[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Both, yes. I've argued Smaller is Better, but only for exploratory research. Once you have something that you can reproduce, then making it bigger and stronger becomes the new goal. You *start* with the small system and explore the hell out of it, you don't just leap to bigger until you have something solid. That has been the guiding principle. As I wrote in one of my papers, it can be more accurate and more convenient to measure a small reaction -- under 10 W -- compared to, say, 1 kW. Although most researchers would consider 10 W fairly large, and would be pleased to see that. Some of the Storms papers have a histogram of many experiments from the literature, showing that most of them are clustered in the low power region. See Fig. 1, p. 18: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedc.pdf I don't know what Rossi did, but, my guess, he wasn't continuously building 12 kW reactors. If so, he probably slowed himself down and simply got lucky. I do not get that impression, but I know little about what he did. I think his reactors were physically small which means they are not too difficult to test. The first Ni-H reactors were from Mills. They were gigantic, and I imagine there were a pain in the butt to test. They were built out of large trash cans. (I mean it.) The calorimetry was kind or rudimentary. They produced about 40 W as I recall, but that wasn't easy to detect from such large cells. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Blush. Some corrections to my overly hasty post below: I misread the table I found for heat transfer coefficients at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficients-d_284.html. It turns out heat transfer coefficients are not so easy to predict, but (consistent with intuition, which I foolishly overruled) liquid water is 50 to 100 times more effective at removing heat than vapour, for the same temperature difference. So that means if the water vaporizes in the first 90% of the reactor, the steam would only come out at 101C or so. But you could still reach 110C if it boils to vapour in the first half of the reactor. But using the second argument, that at lower flow rate, the lower cooling rate of the steam would cause the reactor to get hotter, and therefore the water to boil away earlier in the reactor, it is still true that if you reduce the flow rate by 10%, the steam would still have to go to 200C, except for losses through the insulation. Also, the molecules in the steam don't move faster than the ones in liquid at the same temperature; the reason they collide more often with the walls is because they collide less often with each other. On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add my two cents: Sorry, it's not worth even that. (I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher temperatures of steam originated (several months back) from a post of mine that was cross-posted here, and I feel compelled to defend it, and to correct the sort of elementary, mistaken ideas people here seem to have. I will refrain this time from entering any discussion not directly related to this topic.) If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. This is quite true. But the question is simply what are long enough periods? It turns out that the distance is more relevant than the time, because heat transfer coefficients are given as power transferred per unit area per unit temperature difference. And the coefficient for steam/copper is slightly *higher* than it is for water/copper. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. All you know is that the steam is not heated above the boiling point. But that is what would happen if there were still liquid present. What would happen if the water were all converted to steam before the end of the reactor, say because the flow rate were reduced, as suggested at the beginning of this thread. Say the water is all converted to steam within the first 90% of the reactor. Then amount of heat transferred to the steam will about 10% of what was transferred to the water. Let's see: 10% of 540 cal/g (to produce steam) is 54 cal/g. Since the specific heat of steam is about 0.5, that gives about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam. So you see, if all the water were converted to steam, keeping it at 100C would be extremely difficult indeed. There is no doubt at all that the temperature indicates the presence of some liquid water. This can be argued another way as well, which doesn't require any knowledge of heat transfer coefficients. If the flow rate were reduced, and there weren't enough time to heat the steam, then the additional power would cause the reactor to get hotter. And that would cause the water to boil earlier, giving the steam more time to get hotter. A new equilibrium would be reached, but at a lower flow rate, the only ways to remove the same amount of thermal power would be for the steam to get hotter, or for more heat to leak through the insulation, and the insulation would have to get extremely hot to dissipate power in the range of kW. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! For heaven's sake. Please get this notion that higher pressure is needed to heat steam above the boiling point out of your heads. Your furnace has no trouble heating air to about 220C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. Have you never looked at a phase diagram? The reason a pressure cooker needs pressure is because _there is still water present_ in a pressure cooker, and it is only the water that is heated directly; not the steam. In an ecat, after the water has boiled, the steam
[Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
Joshua, You are free to express your opinion on the Rossi's e-Cat matter, and you certainly have done that in more than one discussion group. Typically, after I make my case I try to move on. Flawed as I may be on occasion, I also try to learn something new about this controversial process from others. If warranted I'll even change my mind. I suggest you make your case, then move on too. ...Except it never seems to be the case that you ever move on, or learn anything new after making your case. That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about engaging in any kind of a worthwhile discussion with you. I've noticed that many individuals on this list have attempted to engage you in an intelligent methodical manner. But to no avail. It's not worth it for me to even try. I certainly won't learn anything new from you. As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero, seemingly acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's e-cats are nothing more than a scam operation. I do have to admit one thing: it's certainly one way to stand out from the crowd. You certainly have accomplished that goal. As for Rossi's admittedly controversial e-Cats - we shall see if it's all a scam operation or not. Until then, have fun storming the castle! Special regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ? On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Let me add my two cents: Sorry, it's not worth even that. (I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher temperatures of steam originated (several months back) from a post of mine that was cross-posted here, and I feel compelled to defend it, and to correct the sort of elementary, mistaken ideas people here seem to have. I will refrain this time from entering any discussion not directly related to this topic.) If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. This is quite true. But the question is simply what are long enough periods? It turns out that the distance is more relevant than the time, because heat transfer coefficients are given as power transferred per unit area per unit temperature difference. And the coefficient for steam/copper is slightly *higher* than it is for water/copper. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. All you know is that the steam is not heated above the boiling point. But that is what would happen if there were still liquid present. What would happen if the water were all converted to steam before the end of the reactor, say because the flow rate were reduced, as suggested at the beginning of this thread. Say the water is all converted to steam within the first 90% of the reactor. Then amount of heat transferred to the steam will about 10% of what was transferred to the water. Let's see: 10% of 540 cal/g (to produce steam) is 54 cal/g. Since the specific heat of steam is about 0.5, that gives about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam. So you see, if all the water were converted to steam, keeping it at 100C would be extremely difficult indeed. There is no doubt at all that the temperature indicates the presence of some liquid water. This can be argued another way as well, which doesn't require any knowledge of heat transfer coefficients. If the flow rate were reduced, and there weren't enough time to heat the steam, then the additional power would cause the reactor to get hotter. And that would cause the water to boil earlier, giving the steam more time to get hotter. A new equilibrium would be reached, but at a lower flow rate, the only ways to remove the same amount of thermal power would be for the steam to get hotter, or for more heat to leak through the insulation, and the insulation would have to get extremely hot to dissipate power in the range of kW. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! For heaven's sake. Please get this notion that higher pressure is needed to heat steam above the boiling point out of your heads. Your furnace has no trouble
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
In other words, you've got nothin' but vague, unsupported insults. On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua, You are free to express your opinion on the Rossi's e-Cat matter, and you certainly have done that in more than one discussion group. Typically, after I make my case I try to move on. Flawed as I may be on occasion, I also try to learn something new about this controversial process from others. If warranted I'll even change my mind. I suggest you make your case, then move on too. ...Except it never seems to be the case that you ever move on, or learn anything new after making your case. That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about engaging in any kind of a worthwhile discussion with you. I've noticed that many individuals on this list have attempted to engage you in an intelligent methodical manner. But to no avail. It's not worth it for me to even try. I certainly won't learn anything new from you. As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero, seemingly acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's e-cats are nothing more than a scam operation. I do have to admit one thing: it's certainly one way to stand out from the crowd. You certainly have accomplished that goal. As for Rossi's admittedly controversial e-Cats - we shall see if it's all a scam operation or not. Until then, have fun storming the castle! Special regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
From Joshua: In other words, you've got nothin' but vague, unsupported insults. In my view, it doesn't matter if my vague unsupported insults (which I freely admit were done at your expense) are correct or not. You seem to believe that you have Rossi's occasionally troubling heat measurements pretty much figured out. Well... certainly more than me. Be that as it may, in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter if your detailed heat analysis seems less vague than my unsupported insults. We will all know soon enuf whether Rossi's controversial e-cats deliver the bacon, or not. Again, have fun storming the castle. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
From Joshua: ... Eventually, in a few years Rossi will simply fade away like Patterson from the 90s, and the CF community will make excuses like his stock of lucky catalyst ran out and he found he was unable to make more, and you will refuse to admit you were wrong. Thank you for sharing your speculations on the continuing Rossi saga... and my predicted future behavior patterns. You imply that I have an invested interest in Rossi's e-Cats being the real deal. Well, it's certainly true that I HOPE they are the real deal. However, that's not the same thing as being emotionally invested in such a manner that Rossi's e-Cats HAS to be the real deal. If they turn out to be fakes, or nothing comes of such technology within the next couple of years or so, I will indeed be disappointed, but I'll survive. Based on your prior posting behavior you give me no reason to suspect you comprehend such distinctions. In fact, your posts seem to show very little comprehension of both human behavior and perception. As such, I doubt you have given much thought about your own emotional investments. I have been wrong many times in my life. I expect to be wrong again. Will I be wrong about Rossi's e-cats? It's certainly possible. In the meantime I do what I can to improve my understanding of what is speculated to be happening within Rossi's e-Cats. As you obviously ought to know by now, there are prevailing opinions on the matter. FWIW, it's been my experience that making predictions about the speculated behavior of others is not a terribly productive way of going about the task of getting your points across. Neither is it a good way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
In an earlier post svj wrote: As best as I can tell, you appear to be transfixed at ground zero, seemingly acting as the last remaining sane skeptic in this sorry gullible world, the one last intelligent, logical, rational, person left who knows better, who knows he is absolutely certain Rossi's e-cats are nothing more than a scam operation. And now svj wrote: FWIW, it's been my experience that making predictions about the speculated behavior of others is not a terribly productive way of going about the task of getting your points across. Neither is it a good way to go about winning friends and influencing people. So, how's that working out for you then?
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Mon, 9 May 2011 23:19:05 -0500: Hi, [snip] What makes that private experiment even harder to take seriously is the claimed 130 kW excursion. Rossi has on occasion mentioned an optimum operating temperature of about 400C. If this temperature provides the usual 15 - 20 kW, then 130 kW would require a temperature difference about 9 times higher; for water temperature of 30C say, that would correspond to 370*9 + 30 = 3360C, which is not plausible. This is based on the assumption that the actual operating temperature is indeed 400C @ 15 kW. If it's in fact much less, then 130 kW for a short period may not be a problem. Perhaps it only gets up to 400C when the output is really high? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:12 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: This is based on the assumption that the actual operating temperature is indeed 400C @ 15 kW. If it's in fact much less, then 130 kW for a short period may not be a problem. Perhaps it only gets up to 400C when the output is really high? That's true, so we can try to work in the other direction. If it's 400C @ 130 kW, then at 15 kW it would be 370/9 + 30 = 70C. That seems rather low to be able to heat water flowing through at 1 L/s by 5C. Taking the temperature at 1500C (mp of steel) for the 130 kW spike, would give 1470/9 + 30 = 190C at 15 kW. If the heat is transferred through copper, then the limit would be its melting point at about 1100C, giving about 150C @ 15 kW. Those values still seem pretty low, but maybe it's possible. One can also try to calculate the necessary area required to transfer the claimed power. The range of heat transfer coefficients for liquid water is huge, but even at the highest value I found (10,000 W/m^2K), this would require an area of 1.5 m^2 to transfer 15 kW at 40C temperature difference (70C), or about .38 m^2 at 160C temp difference (190C). For a one inch id pipe, this would require a 5-m length or 1.2-m length for the two cases. Both seem hard to believe. On the other hand, for a temperature of 1000C, you could get 15 kW with a 20 cm 1 pipe. That begins to be believable, but rules out 130 kW.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Can Rossi generate steam hotter than 110 °C ?
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 4:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Let me add my two cents: Sorry, it's not worth even that. (I've stayed away from this list because its terms of reference clearly exclude people of my mindset, but this discussion of higher temperatures of steam originated (several months back) from a post of mine that was cross-posted here, and I feel compelled to defend it, and to correct the sort of elementary, mistaken ideas people here seem to have. I will refrain this time from entering any discussion not directly related to this topic.) If Rossi's e-Cat reactor core can regularly sustain temperatures of 500c or higher, water that is in contact with the reactor core's surface FOR LONG ENOUGH PERIODS will most certainly exceed temperatures 100.1 C, and by quite a large margin. This is quite true. But the question is simply what are long enough periods? It turns out that the distance is more relevant than the time, because heat transfer coefficients are given as power transferred per unit area per unit temperature difference. And the coefficient for steam/copper is slightly *higher* than it is for water/copper. However, the tick would be to keep the water that has just been transformed into steam contained long enough AT the e-cat reactor core's surface so that it has the chance to absorb the additional heat. Currently this doesn't happen. All you know is that the steam is not heated above the boiling point. But that is what would happen if there were still liquid present. What would happen if the water were all converted to steam before the end of the reactor, say because the flow rate were reduced, as suggested at the beginning of this thread. Say the water is all converted to steam within the first 90% of the reactor. Then amount of heat transferred to the steam will about 10% of what was transferred to the water. Let's see: 10% of 540 cal/g (to produce steam) is 54 cal/g. Since the specific heat of steam is about 0.5, that gives about 100C increase in the temperature of the steam. So you see, if all the water were converted to steam, keeping it at 100C would be extremely difficult indeed. There is no doubt at all that the temperature indicates the presence of some liquid water. This can be argued another way as well, which doesn't require any knowledge of heat transfer coefficients. If the flow rate were reduced, and there weren't enough time to heat the steam, then the additional power would cause the reactor to get hotter. And that would cause the water to boil earlier, giving the steam more time to get hotter. A new equilibrium would be reached, but at a lower flow rate, the only ways to remove the same amount of thermal power would be for the steam to get hotter, or for more heat to leak through the insulation, and the insulation would have to get extremely hot to dissipate power in the range of kW. It's my understanding that the current Rossi prototypes (perhaps for demonstration purposes) do not appear to be built in such a way as to physically contain the transformed steam. It's not designed to behave like a pressure cooker! For heaven's sake. Please get this notion that higher pressure is needed to heat steam above the boiling point out of your heads. Your furnace has no trouble heating air to about 220C above its boiling point at atmospheric pressure. Have you never looked at a phase diagram? The reason a pressure cooker needs pressure is because _there is still water present_ in a pressure cooker, and it is only the water that is heated directly; not the steam. In an ecat, after the water has boiled, the steam would be heated directly, and just as efficiently per unit area as water. It does not have to contain the steam any more than your furnace has to contain air as it circulates it past the hot surfaces. The water immediately after it has been transformed into steam quickly expands. The steam quickly shoots out the exhaust pipe - i.e. the infamous black hose. IOW, the steam doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat and subsequently increase in temperature much above 100.1 C. Again, this is completely wrong. Steam is much less dense, but the molecules move much faster and therefore collide more often with the walls, the net effect being that it is *more*, not less effective at absorbing heat per unit area than liquid water. (Of course as the steam gets hotter, its effectiveness gets lower.) Some on this list may still recall several months ago the fact that there was a protracted argument precisely based on this specific steam temperature issue. Some argued: WHY was the steam only measured to be 100.1 C when it exited out of the black hose, especially if the e-Cat reactor was claimed to be hundreds of degrees higher. Because the exiting steam temperature seemed to be rigidly fixed at 100.1 C some on this list became absolutely convinced Rossi
