetted, then the steam has to be at the local boiling point. Full stop. But to me the fact that the steam must exit through a small aperture that sits above the water level suggests that it will be pretty dry. Here's where we differ. And this is the crux of the matter. We have no evidence that the water level is below the top, or for that matter any idea of what is going on inside the ecat. All we know is that the output is at the boiling point, so there is some steam present. Try to think what would happen if the power were say 235 kW. Then, you'd have half the water vaporized at the heating elements. Now steam is 1700 times as voluminous as water (at atmosphere), so you'd have enormous turbulence going on. And the mixture would be more than 99% gas (by volume). And yet, since only half of the water (by mass) gets vaporized the other half has to leave as liquid, or stay behind. At equilibrium, the most likely scenario is it leaves as a mist formed from the turbulence and entrained in the gas. In that case, you'd get a mist leaving at the boiling point. The temperature would be at the boiling point, just as
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions on how the structure of the system is. No. I make very few assumptions. I am simply using the data that's in the report. Input flow rate, output temperature. That's all that's given. Those two numbers are consistent with 70 kW or 470 kW depending on the degree of vaporization. Since no evidence is presented that the steam is dry, the data are consistent with 70 kW, and therefore about 1 GJ total energy out, give or take. On the input side, the report doesn't give figures, but Lewan mentions some, which are consistent with similar amount of input energy. So, the reported measurements are consistent with no more energy out than in. I don't think it's really worth considering until Rossi at least exceeds that very minimal condition but of course that doesn't stop me... As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics. Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc. are not allowable arguments since they imply willful deception, a needlessly complicated hypothesis which is easily subsumed by the simple claim that all the data is simply fake. You can say the arguments don't convince you, but you can't disallow them. The fact that energy storage is entirely consistent with the size and weight of the ecats means the reported results don't require nuclear reactions. Likewise the size and weight is consistent with chemical fuel, so nuclear fuel is not needed. That's enough to make me skeptical; your mileage may vary. The thing about these speculations is that it allows Fioravanti off the hook. We can take his measurements at face value, and assume he was tricked by the steam claim, just like so many others. And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he believed was the case. So everything is tied up neatly. Why couldn't there be overflow valves or other appropriate mechanisms to keep the water level or pressure in check? What makes you think that Rossi can't properly control his reactors, the input flow rate, the power level, or any other combination of variables to keep the thing running? Well, he could, but there is no evidence for it, and it doesn't change the argument that the data are consistent with no nuclear reactions. That might explain the stable temperature of dry steam (but why is there no indication of regulation (oscillation)?), but it would still not *require* dry steam. And in any case, it wouldn't explain the 8-fold power increase in 3 minutes.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he believed was the case. So everything is tied up neatly. Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off the hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year nor does it take him off the hook for claiming that 12 explosions took place nor for Levi's 18 hour test. And it won't take him off the hook if his customer doesn't exist and if the pending order for 13 reactors and all the backlog of orders Rossi claim never take place. Me, I'm still eagerly waiting for the contract with U of Bologna to be funded and for an E-cat to be given to them and to U of Uppsala. I'm sure Rossi is busy but it's hard to imagine why he can't have someone on his staff attend to these critical matters... soon.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he believed was the case. So everything is tied up neatly. Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off the hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year nor does it take him off the hook for claiming that 12 explosions took place nor for Levi's 18 hour test. And it won't take him off the hook if his customer doesn't exist and if the pending order for 13 reactors and all the backlog of orders Rossi claim never take place. I was referring to legal outs. I don't think any of those claims will lead to accusations of fraud. Or could they?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: And the nice thing about passive energy storage, is that it allows Rossi plausible deniability of intent to commit fraud. He can admit to some storage, but his claim was based on dry steam, which he can insist he believed was the case. So everything is tied up neatly. Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off the hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year nor does it take him off the hook for claiming that 12 explosions took place nor for Levi's 18 hour test. And it won't take him off the hook if his customer doesn't exist and if the pending order for 13 reactors and all the backlog of orders Rossi claim never take place. I was referring to legal outs. I don't think any of those claims will lead to accusations of fraud. Or could they? That I don't know not being a lawyer. Even so, I can visualize a lawsuit in the event it turns out that Rossi had stored energy in the devices and never told anyone. I can see Focardi, Levi, Celani and other notables as witnesses for the prosecution because they would certainly be steamed themselves, having been bamboozled. Combined with the short runs and all the extravagant claims about large heaters, explosions, and long (but non public) tests, I think a prosecution could argue that the stored energy had been part of a complex subterfuge to deceive investors, scientists and reporters in order to make money. And that would meet the requirements for fraud, at least in the US as I understand it. But I guess that sort of conjecture is as premature as guessing that the E-cat is real and works as advertised! PS: for non primary English speakers, steamed in the above context is slang for angry.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Ooops... Correction to my last post: a prosecution would be a criminal action and I was describing a civil law suit. I can see both civil suits (if there are investors or even customers) and criminal prosecution as possible if the E-cat turns out to be fraudulent rather than real.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it does for some of the public demos but it hardly takes him off the hook for the claim of a 35 kW heater that ran for a year . . . You shall see evidence of this . . . SOON! :-)
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Well, I guess I thought that you could see reasonable argument and progress from there, but now I suspect that I was wrong. It will not be productive to continue with this line of discussion. Unless you have a change of attitude, I will not devote any more energy in trying to teach you how the system works. Your mind is closed. Just carry along with the other skeptics until you see how wrong you have been. I am absolutely certain that Rossi has a working system and you will understand this well in a fairly short time. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 1:18 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:55 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If you claim the heating elements are submerged, then I completely agree that if the steam were dry, fluctuations in power in the ecats would be accommodated by fluctuations in output flow rate, and variations in the water level. In this case, the steam has to be at the boiling point, because there is nothing to heat the steam after it is formed. If you agree that the measured output temperature is at the boiling point though, then the question about why it's so stable is not necessary. Because that's what I was trying to establish in the first place. If the output were 1% steam, it would also be at the boiling point. Since the temperature is the only thing measured, it does not constitute evidence for dry steam. I think we both think that the system operates as you described above. The heater is submerged and the dry steam exits the output check valve heading toward the dissipaters. No. I don't think that at all. That operation is consistent with the temperature being at the boiling point, but it is not by any means necessary. And in fact the 8-fold increase in power required makes it completely implausible. The thing we agree on is that the output is at the boiling point. We are beginning to make a lot of progress. Polite debate is fine, but please don't get patronizing. You have not understood my argument yet. And it's not that complicated. I think progress is minimal, so far. The reason I asked the question about the stable temperature, was to counter the claim that the temperature was above the boiling point, and therefore the steam must be dry. I think F. made that claim in his interview with Lewan, or at least implied it. If the steam is above the boiling point, then part of the heaters must be exposed to heat the steam. And in that case the level would be regulated pretty tightly by the need to balance the ecat power with the output power, since the power transfer would depend strongly on the amount of the heater submerged. With the level relatively stable, the output flow rate would be pretty constant, and then fluctuations in power would result in fluctuations in steam temperature. An increase in the power would cause a brief increase in the boiling rate, but that would reduce the level, causing the boiling rate to decrease, restoring the level, so the increased power would have to be removed by hotter steam. It is undoubtedly not as simple as the formula I gave, but if the steam is already a few degrees above the boiling point, it seems pretty reasonable that power fluctuations would result in significant temperature fluctuations. Super heating is not in the cards in my opinion. The system design did not suggest that to me so I have never really thought about it in any detail. If the power exceeded the power necessary for complete vaporization, superheating would be the only way to remove the heat faster. At the flow rate given, 470 kW is the power you get for complete vaporization. So, imagine if the power was 670 kW. The only way to remove 670 kW at the given flow rate, would be if the steam heated above the boiling point. In fact way, way above it. So, the relatively stable output temperature indicates that it is at the boiling point (including in your scenario), or the power is stable to 1% (in the second scenario). Yes, I agree that the boiling of the water within the ECAT devices is linked to the output via the check valve and thus the temperature is controlled to a reasonable degree. The interactions among the various ECATs can get very interesting with the non linear behavior associated with the valve performance. You're complicating matters with something we don't know anything about. If the heating elements are submerged or at least wetted, then the steam has to be at the local boiling point. Full stop. But to me the fact that the steam must exit through a small aperture that sits above the water level suggests that it will be pretty dry. Here's where we differ. And this is the crux of the matter. We have no evidence that the water level
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Unless you have a change of attitude, I will not devote any more energy in trying to teach you how the system works. Your mind is closed. Again, with the condescension. But that kind of statement actually shows that it is your mind that is closed. You are certain you are right, and that I need to be taught. That's a closed mind. And then you go on to state it explicitly below. Just carry along with the other skeptics until you see how wrong you have been. I am absolutely certain that Rossi has a working system and you will understand this well in a fairly short time. I don't know why you think that kind of certainty has any value in an argument. It sounds like a religious statement, not a rational one. Would it help my case if I told you I was certain that you will understand your mistake in the future. No. I thought not. Probably it won't be anytime soon. Rossi's type usually knows how to string his disciples along for years. There are many examples. What your statement of certainty reveals is that you are unable to explain how the output being at the boiling point proves 100% vaporization, so you ignore it. To cut my previous post down to a single challenge: think about what you would observe if the power were 235 kW instead of 470 kW. Would the temperature be any different? Would Rossi collect any water in his trap through a closed valve? Oh, and one more implausibility occurred to me, that might be a little easier for you to understand. When the 8-fold increase in power transfer occurs, it not only means heating up a lot of thermal mass very quickly, but it also means that *all 107 ecats* have to turn on exactly at the onset of boiling. How on earth could that happen? The core of the ecat doesn't know when boiling starts, so it's amazing that even one knows when to turn on, but for all to turn on at the same time would be pretty amazing.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on an implausibility, rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. Not a rejection of a measurement, a rejection of the claim that the water is all vaporized, based on an implausibility that has nothing to do with his claimed reaction. I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short report. But that short report contains implausible interpretations of the thermodynamics that, once again, are completely independent of the claimed new heat producing reaction. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not be assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be assessed against the evidence. That's what I'm doing. They're the ones who aren't. They are claiming that all the water is being vaporized, but there is *no evidence* presented or even suggested to support that claim. Based on the evidence, it is mostly liquid. Where measurements provide evidence they should be be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. Right. Take the temperature at face value. But they didn't measure the pressure. So, we don't know the phase, yet they claim it is dry steam. Take the stability of the temperature at face value. That suggests a mixture of phases. Yet they claim, contrary to this evidence at face value, that it is pure steam. Take the time it takes to heat the ecat up to the onset of steam at face value. That's about 2 hours. To get dry steam, you need 8 times that power. The ecat is claimed to produce about the same heat as was used for the warm-up, so it should take about 8 times as long to reach dry steam, or about 16 hours. Taking the evidence at face value, there is no way you can get to dry steam from the onset of boiling in 5 minutes. So their interpretation is directly *contrary* to the evidence taken at face value. Heat is still heat, surely. Maybe not. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. [...] Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time. As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous energy equations: that there exists a great sea of negative energy. Feynmann became famous for removing all the infinities that resulted from the bizarro world of the square root of negative one. So, one interpretation of a system which runs on negative energy could certainly be thought of as removing the cold. :Þ T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Most if not all of the arguments that you are making are based upon speculation. Both sides of this discussion are not privy to the data required to prove their points. Let me make a suggestion to you guys. Is it possible for you to list your one major issue and not a dozen as here? If you do, those of us who want to determine the truth can concentrate upon each one until they are either resolved, or left undecided. I for one will be willing to play that game with you. So give me you best argument for one factor and lets discuss. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on an implausibility, rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. Not a rejection of a measurement, a rejection of the claim that the water is all vaporized, based on an implausibility that has nothing to do with his claimed reaction. I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short report. But that short report contains implausible interpretations of the thermodynamics that, once again, are completely independent of the claimed new heat producing reaction. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not be assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be assessed against the evidence. That's what I'm doing. They're the ones who aren't. They are claiming that all the water is being vaporized, but there is *no evidence* presented or even suggested to support that claim. Based on the evidence, it is mostly liquid. Where measurements provide evidence they should be be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. Right. Take the temperature at face value. But they didn't measure the pressure. So, we don't know the phase, yet they claim it is dry steam. Take the stability of the temperature at face value. That suggests a mixture of phases. Yet they claim, contrary to this evidence at face value, that it is pure steam. Take the time it takes to heat the ecat up to the onset of steam at face value. That's about 2 hours. To get dry steam, you need 8 times that power. The ecat is claimed to produce about the same heat as was used for the warm-up, so it should take about 8 times as long to reach dry steam, or about 16 hours. Taking the evidence at face value, there is no way you can get to dry steam from the onset of boiling in 5 minutes. So their interpretation is directly *contrary* to the evidence taken at face value. Heat is still heat, surely. Maybe not. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. [...] Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. OK, I can see this is a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous energy equations: [...] So, let me ask you: If the temperature of the output fluid was 90C, and the pressure was 1 atmosphere, and Rossi claimed it was 100% dry steam because water boils at a lower temperature when the heat is produced by a Rossi reaction, would you consider it plausible, with no additional evidence? Because it's exactly that type of violation of ordinary, well characterized (experimentally) thermodynamics, that Rossi's claim of dry steam in the Oct 28 demo requires, completely independent of his other extraordinary claim of cold fusion. And Harry seemed to suggest he would accept a claim of water boiling at 90C at atmosphere, without additional evidence, because Rossi might be removing cold. If you sign up for that as well, then you are also a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, let me ask you: I have made my personal position on Rossi's turning water into whine very clear several months ago. I find all this chatter just so much pink noise. T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the real world instead of dreamland? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: As Josh walks away shaking his head, I'll just say, on behalf of Harry, that this is exactly what P.A.M. Dirac discovered in his famous energy equations: [...] So, let me ask you: If the temperature of the output fluid was 90C, and the pressure was 1 atmosphere, and Rossi claimed it was 100% dry steam because water boils at a lower temperature when the heat is produced by a Rossi reaction, would you consider it plausible, with no additional evidence? Because it's exactly that type of violation of ordinary, well characterized (experimentally) thermodynamics, that Rossi's claim of dry steam in the Oct 28 demo requires, completely independent of his other extraordinary claim of cold fusion. And Harry seemed to suggest he would accept a claim of water boiling at 90C at atmosphere, without additional evidence, because Rossi might be removing cold. If you sign up for that as well, then you are also a waste of time.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the real world instead of dreamland? I did discuss reality. I said it is implausible from thermodynamics that the power transfer can increase 8-fold in a matter of minutes, as Rossi claims, if the first-fold power increase takes 2 hours. Then I was told that implausible thermodynamics don't matter because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. So then to test whether they really believed that suggestion, I proposed an even more thermodynamically implausible scenario, and asked if they would accept that implausibility if Rossi claimed it, because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. That's an analogy. All of us, except, as you say, those in dreamland, would reject the notion that water would boil at 90C at atmosphere, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction. The idea that an 8-fold increase in the power transfer requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the water and the heating element is a less obvious thermodynamic concept. But it is nevertheless just as true. So, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction, it remains implausible that the power transfer could increase that fast.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the measurement device could have actually shown that result? No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 12:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This post is completely out of touch with reality. Who has ever claimed anything about dry steam and Rossi's device at 90 C? Why not discuss the real world instead of dreamland? I did discuss reality. I said it is implausible from thermodynamics that the power transfer can increase 8-fold in a matter of minutes, as Rossi claims, if the first-fold power increase takes 2 hours. Then I was told that implausible thermodynamics don't matter because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. So then to test whether they really believed that suggestion, I proposed an even more thermodynamically implausible scenario, and asked if they would accept that implausibility if Rossi claimed it, because Rossi is introducing a new phenomenon. That's an analogy. All of us, except, as you say, those in dreamland, would reject the notion that water would boil at 90C at atmosphere, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction. The idea that an 8-fold increase in the power transfer requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the water and the heating element is a less obvious thermodynamic concept. But it is nevertheless just as true. So, just because the heat comes from a Rossiaction, it remains implausible that the power transfer could increase that fast.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the measurement device could have actually shown that result? What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the temperature. Without pressure, that does not indicate the phase. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not plausible. I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from a temperature measurement. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, then you could call it an anomalous happening.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: OK, I see your reason for the post. Well, did you consider that the measurement device could have actually shown that result? What measurement device are you referring to? They measured the temperature. Without pressure, that does not indicate the phase. Why be so dramatic. Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not plausible. Seems like I discussed this earlier. Close the lower steam path valve, collect any water that flows into the collection vessel, and then see how dry the steam is. Seems trivial to me (very little water). Do not forget to open the valve after you have finished collecting the water. I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from a temperature measurement. Are you stating that temperature can not under any circumstance show a rapid rise? I suggest you look into the experiment in details before you can be sure that the results are not possible. Even skeptics can jump to erroneous conclusions. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, then you could call it an anomalous happening. Does the data suggest it is dry? Is data considered evidence? I guess it is OK to cherry pick the data that suits our conclusions. Pretty hard to be held to the same standards that the believers are held to is it not?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:55 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course I referred to the temperature. There are other ways to check the quality besides pressure although that is the usual one. Pressure can only be used to identify dry steam, if the temperature is above the local boiling point. It can't be used to determine steam quality between 0 and 100%. That's probably why Rossi didn't use it. It would have probably shown that the fluid was at the boiling point, which would be consistent with very low quality steam. The only method they claimed was the use a tee in the conduit to trap liquid, which would be useless for water entrained in a fast moving vapor. No one can be sure as to exactly what it is reading under the test conditions. It's not the measurement of the temperature that is at issue. It's taking the value of the temperature as evidence of dry steam that is not plausible. Seems like I discussed this earlier. Close the lower steam path valve, collect any water that flows into the collection vessel, and then see how dry the steam is. Seems trivial to me (very little water). Do not forget to open the valve after you have finished collecting the water. You have got to be kidding. If the ecats are producing dry steam at 675 kg/h = 320 L/s, then considering the ecats are mostly filled with water, the pressure would double in a second or so, and triple in 2 seconds. Long before you can collect any water, you'd blow the ecats apart, or more likely back the pumps up, meaning the fluid content would be meaningless. And you call yourself a technical type? You know that measuring steam quality is a very serious business in the turbine industry, and they don't use a method like this. They use calorimetry, by sparging the steam in a big vat of water. If it was so trivial as you say, why would they go to the trouble? I personally would agree with you that it is hard to believe that such an increase actually happened, but we need to find out what lead to the measurement. They *didn't* measure the increase. They *inferred* it incorrectly from a temperature measurement. Are you stating that temperature can not under any circumstance show a rapid rise? I suggest you look into the experiment in details before you can be sure that the results are not possible. Even skeptics can jump to erroneous conclusions. Of course temperature can rise rapidly under certain conditions. But we know how fast the ecat temperature rises as a function of power from the warm-up period. With 170 kW input or so, it takes to hours to reach 70 kW power transfer (the onset of boiling). With 470 kW power from the ecat, the power transfer could not change from 70 kW to 470 kW in a few minutes. The thermal inertia, observed in the warmup, would prevent that. This is the type of anomalous happenings that lead to new discoveries. It's not an anomalous happening. It's a claim of dry steam without evidence. If they proved the steam was dry a few minutes after boiling, then you could call it an anomalous happening. Does the data suggest it is dry? No. Is data considered evidence? Is this a philosophical question? Some data is evidence for some things. Temperature alone is not evidence of dry steam. I guess it is OK to cherry pick the data that suits our conclusions. I used all the evidence provided. And I didn't so much use it to reach a conclusion, as show that it doesn't support a claimed conclusion. Pretty hard to be held to the same standards that the believers are held to is it not? Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to support their claims. Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims, by showing the data is also consistent with another interpretation. If the other interpretation is more plausible, then the claim becomes even more unlikely.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to support their claims. Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims, by showing the data is also consistent with another interpretation. If the other interpretation is more plausible, then the claim becomes even more unlikely. I disagree and I will explain. For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by Rossi et al. IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS. This means that it is meaningless to judge the data in the light of the claims, or to judge the claims in the light of the data. The only thing we can do is look for INCONSISTENCIES. INCONSISTENCIES can be physical or logical. - A PHYSICAL INCONSISTENCY would be, for instance, Rossi claiming that the water flow rate was X, and someone deducing from pictures and footage that X is not possible because of observed or reported pipe diameters, pressures, etc. - A LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY would be a non sequitur, i.e., Rossi claiming that an amount X of excess heat was produced based on data Y and Z, while X depends on an unknown quantity T. Claiming that some subset of the data could be achieved using a particular method M is not useful if the method M contradicts the body of information provided by Rossi. For example, claiming that the same results could be obtained by storing heat in graphite and having it released during the demo is useless. It is useless, because according to Rossi's description of the reactor, the reactors contain no large amount of graphite (or unicorn poo) capable of storing that much heat, nor do they contain a mechanism for thermally insulating that graphite until the demo starts and then providing a controlled heat exchange. If, on the other hand, you manage show that the shell of the reactor, as deduced from the known data, can store the pre-heating energy and release it during the demo at the observed rate, then you're in business and can claim that the data does not unambiguously support the conclusion that excess heat was produced. Now, as I said in the initial post of this thread: The amount of water heated proves that a large quantity of excess energy was released during the demonstration. Persons who wish to claim that this excess energy might have come from the pre-heating period need to provide plausible accumulation, storage and retrieval mechanisms compatible with the claimed geometries of the reactors. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
I appreciate your handling of this issue Berke. I have become weary of answering some of the skeptic claims that are totally out of touch with reality. If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time, but they should be required to support their claims instead of just suppositions. My lack of response to some of their posts does not suggest that I accept their statements, but instead demonstrates my desire to not have to repeat over and over the same arguments. This repetition reminds me of the definition of insanity. Why do skeptics think that shouting the same words many times will make them true? False ideas do not improve with this procedure. Thank you and maybe now they will understand, Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 8:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to support their claims. Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims, by showing the data is also consistent with another interpretation. If the other interpretation is more plausible, then the claim becomes even more unlikely. I disagree and I will explain. For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by ossi et al. IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS. This means that it is meaningless to judge the data in the light of he claims, or to judge the claims in the light of the data. The only thing we can do is look for INCONSISTENCIES. INCONSISTENCIES can be physical or logical. - A PHYSICAL INCONSISTENCY would be, for instance, Rossi claiming that the water flow rate was X, and someone deducing from pictures and footage that X is not possible because of observed or reported pipe diameters, pressures, etc. - A LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY would be a non sequitur, i.e., Rossi claiming that an amount X of excess heat was produced based on data Y and Z, while X depends on an unknown quantity T. Claiming that some subset of the data could be achieved using a articular method M is not useful if the method M contradicts the body f information provided by Rossi. For example, claiming that the same results could be obtained by toring heat in graphite and having it released during the demo is useless. It is useless, because according to Rossi's description of the eactor, the reactors contain no large amount of graphite (or unicorn oo) capable of storing that much heat, nor do they contain a echanism for thermally insulating that graphite until the demo starts nd then providing a controlled heat exchange. If, on the other hand, you manage show that the shell of the reactor, s deduced from the known data, can store the pre-heating energy and elease it during the demo at the observed rate, then you're in usiness and can claim that the data does not unambiguously support he conclusion that excess heat was produced. Now, as I said in the initial post of this thread: The amount of water heated proves that a large quantity of excess nergy was released during the demonstration. Persons who wish to claim that this excess energy might have come from he pre-heating period need to provide plausible accumulation, storage nd retrieval mechanisms compatible with the claimed geometries f the reactors. - erke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by Rossi et al. IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS. This is certainly the way I feel about the 18-hour test, where there were zero outside witnesses, and none of the data was released. Unfortunately, it also involves Levi, and it would require his complicity. After the Oct 6 demo, though I got an idea how Rossi might have fooled Levi -- using the old thermocouple on the metal trick. After all, he used an unnecessarily high flow rate so that just a few degrees difference would give a large power. But in most of the demos with reporters present, the temperatures were taken of the fluid with witnesses, not all of whom could be complicit (probably none), so the numbers had to bear some relation to reality. And most of them relied on the same steam claims that appear in the megacat demo. So, in those cases, showing that the data is consistent with much lower power does invalidate the claims. Even in the megacat demo, it's entirely possible that F. is not in on the scheme, and may have been fooled by the steam trick. After all Kullander and Essen were. So showing that the numbers *they* report do not *require* 470 kW output, but are consistent with 70 kW, should completely rob them of credibility. It does for me anyway. The only thing we can do is look for INCONSISTENCIES. That's exactly what I did. Maybe you didn't read the posts. I said that the claim of dry steam immediately after the temperature hits 105C is *inconsistent* with the time it takes to warm up the ecat in the pre-heating stage. It is inconsistent that it could go from 70 kW power transfer to 470 kW power transfer in a few minutes if it takes 2 hours to go from 0 power transfer to 70 kW power transfer. It is also inconsistent for the temperature of the output to be so closely regulated at 105C if the output is pure steam. Unless it is a mixture of phases, the temperature will be proportional to the power, and it is not plausible that the power is regulated to within 1 %. Claiming that some subset of the data could be achieved using a particular method M is not useful if the method M contradicts the body of information provided by Rossi. That's not what I did. I claimed that *dry steam* (not a subset of the data, but a physical phenomenon) could not be achieved, because it is inconsistent with the body of information (warm-up period) provided by Rossi. And I claimed that *all* the data reported could have been achieved with 70 kW power output (nothing to do with methods), and that 70 kW power output is consistent with the entire body of information provided by Rossi. You're not having much success trying to generalize what I'm saying, so why don't you just try to address the specifics of what I'm saying. If the measurements that Rossi reports are completely consistent with 70 kW output, why should I believe that they are producing 470 kW, just because they misinterpret their own data? For example, claiming that the same results could be obtained by storing heat in graphite and having it released during the demo is useless. Ah, you're talking about earlier discussions of mechanisms to provide the heat storage. When I said what you quoted, it was about the 70 kW output vs the 470 kW output. As for the mechanism of heat storage, that is a less essential part. It seems to me that any demonstration of an energy producing device must *at least* produce more energy than it consumes. Otherwise it's a pretty useless device. It's not enough to say, well it *would* produce more if we kept it running. That's what the demo's about: showing us that it can produce more. The measurements reported by Rossi do not support the claim that it produces more energy than it consumes. That should really be the end of the story. But if people don't believe it could store energy, then it's reasonable to point out ways that it could. And probably the easiest way is with fire bricks, but much more could be stored in molten metals. It is useless, because according to Rossi's description of the reactor, the reactors contain no large amount of graphite (or unicorn poo) capable of storing that much heat, nor do they contain a mechanism for thermally insulating that graphite until the demo starts and then providing a controlled heat exchange. Well, I agree that this is a little pointless in the megacat demo, because it's all Rossi's word anyway, and even Rothwell said he takes his confidence from earlier demos. But still, F. doesn't have to know what's in the ecats, and so if you can show that the measurements he reports are consistent with energy storage, and can convince yourself that energy storage is possible, then there is no reason to believe that Rossi has produced heat from nuclear reactions. Apart from saying there's nickel, hydrogen and lead in the cell,
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your critique...
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your critique... Doubtful. T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
I guess you did not read the posts that some of us have written. Many cirtics have succeeded in shouting for a long time, but are clearly in error. I for one do not wish to keep trying to educate those who will not learn or who disregard the evidence that is placed before them. It gets boring explaining the same thing over and over again. It is my weakness to not shout along with them forever as time is too valuable to waste in this manner. Dave -Original Message- From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo Thank you Joshua Cude, for being extremely persistent in presenting an extremely strong case with a lucid analysis of the available data -- it may even be that the proponents are starting to connect the dots of your critique...
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time, but they should be required to support their claims instead of just suppositions. My claims have been supported in detail. More than I can say for yours or Rossi's. Why do skeptics think that shouting the same words many times will make them true? I don't, And I only repeat my arguments in *response* to repetitions of the same erroneous claims made by the Rossians.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Ok, I just did some calculating about the 1% power regulation you insist upon and it is bogus. Do you wish to prove your point? Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time, but they should be required to support their claims instead of just suppositions. My claims have been supported in detail. More than I can say for yours or Rossi's. Why do skeptics think that shouting the same words many times will make them true? I don't, And I only repeat my arguments in *response* to repetitions of the same erroneous claims made by the Rossians.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
I will give you a clue. A 10 % error in input flow rate would take 47 hours to empty the ECAT. The test was active according the the customer for 5.5 hours, so where is the problem with water level control? This I want to hear. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: If they wish to discuss one issue in depth, I will attempt to find time, but they should be required to support their claims instead of just suppositions. My claims have been supported in detail. More than I can say for yours or Rossi's. Why do skeptics think that shouting the same words many times will make them true? I don't, And I only repeat my arguments in *response* to repetitions of the same erroneous claims made by the Rossians.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Dave, Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as Nasa calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY obviously, wrong. This is the main reason that skeptics have been referring to the condensed, recirculating, steam as the steam trick redux. You may have reviewed all of this, and if so, I apologize. You just seem to make some intelligent observations, and I wonder if you are missing some background from June and earlier. Did you read: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3706appendixa1.shtml It's a great summation of what Cude is trying to get across.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Ok, I just did some calculating about the 1% power regulation you insist upon and it is bogus. Do you wish to prove your point? If the output is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, which would be the case if the heating element is exposed, then the output power is (dm/dt)(c1*deltaT1 + L + c2*deltaT2) where c1 is the specific heat of liquid water (1 cal/gK), deltaT1 is the change in temperature of the water (about 80C), L is the latent heat of vaporization (540 cal/g), c2 is the specific heat of steam (0.5 cal/gK), and deltaT2 is the temperature change of the steam. So, that means the power is proportional to (620 + .5 deltaT(in C)) Now, if you look at the temperature graph, after boiling is reached, it is pretty well between 100C and 110C, for a fluctuation of +/- 5C. Actually the std dev is quite a bit smaller. And a fluctuation of +/- 5 C results in a fluctuation in the power of +/- 2.5/620 or about +/- 0.5 % for temperature stable within a range of 1%. Now, if the heating elements are submerged, and the output flow rate varies with power, then the level is bound within a tight range, meaning, as I argued before that the average flow rate would have to be matched to the power to an accuracy of 1% to avoid either exposing the heating element or sending liquid out of the ecat. Here the 1% comes from the fact that the ecat is filled 11 times during the test, and assuming that you have to fill it to about 90% to cover the heating elements.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Robert, I agree with you completely that the other tests did not have dry vapor output. I concluded that the October 6 test had a quality of about 20% at the time that Mats Lewan collected his .91 grams/second measurement. If this latest monster cat was a copy of those devices in parallel, then I would be in the same camp as Cude. But, Rossi definitely appears to have 3 cores active for the 1 MW components. They put out at least 2 times the power in the self sustaining mode as the October 6 test device and the positive feedback due to core interaction makes the time domain fall off rate much less. These devices are different animals due to the added cores. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo Dave, ave you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as Nasa alls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under ircumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY obviously, wrong. his is the main reason that skeptics have been referring to the condensed, ecirculating, steam as the steam trick redux. ou may have reviewed all of this, and if so, I apologize. You just seem to make ome intelligent observations, and I wonder if you are missing some background rom June and earlier. id you read: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3706appendixa1.shtml t's a great summation of what Cude is trying to get across.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave, Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as Nasa calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY obviously, wrong. This is the main reason that skeptics have been referring to the condensed, recirculating, steam as the steam trick redux. You may have reviewed all of this, and if so, I apologize. You just seem to make some intelligent observations, and I wonder if you are missing some background from June and earlier. Did you read: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3706appendixa1.shtml It's a great summation of what Cude is trying to get across. Yes, he makes the same argument, but I don't agree completely with his interpretation, In the second last picture in that file, he is showing the chimney filled with water and steam above it. But steam is formed in the reactor, and has to pass through the water. Since even a small amount of steam (1%) would immediately occupy most of the space ( 90%), you should see the chimney filled mainly with steam and water broken up into some sort of a mist or climbing up the walls or something. So that's why I think you'd get a mist forming, and becoming entrained in the steam, rather than the sort of separation of steam and liquid shown in the picture.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: But, Rossi definitely appears to have 3 cores active for the 1 MW components. They put out at least 2 times the power in the self sustaining mode as the October 6 test device and the positive feedback due to core interaction makes the time domain fall off rate much less. What is your evidence for this? All we have is the output temperature measurement. And that is consistent with a mixture of phases at the boiling point, so we're back to not knowing how much power is produced. And it is consistent with power as low as 70 kW.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Lets make sure we agree on the terms. Then we can proceed to discuss the details. See below. -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:45 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:54 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Ok, I just did some calculating about the 1% power regulation you insist upon and it is bogus. Do you wish to prove your point? If the output is dry steam, and the flow rate is constant, which would be the case if the heating element is exposed, then the output power is (dm/dt)(c1*deltaT1 + L + c2*deltaT2) Here I would like to ensure that we have an agreement. The input flow rate is constant, but I do not think that the output flow rate would be. My contention is that the output flow rate depends upon the instantaneous power output of the devices. This most likely drops throughout the test. where c1 is the specific heat of liquid water (1 cal/gK), deltaT1 is the change in temperature of the water (about 80C), L is the latent heat of vaporization (540 cal/g), c2 is the specific heat of steam (0.5 cal/gK), and deltaT2 is the temperature change of the steam. So, that means the power is proportional to (620 + .5 deltaT(in C)) Please modify your formula to take into consideration that the output flow rate is not constant and varies. Now, if you look at the temperature graph, after boiling is reached, it is pretty well between 100C and 110C, for a fluctuation of +/- 5C. Actually the std dev is quite a bit smaller. And a fluctuation of +/- 5 C results in a fluctuation in the power of +/- 2.5/620 or about +/- 0.5 % for temperature stable within a range of 1%. Ok, if that is the way you want to define the range, I might be able to agree to it. The accuracies seem a bit too tight for a first look and I may have to see if it seems correct. But first, we have to account for the fact that the output flow rate is not constant. The power output is also not going to be constant. One additional factor which needs to be considered is the fact that there is a direct connection between the dry vapor and the boiling water within the ECATs. A valve is all that separates them and it is open on all of the units I presume. How did you take this into consideration? My belief is that this valve will control the vapor temperature as if the vapor were in some contact with the liquid within the ECAT. What do you think of this assumption? Now, if the heating elements are submerged, and the output flow rate varies with power, then the level is bound within a tight range, meaning, as I argued before that the average flow rate would have to be matched to the power to an accuracy of 1% to avoid either exposing the heating element or sending liquid out of the ecat. Here the 1% comes from the fact that the ecat is filled 11 times during the test, and assuming that you have to fill it to about 90% to cover the heating elements. Here I do not agree that the ECAT is filled 11 times during the test. I obtain 3 grams/ECAT / 1.7539 grams/seconds = 17105 seconds/ECAT. This is 4.75 hours to empty one cat. That is only a bit more than one refill in the 5.5 hour period. Do you agree? We need to make sure we are talking the same language. Explain where you get the figure of 11 times? It is my opinion that the ECAT core or heat sink is submerged in water during the entire test period.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
I agree that the old cats were quite a bit different than the new ones. The new devices have a lot of potential volume to contain vapor above the water. And of course the very tiny hole associated with the output valve would make water have a hard time finding its way out with the dry steam. If the ECAT is full of water, then all bets are off. The test on October 6 had an interesting upward bump near the end of the test period. I concluded that this was the result of water beginning to fill the ECAT and clog up the valve causing the pressure to rise. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 12:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Dave, Have you examined the earlier E-Cat tests? Before the Fat-Cat (or as Nasa calls it the Ottoman, Rossi was claiming complete vaporization under circumstances that were obviously, I mean REALLY obviously, wrong. This is the main reason that skeptics have been referring to the condensed, recirculating, steam as the steam trick redux. You may have reviewed all of this, and if so, I apologize. You just seem to make some intelligent observations, and I wonder if you are missing some background from June and earlier. Did you read: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/3706appendixa1.shtml It's a great summation of what Cude is trying to get across. Yes, he makes the same argument, but I don't agree completely with his interpretation, In the second last picture in that file, he is showing the chimney filled with water and steam above it. But steam is formed in the reactor, and has to pass through the water. Since even a small amount of steam (1%) would immediately occupy most of the space ( 90%), you should see the chimney filled mainly with steam and water broken up into some sort of a mist or climbing up the walls or something. So that's why I think you'd get a mist forming, and becoming entrained in the steam, rather than the sort of separation of steam and liquid shown in the picture.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the data is entirely consistent with no excess heat. Not according to Ny Teknik's This is how the test was done box at http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece Subtracting the energy supplied during startup, about 320 kWh at an average power of 160 kW, the net energy would still be 2249 kWh. In this case the energy output during startup should also be estimated and added. That's 320e3 x 3600 = 576 MJ. So if you trust the reported figures, then there clearly is plenty of excess energy, and the only non-cold-fusion explanation involves an international conspiracy and technologically non-trivial deception. What I meant was, if you trust their *measured* data, namely the measured temperatures. Their *calculation* of total output power (and output energy) requires an unproved (and extremely unlikely) assumption that the output fluid was dry steam. As I've said before, the temperatures are consistent with 70 kW output, to give 385 kWh total. The input power before 12:30 is not given in the report, so that's a 2nd order trust, but if you accept Lewan's report that it was 320 kWh, and if you add the 66 kWh input during the self-sustained mode, that's 386 kWh. There is no report that water was flowing out during the warm-up period, so the report is consistent with no energy output in that time. The report is also consistent with energy being stored in the ecats from previous runs; they could have had power going in through the night, e.g. Finally, the input power does not include any energy added by chemical reactions between the hydrogen and nickel, which could be substantial, and would not be considered excess energy. So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent with no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions* to get a lot of excess energy. And their assumptions are highly implausible, because they require (1) a discontinuous, eightfold increase in the power transfer within a few minutes, and (2) an output power transfer that is stable to within a per cent or two.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Oops, I made a mistake. We have 320 kWh x 3600 s/h = 1.15 GJ and not 576 MJ. And Joshua Cude wrote: As I've said before, the temperatures are consistent with 70 kW output, to give 385 kWh total. So Joshua is right that the figures are consistent if we suppose a hidden energy storage mechanism. The problem is that I know of a storage mechanism that doesn't involve Rossi, Focardi, etc. conspiring to deceive and developing specific technology for that. How one can accidentally store 1 GJ in the modules and release it nicely over a period of 5.5 hours? Especially given that Rossi talks of the reactor cores not exceeding 500 degrees. There isn't supposed to be any phase-change material in there. Joshua Cude also wrote: Finally, the input power does not include any energy added by chemical reactions between the hydrogen and nickel, which could be substantial, and would not be considered excess energy. The report states that 1.7 g of H2 was used. How do you want to produce substantial energy with that? 1.7 of H2 is 3.4 mol or 2.05e24 molecules. To get even one 1 kW for 5.5 hours which is 20 MJ or 125e24 eV, you need a whopping 61 eV per molecule. That's pushing it a bit for only 1 kW. Claiming that the energy comes from that amount of hydrogen is equivalent to admitting nuclear reactions. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that I know of a storage mechanism that doesn't involve Rossi, Focardi, etc. conspiring to deceive and developing specific technology for that. How one can accidentally store 1 GJ in the modules and release it nicely over a period of 5.5 hours? Heated fire bricks will do the trick as I said before, and who said anything about accidentally storing energy; I'm sure it's deliberate. Fire bricks are not a new technology. There's plenty of room for them, and a wide temperature range possible. I suppose that could be called deception, but I think Rossi could successfully claim otherwise, admitting there is storage, but having been honestly mistaken as to the total claimed output energy, which may exceed the possible storage (depending on what's actually in there). So, I don't think skeptics have ruled out (and probably suspect) some kind of deception. From a strictly scientific view, we don't care about motivations, only that the results do not unequivocally require nuclear reactions to explain them. Especially given that Rossi talks of the reactor cores not exceeding 500 degrees. He has also talked about 1500C, but I don't think he's committed to any definite temperature. There isn't supposed to be any phase-change material in there. I don't think he's committed to that either, but whatever, he's said things that turned out wrong. It's possible is all that matters. Joshua Cude also wrote: Finally, the input power does not include any energy added by chemical reactions between the hydrogen and nickel, which could be substantial, and would not be considered excess energy. The report states that 1.7 g of H2 was used. How do you want to produce substantial energy with that? You're right. To produce substantial chemical heat from H-Ni, he would have to be deceiving us in the amount of hydrogen in the cell. If the core was already pressurized with hydrogen, then opening the valve to the bottle could consume only a small amount more. I'm kind of skeptical of the hydrogen weight measurements anyway, because in one demo, the bottle actually got heavier. I think concealing a weight on the bottle to compensate would be pretty easy. But again, the observations can actually be explained without chemical heat. Claiming that the energy comes from that amount of hydrogen is equivalent to admitting nuclear reactions. I only claimed part of it might come from there, and if he snuck in more hydrogen than he claimed, it is still possible.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent with no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions* to get a lot of excess energy. And their assumptions are highly implausible, because they require (1) a discontinuous, eightfold increase in the power transfer within a few minutes, and (2) an output power transfer that is stable to within a per cent or two. If this is highly implausible, then so is a lever. Harry
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, if you trust the reported *measurements*, then they are consistent with no excess energy at all. You have to trust their *assumptions* to get a lot of excess energy. And their assumptions are highly implausible, because they require (1) a discontinuous, eightfold increase in the power transfer within a few minutes, and (2) an output power transfer that is stable to within a per cent or two. If this is highly implausible, then so is a lever. Please explain the connection. Discontinuously increasing the temperature of a large thermal mass is nothing like a lever. If you came from a community that did not use levers and never developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men? Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was hollow. If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a magician who knows the magic of the lever. Harry
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
If you came from a community that did not use levers and never developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men? Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was hollow. If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a magician who knows the magic of the lever. I believe that is what the demand for independent university or government tests are for.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: I believe that is what the demand for independent university or government tests are for. If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to your satisfaction before paying (clams?), would you buy it?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: I believe that is what the demand for independent university or government tests are for. If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to your satisfaction before paying (clams?), would you buy it? Absolutely! As long as I get to chose the escrow company. The other problem is that I don't want a huge kludge for 2 million dollars! I'd be happy to buy a small E-cat for say, $100K? I'd set up the tests with some help from heat transfer/fluid flow specialists I know and it shouldn't take more than two weeks plus agreed on run time to do due diligence and acceptance testing. All I would require would be that it run a long time (2-3 weeks would be fine) and make a robust amount of excess energy -1 kW continuous would be fine. I'd be delighted (and would be able) to pay $100K for that. I'd also require that Rossi allow the test results to become public. No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to. I am pretty sure nothing like that will be made available to anyone. Do you have reason to believe it will? If not, why did you ask? It would have been entirely in Rossi's interest to get one university (or famous lab) test rather than the dog and pony shows he provided yet he never did it. BTW, I offered $100K cash on the spot to Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto for their HHO assisted Honda Accord that they advertised on their web site made 100 miles per gallon of gasoline. I only asked that it have the same (or greater) performance and curb weight as the stock model and that the performance be verified on a dynamometer of my choosing. Also that all the hydrogen be generated from electricity derived from engine power without external supplies of electricity and that the test be long enough (several thousand miles to rule out chemical energy storage or fuel inside the chassis or some other subterfuge). All I heard were crickets in the night. The offer was made on Sterling Allan's web site.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If you came from a community that did not use levers and never developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men? Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was hollow. If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a magician who knows the magic of the lever. If he claimed to be able to perform this feat because of a new technology that I was unfamiliar with, then I might be skeptical, but open to observing a demonstration. If he described the method saying he would use a thin bamboo pole pivoted on yonder tree, I would be skeptical not only of his new technology, which I was unfamiliar with, but also of the implausibility of a bamboo pole being strong enough, because between the tree and the rock, the technology is old. Unless he is claiming that when the new technology of leverage is used, that the bamboo takes on new strength, and the old laws don't apply. So, Rossi is claiming a new heat-producing reaction, and while I'm skeptical of it, I'm interested in his attempts to demonstrate it. But the implausibility I expressed above, was not of the reaction Rossi claims, but of intermediate physics that is not new, and that is necessary to believe his interpretation of the demo. The interpretation of the Oct 28 demo, and all the other steam demos, assumes that the power transfer to the water increases 8-fold at the onset (or within minutes) of boiling, and that requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the heating element and the water. Given the time it takes to increase the temperature of the heating element to its first-fold power transfer (hours), this is impossibly implausible. Or is Rossi also claiming that if heat is produced by nuclear reactions, then the thermodynamics of heat transport is completely different?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to. You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy? I thought you'd be happy if it were unicorn-powered. What's their gamma-ray spectrum?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to. You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy? I thought you'd be happy if it were unicorn-powered. What's their gamma-ray spectrum? I believe she means just the opposite. She would not demand secrets, just a black box analysis. I myself would not be willing to attend a demonstration of a Rossi device unless there was robust radiation detection equipment in place. I do not need to see the spectrum but I would demand assurances that the test is reasonably safe. I say this because Celani detected anomalous bursts of radiation when the machine turned on. Most cold fusion devices do not any dangerous radiation. Most devices are small. Perhaps when you scale them up to kilowatts or megawatts they do produce significant radiation. Or perhaps only nickel ones produce radiation. That does not seem likely but I see no reason for anyone to take risks, when we can install detection equipment. I hope it would be possible to turn off the device quickly if significant radiation is detected. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to. You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy? I thought you'd be happy if it were unicorn-powered. No. Perhaps you misread what I wrote or I was not clear? I only demand good tests of radical new claims before I buy anything. I don't understand your problem with my response. I'd buy a unicorn powered generator too if someone could prove by proper testing that it made cheap energy. | What's their gamma-ray spectrum? I was referring to a test Rossi objected to that someone wanted to run in one of his first public demonstrations. The nuclear physicist who was doing the radiation monitoring wanted to do some sort of spectroscopy on the radiation from the E-cat. Apparently it did produced some back then. Rossi objected. I don't want to do anything like that -- no need. A three week run at a verified 1kW excess output over some reasonable input (less than 300 watts for example) or something proportional but different from that example would be fine. Under independent testing, of course. No Rossi fingers adjusting anything. The points you may have missed are that I would want verified performance numbers before buying an E-cat and they would need to be iron clad but I would not ask for anything that could be remotely interpreted as asking for trade secrets. Do you have a problem with any of that in the prior sentence? If it's not clear, by all means ask again and I'll do my best to explain it more.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Voice input can be annoying. I need to adjust this latest upgrade. It works better but I get careless. I meant to say: Most cold fusion devices do not PRODUCE any dangerous radiation. I said Most devices are small. Perhaps when you scale them up to kilowatts or megawatts they do produce significant radiation. I did not mean they suddenly start radiating. I meant that the radiation per watt of anomalous power is small, but when power is increased the radiation increases to the point where it becomes easy to detect. I doubt that is the situation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
At 12:55 PM 11/17/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 12:25 PM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to. You demand the trade secrets of everything you buy? I thought you'd be happy if it were unicorn-powered. What's their gamma-ray spectrum? Ooops ... I misread that. You DON'T want said sekrits. Sorry.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Be careful what you ask for Mary. I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor. -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:45 AM 11/17/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: I believe that is what the demand for independent university or government tests are for. If he offered to sell you one, on condition that you could test it to your satisfaction before paying (clams?), would you buy it? Absolutely! As long as I get to chose the escrow company. The other problem is that I don't want a huge kludge for 2 million dollars! I'd be happy to buy a small E-cat for say, $100K? I'd set up the tests with some help from heat transfer/fluid flow specialists I know and it shouldn't take more than two weeks plus agreed on run time to do due diligence and acceptance testing. All I would require would be that it run a long time (2-3 weeks would be fine) and make a robust amount of excess energy -1 kW continuous would be fine. I'd be delighted (and would be able) to pay $100K for that. I'd also require that Rossi allow the test results to become public. No secrets-- just results in terms of methods used, instruments used, raw data obtained and computed results. No gamma spectrum or anything else he supposedly objects to. I am pretty sure nothing like that will be made available to anyone. Do you have reason to believe it will? If not, why did you ask? It would have been entirely in Rossi's interest to get one university (or famous lab) test rather than the dog and pony shows he provided yet he never did it. BTW, I offered $100K cash on the spot to Dennis Lee and Jeff Otto for their HHO assisted Honda Accord that they advertised on their web site made 100 miles per gallon of gasoline. I only asked that it have the same (or greater) performance and curb weight as the stock model and that the performance be verified on a dynamometer of my choosing. Also that all the hydrogen be generated from electricity derived from engine power without external supplies of electricity and that the test be long enough (several thousand miles to rule out chemical energy storage or fuel inside the chassis or some other subterfuge). All I heard were crickets in the night. The offer was made on Sterling Allan's web site.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Be careful what you ask for Mary. I don't understand. Do you mean I'd be upset to get an Ecat for $100K? Why? (oh why?) I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor. I just wish he had a good sense of fairness and a willingness to conduct basic scientific experiments on his device or better yet, have them done. .
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
He may sell you one for 100 k when he would sell it a lot cheaper to anyone else. I recall $2000 per 1000 watts. You are paying the 50 kW price for a 10 kW device. He should do it fast. Why not put together a long list of all of the things you want Rossi to do and just post it once a day? Why the broken record? Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 17, 2011 6:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Be careful what you ask for Mary. I don't understand. Do you mean I'd be upset to get an Ecat for $100K? Why? (oh why?) I just wish Rossi had a good sense of humor. I just wish he had a good sense of fairness and a willingness to conduct basic scientific experiments on his device or better yet, have them done. .
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: If you came from a community that did not use levers and never developed the rudiments of lever science, how would you react upon hearing a story that one man shifted a stone with a branch that you KNOW from the stones description should require at least 8 strong men? Is the story a tall tale? Was this man a giant? Perhaps the stone was hollow. If he is an ordinary man and the story is accurate, then he is a magician who knows the magic of the lever. If he claimed to be able to perform this feat because of a new technology that I was unfamiliar with, then I might be skeptical, but open to observing a demonstration. If he described the method saying he would use a thin bamboo pole pivoted on yonder tree, I would be skeptical not only of his new technology, which I was unfamiliar with, but also of the implausibility of a bamboo pole being strong enough, because between the tree and the rock, the technology is old. Unless he is claiming that when the new technology of leverage is used, that the bamboo takes on new strength, and the old laws don't apply. So, Rossi is claiming a new heat-producing reaction, and while I'm skeptical of it, I'm interested in his attempts to demonstrate it. But the implausibility I expressed above, was not of the reaction Rossi claims, but of intermediate physics that is not new, and that is necessary to believe his interpretation of the demo. The interpretation of the Oct 28 demo, and all the other steam demos, assumes that the power transfer to the water increases 8-fold at the onset (or within minutes) of boiling, and that requires an 8-fold increase in the temperature difference between the heating element and the water. Given the time it takes to increase the temperature of the heating element to its first-fold power transfer (hours), this is impossibly implausible. Or is Rossi also claiming that if heat is produced by nuclear reactions, then the thermodynamics of heat transport is completely different? Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat) than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less plausible. An explanation of performance may be so characterised, but Rossi gets his eCat to perform without an explanation. Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged with some instruments. If the instrumentation is sound then the claim is true, and the conceptual framework known as the laws of physics may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the performance. Harry
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat) than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less plausible. But I wasn't talking about the plausibility of the claimed reaction. I was talking about the plausibility of his method of measuring it. Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged with some instruments. (This is peripheral to the point, but anyway...) I don't agree. If it runs without any input, then the fact that it produces substantial output power can be identified without instruments. You can tell if a 1.5 kW space heater is working without instruments, just as you can tell if firewood is burning or not without a thermometer. Now, to judge whether it exceeds chemical energy requires instruments only if it exceeds it narrowly, by a factor of 10 or less maybe. But he's claiming a factor of a million or so, so if he produced 100 times more than chemical, that would be easy to identify without instruments. He could use the heat to heat a big swimming pool, or a series of tanker trucks, or something. If he takes the water from ambient to boiling, and you estimate the volume, then no instruments are needed. Or if he used the heat to produce electricity, and then used the electricity to do some work, like lifting a large truck, or to power an electric car, then instruments would not be needed to estimate the energy to within a factor of 100. Of course, Rossi is nowhere near that level, and it would take some time, so for the demos he is doing, where the claimed output barely exceeds what he claims is feasible chemically (taking only a fraction of the weight of the ecat), then yes, instruments are needed, especially since he also has to provide input either continuously or periodically. But to me, his need for instruments to demonstrate such a dramatic effect, makes it much less credible. If the instrumentation is sound then the claim is true, and the conceptual framework known as the laws of physics may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the performance. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those heating elements still have to get hot, and the way the heat flows through the brass or steel pipes is surely not affected by Rossi's new H-Ni physics. Heat is still heat, surely. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. That would be implausible because water boils at 100C at atmospheric pressure. Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Therefore we can't say that it's implausible? Would you say that?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi claims his device produces more energy (in the form of heat) than it consumes (in the form of electricity). This is a performance claim, and it should not be characterised as being more or less plausible. But I wasn't talking about the plausibility of the it. claimed reaction. I was talking about the plausibility of his method of measuring You used a thermodynamic argument in one location to reject a measurement at a different location. This is a rejection of a measurement based on an implausibility, rather than on deficiencies of the instrumentation. Unlike the Wright's claim of powered flight which could be adequately guaged without the aid of instruments, Rossi's claim must be guaged with some instruments. (This is peripheral to the point, but anyway...) I don't agree. If it runs without any input, then the fact that it produces substantial output power can be identified without instruments. You can tell if a 1.5 kW space heater is working without instruments, just as you can tell if firewood is burning or not without a thermometer. Now, to judge whether it exceeds chemical energy requires instruments only if it exceeds it narrowly, by a factor of 10 or less maybe. But he's claiming a factor of a million or so, so if he produced 100 times more than chemical, that would be easy to identify without instruments. He could use the heat to heat a big swimming pool, or a series of tanker trucks, or something. If he takes the water from ambient to boiling, and you estimate the volume, then no instruments are needed. Or if he used the heat to produce electricity, and then used the electricity to do some work, like lifting a large truck, or to power an electric car, then instruments would not be needed to estimate the energy to within a factor of 100. Of course, Rossi is nowhere near that level, and it would take some time, so for the demos he is doing, where the claimed output barely exceeds what he claims is feasible chemically (taking only a fraction of the weight of the ecat), then yes, instruments are needed, especially since he also has to provide input either continuously or periodically. But to me, his need for instruments to demonstrate such a dramatic effect, makes it much less credible. I think he did such a dramatic demonstration for his customer's reps. The measurements were just a formality. Other people at the Oct 28 demonstration were not allowed to experience the drama up close, so all we have to go on are some measurements contained in a short report. If the instrumentation is sound then the claim is true, and the conceptual framework known as the laws of physics may not be capable of providing a plausibe explanation of the performance. I already agreed with this. If Rossi's reactions depends on new physics to produce heat from nickel and hydrogen, then so be it. My objection in this instance was not that. It was that the observations he is basing the claim on depend on *other* implausibilities. The new physics is presumably in the H-Ni, but that shouldn't change the way water gets heated by the hot conduits it flows through. Those are still implausibilities, and IMO the truth of a claim should not be assessed against them or any other implausibilities. A claim should be assessed against the evidence. Where measurements provide evidence they should be be taken at face value unless it can be shown that the instruments are unreliable, or rigged or misplaced. Those heating elements still have to get hot, and the way the heat flows through the brass or steel pipes is surely not affected by Rossi's new H-Ni physics. Heat is still heat, surely. Maybe not. What if the temperature read 90C at atmospheric pressure, and he claimed complete vaporization. That would be implausible because water boils at 100C at atmospheric pressure. Would you then say that this is a new phenomenon, and so we don't know what temperature water boils at when the heat comes from a Rossi reaction? Therefore we can't say that it's implausible? Would you say that? Codifying the laws of thermodynamics in the 1850s had the effect of stamping out alternative conceptions of heat. Everyone learns about the success of the kinetic theory over the caloric theory but there is much more to the history of heat e.g. today we scoff at the idea of cold being a positive quantity rather than being the absence of heat, but it wasn't always so. Rossi's reaction might be boiling water by removing cold, rather than by adding heat. Harry
[Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature of ~18 degrees (Celsius). Output temperature was 104.5 C average. I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at sub-atmospheric pressure, right? So let's just say that the water was heated to at least 100 degrees. 3716 liters of water flowed, came in at 18.3, came out at 100 and cooled down before going back into the reservoir, since the average temperature was 18 degrees. So delta T is 80 degrees. With a heat capacity of 4.2 kJ / kg / K we get : Q = 3716 kg × 4.2 kJ / kg / K x 80 K = 1.25 GJ. Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. So that's 1 GJ of excess heat. -- Berke
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Yes. I was going to say this. Thanks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
You forgot to add the energy deposited during the heating period, about 2 hours, before the demonstration started the self-sustained mode.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature of ~18 degrees (Celsius). Output temperature was 104.5 C average. I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at sub-atmospheric pressure, right? So let's just say that the water was heated to at least 100 degrees. 3716 liters of water flowed, came in at 18.3, came out at 100 and cooled down before going back into the reservoir, since the average temperature was 18 degrees. So delta T is 80 degrees. With a heat capacity of 4.2 kJ / kg / K we get : Q = 3716 kg × 4.2 kJ / kg / K x 80 K = 1.25 GJ. Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. So that's 1 GJ of excess heat. Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5 GJ So a total output energy less than the total input energy is consistent with the data provided. And that leaves aside the possibility of energy production by chemical means. What is abundantly clear is that the demonstration, even if you accept the data presented, is a long way from being an unequivocal demonstration of heat in excess of what could be stored or produced chemically.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5 GJ Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5 GJ, unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius. Quite an unlikely scamming technique. Also, that would be too heavy for the way they were mounted in the container. Quoting my own Nov. 9th mail: Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not per volume. One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something like 2.33 MJ per kelvin. In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800 degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees. So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ. One cubic meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ. Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported. With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters. With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters. Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm. That makes 4.7 cubic meters. Not enough space for cement (unless you know of some special kind of cement.) Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at 250 kg per module. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Iron is far from the best heat storage medium. Graphite can store up to 1.5kWh/kg or nearly 3kWh/l in a vacuum enclosure. 1.5GJ from 50 modules would only require about 16kg or 8 liters per module. There are also a lot of high heat of fusion materials: LiH that requires about 1.6kWh/kg to heat from room temp to melt at 960K (~1.3kWh/L) Silicon metal that releases 0.8kWh/kg to heat up and melt at 1700K (~1.9kWh/l) LiF that releases 0.6Wh/kg heating to melt at 1120K (~1.5kWh/L). Other posiblities on p17: dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/35343/20099220.pdf It would also be easy to create a thermal storage vessel that would only release significant heat when immersed in water, just insulate it and use a carefully designed heat transfer area or tube that penetrates the insulation. Air has such low density compared to water that this would cut heat loss massively until immersed thereby allowing heating during startup phase or hours beforehand before it needed to deliver the goods. The chimney unit in the early demos could hide such a thermal store, and there is more than enough space in later fat-cat modules to do this sort of thing. All unlikely, but does raise the bar on standards required for an unambiguous demonstration. On 16 November 2011 20:55, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5 GJ Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5 GJ, unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius. Quite an unlikely scamming technique. Also, that would be too heavy for the way they were mounted in the container. Quoting my own Nov. 9th mail: Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not per volume. One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something like 2.33 MJ per kelvin. In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800 degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees. So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ. One cubic meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ. Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported. With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters. With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters. Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm. That makes 4.7 cubic meters. Not enough space for cement (unless you know of some special kind of cement.) Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at 250 kg per module. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much. We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling the truth. There is no way to independently verify this test. The previous tests were manifestly real by first-principle observation alone, but for this test we have nothing. I pointed this out when the Oct. 28 test was still underway. Haiko Lietz quoted me in the German press. No one disputes that this test was completely unverifiable. That's what Lewan reported. At LENR-CANR.org, I linked to his article, writing only: On October 28, 2011 Rossi ran the entire array of 52 units. It apparently produced 470 kW, again with no input power. The test was described in NyTeknikhttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5 GJ Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5 GJ, unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius. Quite an unlikely scamming technique. Also, that would be too heavy for the way they were mounted in the container. No one can describe in detail the exact nuclear reaction that produces the necessary heat without radiation, but still people don't seem to have a problem claiming it's nuclear. So why is it necessary to describe in detail the energy storage or chemical reaction that might produce the heat before you might consider also this possibility? There is no question that with a 100 kg device of that size, the energy density required is completely consistent with ordinary energy storage or chemical energy production. No one looked inside any of the ecats on Oct 28, so they could contain anything. There were 107 ecats, so that means that each one only needs to produce about 10 MJ. Fire brick has a heat capacity of about 1 J/gK, so for a 500C temperature change, you would need about 20 kg. That's only a fifth of the total weight, and at a density of 2 g/cm^3, that's only 10 L. I don't see any problem with that, even given what was shown on Oct 6 with the open ecat. And some fire brick can be heated to 1500C, so it's possible with even less of it. Using phase change with molten lead could of course give much more energy storage, but that doesn't seem to be necessary. And 10 MJ corresponds to only a few hundred milliliters of a clean burning fuel like alcohol, just as an example. But some chemical reaction between the hydrogen and nickel could probably supply that as well, or at least some fraction of it. However you want to do it, the claimed energy is obviously well below ordinary chemical energy density, so I don't see any reason to invoke nuclear reactions to explain it.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much. We do not know the output. We have to trust that Fioravaniti is telling the truth. There is no way to independently verify this test. The previous tests were manifestly real by first-principle observation alone, but for this test we have nothing. Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the data is entirely consistent with no excess heat. Previous tests are also consistent with no excess heat, based on your first-principle observation. All we know for sure is the ecat stayed at the boiling point for 3.25 hours with water flowing through at about 1 g/L. There is no need at all to invoked nuclear reactions to explain that.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much. 470 kVA from the nameplate in Sterling's vid. T attachment: Genset.bmp
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. How do we know the genset output? It's probably capable of 8x that much. 470 kVA from the nameplate in Sterling's vid. Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA. Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong because: 1) The measured thermal heat was 479 kW. A 470 kVA genset will not constantly provide 479 kW and also run the ancillary pumps, etc.; and, 2) Take a look at the exhaust cap. A genset running full bore vent cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe. In Mat's vid, it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less. A genset exhaust vent cap will open this wide on idle. Sure, a small detail, but thar be the devil! Okay, let me be the first to say that Rossi could have changed the nameplate on a 600 kVA generator. sigh T attachment: Exhaust.bmp
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Ackshully, looks more like 450 kVA. Even is it is a 470 kVA genset, some of the skeptics are likely wrong because: 1) The measured thermal heat was 479 kW. A 470 kVA genset will not constantly provide 479 kW and also run the ancillary pumps, etc.; and, They measured temperatures, but did not determine the phase of the output fluid. Therefore the temperatures are consistent with 70 kW output. And even if it were 479 kW, surely it's not too big a stretch to imagine 10 or 20 kW coming from stored heat or chemical reactions in 107 ecats. 2) Take a look at the exhaust cap. A genset running full bore vent cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe. In Mat's vid, it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less. Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the genset had been shut down.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the genset had been shut down. No, Josh, but I have installed several Caterpillar gensets. The cap stop is more like 130 degrees. I wouldn't josh you, Cude! T
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have a photo of the same model genset running full bore? The hinge may only open to 80 degrees. (A peripheral point, to be sure, because nuclear reactions are not needed to explain the observations even if the genset had been shut down. No, Josh, but I have installed several Caterpillar gensets. The cap stop is more like 130 degrees. I wouldn't josh you, Cude! OK, I believe you. But like I said, zero input from the genset is needed during self-sustained operation to explain the observations without nuclear reactions. But do you have some idea of the power corresponding to 80 degrees open?
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
At 03:24 PM 11/16/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: 2) Take a look at the exhaust cap. A genset running full bore vent cap will be at a 90 degree angle to the exhaust pipe. In Mat's vid, it looks to be at about 80 degrees or less. A genset exhaust vent cap will open this wide on idle. Sure, a small detail, but thar be the devil! I predicted that would come up http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53977.html d) You can clearly see the exhaust cap on the generator [01:19] ... lets see : we can calculate the exhaust velocity from the angle of the cap and the strength of gravity and/or the restraining spring and from that we can calculate the power being generated.
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Joshua Cude wrote: Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the data is entirely consistent with no excess heat. Not according to Ny Teknik's This is how the test was done box at http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece Subtracting the energy supplied during startup, about 320 kWh at an average power of 160 kW, the net energy would still be 2249 kWh. In this case the energy output during startup should also be estimated and added. That's 320e3 x 3600 = 576 MJ. So if you trust the reported figures, then there clearly is plenty of excess energy, and the only non-cold-fusion explanation involves an international conspiracy and technologically non-trivial deception. -- Berke Durak
