Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Axil, Good idea, The geometry of the powder to tungsten interface might be a concern because of the high melting point of tungsten but as far as material selection the anomalous behavior of tungsten and atomic hydrogen goes all the way back to Langmuir. My question is regarding the spin melting or alloying method of the powder to reactor surface - how would it work with tungsten? Regards Fran Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Axil, Good idea, The geometry of the powder to tungsten interface might be a concern because of the high melting point of tungsten but as far as material selection the anomalous behavior of tungsten and atomic hydrogen goes all the way back to Langmuir. My question is regarding the spin melting or alloying method of the powder to reactor surface - how would it work with tungsten? Regards Fran Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 10:19 PM 6/19/2011, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play. The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts. Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength. The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. Randy June 20th, 2011 at 10:29 AM Dear Mr Rossi I saw this post and thought it might interest you. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48058.html Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:33 AM Dear Randy: Interesting. Warm Regards, A.R. (and a related post : ) Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AM Dear Brad: 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk. Good questions. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
For a cold fusion reactor like any other reactor type, the guiding design goal is to produce a large, cost effective, passively self-limiting, reactor design that is intrinsically safe rather than a design that has 1000’s of inefficient hard to control and resource intensive units. Electric utilities love economies of scale and high power density. Low power density is a great handicap for any reactor to bear. Rossi’s large multi-unit reactor design will lose in the market place to a well-controlled materials efficient simplex reactor boasting a high power density. These multitudes of small weak units are the great design compromise in Rossi’s approach and he will pay a high competitive price for weakness going forward. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 10:19 PM 6/19/2011, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play. The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts. Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength. The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. Randy June 20th, 2011 at 10:29 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=8#comment-47350 Dear Mr Rossi I saw this post and thought it might interest you. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48058.html Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:33 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47371 Dear Randy: Interesting. Warm Regards, A.R. (and a related post : ) Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47373 Dear Brad: 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk. Good questions. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
I hear the all we can do is wait until October a lot. If just a few people were working on replication, we could get details a lot sooner than October/November... Rossi is very kind to answer questions on his blog. I've asked a number of questions trying to learn about what is going on and without fail he has responded. (He doesn't respond well to all questions, but polite and sincere ones he is good.) I was the one who asked him if an exploding e-cat would be radioactive and/or poisonous. He said only that there was no risk of explosion. Which makes me think that the secret catalyst is indeed something not totally harmless. A hydride of Li, K, Rb, or Cs is a good conjecture from Mills, Axil, et. al. Anyone have a thought as to which one would be the smartest choice for an E-Cat? - Brad Lowe p.s. Please drop me a message if you're attempting a home-brew e-cat and we can compare notes. Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47373 Dear Brad: 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk. Good questions. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Axil Axil wrote: For a cold fusion reactor like any other reactor type, the guiding design goal is to produce a large, cost effective, passively self-limiting, reactor design that is intrinsically safe rather than a design that has 1000’s of inefficient hard to control and resource intensive units. Electric utilities love economies of scale and high power density. I agree that a large, integrated unit has some advantages, but it might be made up of many small identical mass-produced components. This is somewhat analogous to the way a computer is made up of chips, or a fission reactor is made up of rods that contain fuel pellets. I do not think electric power utility companies will last long enough to have much impact on the design of cold fusion reactors. Cold fusion will put them out of business. In the 1950s there were some tests with high speed gas turbine railroad engines for passenger transport in the U.S. This was an attempt to use aeroderivative technology (aircraft jet engines) for an obsolescent mode of transportation that was competing with jet aircraft. It did not work out. Progress in jet aircraft was swifter than progress in using jet aircraft technology in a competing industry. Along the same lines, no matter how quickly the power companies try to adapt the use of cold fusion technology, individual household level reactors will spread even more quickly, which will eliminate the need for more power company equipment at first, and later drive the power companies into bankruptcy. It is inevitable, just as the collapse of the Pennsylvania Railroad was. In some cases, an obsolescent technology is revived for a few decades by selective use of new technology from a competing industry. My favorite example was the clipper ship. These were sailing ships that employed the latest marine engineering and materials, and that could not have worked without steam power tugboats. (They were too unhandy to sail into port by themselves.) Arthur Clarke and I predicted a good many new technologies will emerge in the future. Okay -- he predicted most of them, and I just go along. Most of these will come as a natural outgrowth of present-day technology. Most will be the result of incremental changes gradually leading to something quite different from what we now have. Others will be radically different, with no relationship to previous technology. For example, indoor food factories are now gradually coming into use. These are an incremental improvement to today's greenhouses. Technology developed for the indoor farm such as robot harvesting tractors may also find a place in conventional outdoor farms. The outdoor farm will be obsolescent when indoor food factories are perfected, but things like the robot harvester may even extend the commercial viability of the outdoor farm for a few generations. The next step after the food factory is the universal replicator. This is a machine that can assemble anything out of raw materials, putting together atoms to form molecules, and molecules to form whatever the template specifies: a tomato; an entire meal including the dishes and cloth napkins; a new left hand for the victim of an accident; or a precise copy of the Mona Lisa. Anything you want, in the blink of an eye. That will make all forms of agriculture and manufacturing unnecessary. No one can say when a a universal replicator will emerge, or even whether such a machine is possible. Clarke was confident that it is possible and we will have one sometime in the next few thousand years. I think so too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:19:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen [snip] This may or may not make a difference. It depends on where the balance point is. If it's below the melting point of SS then it won't make any difference, because as soon as he goes beyond the balance point, the thing just runs away and keeps on heating up until the either the container or the Ni melt (whichever has the lower melting point). Either way the unit is destroyed. However if the balance point is above the melting point of SS then it would make a difference. From what I have seen so far, my guess would be that the balance point is below the melting point of SS. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Jay, Excellent idea - could even use off the shelf heat exchanger as your link seems to indicate they already have their brazed products in automotive and aerospace equipment. I like the idea of the heat transfer fluid being inside the exchanger with the sputtered powder on the outside and using a large hydrogen supply tube around the entire exchanger which would function as the reactor. I think this would greatly increase the surface area and number of ultra active sites. I noticed you are still sugggesting filling the reactor tube with powder around the heat sink in addition to the coated surface of the heat sink. My original thought was to do away with bulk powder entirely but after reconsideration think you may also have gotten that right, Previous discussions about there being a certain critical volume of powder and spill over catalysts may mean the thin surface does have to be part of a larger volume for OOP and free running operation. Maybe the MAHG device should have been filled with powder as well? Fran On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:04: Jay Caplan wrote Fran, If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010? http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?for ward=1 forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015 ? http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-101 5?forward=1 forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ???
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. However Dr.Bianchini from the University of Bologna had special permission to witness one on June 14th: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=21#comment-47097 June 19th, 2011 at 4:12 AM Dear Italo A. Albanese: Thank you for your insight: as you know, I cannot give information about what happens inside the reactor. To work without a drive is very dangerous, anyway, in my lab I am making with a reactor 14 kWh/h without energu input, but, again it is very dangerous. When I make this I have to be alone on the reactor, even if on the 14th of june in Bologna I did this for about 1 hour at the presence of Dr Bianchini, of the University of Bologna, asking him to check the radiations outside the reactor: the Gieger I always work with had an increase of emission, but it turned out that we were inside the acceptable limits. Bu it is out of question that I can accept to use the reactors this way in public or for the Customers. To be safe, totally safe, we must have a drive and we must not exceed the factor of 6 (I mean producing 6 rimes the energy consumed by the drive). Which is what we guarantee to our Customers. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * To tell the truth, I imagined that remote control and monitoring of Energy Catalyzers working in potentially dangerous conditions in a safe room would have been the norm. Or, at least, that's what I would do. In motoring engineering that's what is usually done when stress testing or setting up engines on a dynamometer test bed in controlled conditions. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? That's the claim, as far as I can tell: He has to have a heater attached to it (which can, after all, only do what a heater does, which is heat it up) so that it can be heated up to prevent it from getting too hot, which would be dangerous. I would call that another big red flag.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? I would call that another big red flag. I hope this thing is not a fake; I am just barely over the trauma of the Steorn debacle.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heated by the same steam (which I assume would be in high-pressure superheated conditions) they heat themselves. I suppose Rossi et al. don't have yet a quick, safe and reliable way to stop a thermal runaway, especially if devices are left operating unattended. When devices are plugged to the wall, it would be instead sufficient to simply switch off electrical power. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Fran, Your point even better. Use round fins ~2 mm apart brazed to the center heat transfer fluid tube. Center tube brazed to bottom cap which has a hole for center tube, this brazed as well. Would use copper tubing for all these tubes and fins, standard plumbing parts. Fill from upper side with powder, vibrate to fill all the gaps between fins, then braze the upper cap onto the outer tube, and braze the center tube to the hole in the upper cap. That would be a sealed reactor, ready to plumb into the cooling fluid pathway. H2 inlet to the outer tube. They could slide a lead pipe over the outer tube if needed for gamma. Gas heat the heat transfer fluid and temps would rise slowly thoughout, when it starts reacting, turn off gas heat, and increase fluid flow to maintain safe efficient temps. Also, think Jones had it quoting that study on the highese H bonding with the, was it 70/30 Ni/Cu alloy powders? I think we need more discussion on the Fe from rust role. - Original Message - From: francis To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2011 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy Jay,Excellent idea - could even use off the shelf heat exchanger as your link seems to indicate they already have their brazed products in automotive and aerospace equipment. I like the idea of the heat transfer fluid being inside the exchanger with the sputtered powder on the outside and using a large hydrogen supply tube around the entire exchanger which would function as the reactor. I think this would greatly increase the surface area and number of ultra active sites. I noticed you are still sugggesting filling the reactor tube with powder around the heat sink in addition to the coated surface of the heat sink. My original thought was to do away with bulk powder entirely but after reconsideration think you may also have gotten that right, Previous discussions about there being a certain critical volume of powder and spill over catalysts may mean the thin surface does have to be part of a larger volume for OOP and free running operation. Maybe the MAHG device should have been filled with powder as well?FranOn Sat, 18 Jun 2011 21:04: Jay Caplan wroteFran,If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015?forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ???
FW: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Stephen, I think you might be missing the point, in free running the OOP is AT the critical temperature and the heat sinking must be exactly balanced between quenching and runaway while normal operation is kept slightly below the critical temperature such that a PWM can push the material into critical behavior for a certain duty factor knowing the cooling loop is already operating at a rate which will pull the device back under critical simply by reducing the PRF or duty factor of the heater. Fran ON Sun, 19 Jun 2011 05:11:00 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip] ---snip-- On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: - Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. --/snip-- This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? That's the claim, as far as I can tell: He has to have a heater attached to it (which can, after all, only do what a heater does, which is heat it up) so that it can be heated up to prevent it from getting too hot, which would be dangerous. I would call that another big red flag.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Rossi adds externally generated heat to reach and maintain steady state heat production equilibrium. One passive way to decrease reactor heat production is to decrease hydrogen pressure. This can be done by absorbing hydrogen from the hydrogen envelope using a hydride producing metal; for example, titanium. Provide an amount of titanium powder in a dedicated chamber separated from the main reaction chamber by a thermally regulated pressure valve. As the heat increases, hydrogen is removed from the reaction chamber using the passive pressure relief valve. A titanium hydride will be produced and hydrogen will be stored. To get the reaction going again, heat the titanium hydride powder to liberate hydrogen. This will get the pressure of the hydrogen envelope back up to self-sustaining levels. As long as the passive pressure relief valve is working, a melt down and resulting hydrogen explosion will not occur. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heated by the same steam (which I assume would be in high-pressure superheated conditions) they heat themselves. I suppose Rossi et al. don't have yet a quick, safe and reliable way to stop a thermal runaway, especially if devices are left operating unattended. When devices are plugged to the wall, it would be instead sufficient to simply switch off electrical power. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Please add at this top as an edit... Rossi runs his reactor subcritically. That is, the maximum amount of heat that his reactor can produce will NOT increase internal reactor heat production beyond a self-reinforcing increasing takeoff point. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi adds externally generated heat to reach and maintain steady state heat production equilibrium. One passive way to decrease reactor heat production is to decrease hydrogen pressure. This can be done by absorbing hydrogen from the hydrogen envelope using a hydride producing metal; for example, titanium. Provide an amount of titanium powder in a dedicated chamber separated from the main reaction chamber by a thermally regulated pressure valve. As the heat increases, hydrogen is removed from the reaction chamber using the passive pressure relief valve. A titanium hydride will be produced and hydrogen will be stored. To get the reaction going again, heat the titanium hydride powder to liberate hydrogen. This will get the pressure of the hydrogen envelope back up to self-sustaining levels. As long as the passive pressure relief valve is working, a melt down and resulting hydrogen explosion will not occur. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-06-19 14:08, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? To be fair, I don't think this is what Rossi actually means. Self-sustaining reactors probably operate on a closed loop, heated by the same steam (which I assume would be in high-pressure superheated conditions) they heat themselves. I suppose Rossi et al. don't have yet a quick, safe and reliable way to stop a thermal runaway, especially if devices are left operating unattended. When devices are plugged to the wall, it would be instead sufficient to simply switch off electrical power. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs ...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. Well, no, even though I did refer to that term in one place. This isn't what Mitchell calls an OOP. Mitchell's OOP is a point of maximum energy generation, in PdD experiments with reference to input current, whereas in this case, the balance point is below the OOP, which might be anywhere up to the melting point of the fuel.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. At this point, you have lost control of the reaction. It's dangerous! How many reactions, which produce heat, and which may produce runaway heat, can be quenched by ... *heating them up* ? The device is not quenched by heating it up. Stephen, please understand this, it's leading you to stick your foot in your mouth. Let me repeat this: Nobody is claiming that the reaction is quenched by heating it up. Heating it up would not quench it, the opposite. Heating it up increases the reaction rate, within the range of interest. That's the claim, as far as I can tell: He has to have a heater attached to it (which can, after all, only do what a heater does, which is heat it up) so that it can be heated up to prevent it from getting too hot, which would be dangerous. No, that's not the claim. Please understand the claim! To be fair, I've never seen this explained by Rossi, but it's pretty obvious. I would call that another big red flag. There are big red flags, all right. This isn't one of them, in fact. The primary red flag is the secrecy, and we all know that there are some possible non-fraud explanations for this. Rossi's touchiness is a red flag, but he's human, which can also be enough of an explanation. Guess what, folks! Unless some investigator really does come up with a smoking gun, we are stuck with waiting. I'm suspecting we will hear more NiH results from others before we know much more about Rossi's work. If Rossi is (generally) telling the truth (allowing for the slips that people make when they are trying to conceal part of the truth, and other anomalies of conversation which show up when you go over it with a fine-tooth comb), something will happen, we will all know, before the end of the year. The worry is that conditions entirely other than the non-existence of the effect he's exploiting could lead to failure with Defkalion. Just to make one up: it only happens one time out of a thousand, but these things unexpectedly blow up. We haven't figured out the exact conditions, we are working on it.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. Rossi has never stated that, as far as I know. Only those attempting to explain his assertion that running without input power is too dangerous have said that. Ditto the alleged feedback loop which keeps the device at the exact temperature needed to heat the effluent to 101C, not more, not less, which has never been mentioned by Rossi. As far as I know Rossi has never given any explanation for why the device becomes dangerous if run unplugged, nor given any explanation for why the steam temperature never rose above 101C. If you have seen anything from Rossi asserting what you said above, I would really appreciate it if you'd quote it here, or provide a link to it.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:16:03 -0400: Hi, [snip] At 10:57 PM 6/18/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs ...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. Well, no, even though I did refer to that term in one place. This isn't what Mitchell calls an OOP. Mitchell's OOP is a point of maximum energy generation, in PdD experiments with reference to input current, whereas in this case, the balance point is below the OOP, which might be anywhere up to the melting point of the fuel. You are correct about the two being different. In fact if Rossi's device can go explosive then there is no OOP. Since according to Dr. Schwartz' definition, the energy output should drop above the OOP, whereas in a device that explodes, it doesn't. Above the balance point it just keeps on increasing until there is no fuel left, or until there is no device left, which ever comes first. (In this instance I count melting the fuel and destroying the active sites as no device). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: FW: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to francis 's message of Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:11:41 -0400: Hi, [snip] Why not control the pump speed electronically (as well)? Stephen, I think you might be missing the point, in free running the OOP is AT the critical temperature and the heat sinking must be exactly balanced between quenching and runaway while normal operation is kept slightly below the critical temperature such that a PWM can push the material into critical behavior for a certain duty factor knowing the cooling loop is already operating at a rate which will pull the device back under critical simply by reducing the PRF or duty factor of the heater. Fran Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 02:46 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. Rossi has never stated that, as far as I know. Good, you got that down. But you inferred this from what other wrote: Only those attempting to explain his assertion that running without input power is too dangerous have said that. I can't be responsible for what many commentators might have said, people have said all kinds of things about the device. The problem is one of intepretation here, though. What does running without input power mean? Under what conditions would it be safe and under what conditions would it be dangerous? It's easy to answer that question, and it's a harmonizing intepretation. Running without input power requires raising the reaction cell temperature to the point where no heat input is needed, where the cell maintains its own temperature from generated heat. This is quite certainly not the operating temperature in the demonstrations, it must be a higher temperature. We can know this because, in fact, input power was maintained at all points, so the temperature must have been below a self-sustaining point (or the temperature would have risen higher and we'd have been in runaway.) Yes, if we don't believe that the reaction is capable of being self-sustaining, this wouldn't make sense, which is why some might reject this out-of-hand, losing context, which is understanding how heat could control the reaction *if it's real*. It only makes sense if the operating temperature is below the self-sustaining temperature. If that heat is removed, we are, by definition, not at the self-sustaining temperature, and we have been dependent on additional heat to reach the current operating temperature, so it's easy to predict that, then, the temperature would fall, thus lowing even further the generated heat, until the whole thing cools to ambient. Running without power would require running at the self-sustaining temperature, which, then, creates the possibility of runaway, if we exceed that temperature by even a very small margin. Hopefully, we'd have time to see it happening and flood the thing with nitrogen, which is apparently what they have done. It's possible that there is some chaotic effect on the temperature, so a temperature that might work at one time might be too high, as some rearrangement takes place in the nickel, say. And if the temperature is too low, then it will start to cool, and again, the cooling runs away until it's not generating any power at all. Controlling this through controlling cooling is an alternative, but that requires moving parts, perhaps. Cooling through boiling water can possibly work, since the heat carried away will increase with temperature. It could be pretty complicated, and Rossi may be sticking with control through heat, because no moving parts are involved and it's fail-safe. I.e., power failure, the additional heating stops, so the reaction chamber cools off and it shuts down. If the normal cooling is through boiling water, this is quite safe, because to fail, you'd have to run dry, and that can be easily avoided (with shutoff of the heating power if water is running out.) It's pretty straightforward. Ditto the alleged feedback loop which keeps the device at the exact temperature needed to heat the effluent to 101C, not more, not less, which has never been mentioned by Rossi. Oh, I'm not particularly interested in the exact steam temperature. I'm suspicious about what that means. As far as I know Rossi has never given any explanation for why the device becomes dangerous if run unplugged, nor given any explanation for why the steam temperature never rose above 101C. But it's obvious, Stephen. Whether he has explained it or not. First of all, you need to distinguish betweeen running unplugged, and the device being unplugged while running. The latter is not dangerous at all, the way they are running it. (There would be a danger if some circuit failure turned on the heater and left it on. Let's hope he's got some good design there! A really good design would still limit the temperature below the runaway point -- the
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play. The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts. Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength. The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 02:46 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 02:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 08:08 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 05:34 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: When E-Cats work without a drive, Rossi has to operate alone on them for safety reasons. This is such a facile explanation ... We mustn't unplug it from the wall because that would be dangerous. It's facile, to be sure. But that doesn't mean it's false. And that's not actually what Rossi said. If you were operating an E-Cat the way it was operated in the demos, and unplugged it, the thing would cool off. The danger would arise if we heat it up to a certain point, at which the heat generated is enough to keep it that hot, so that it needs no input power. Rossi has never stated that, as far as I know. Good, you got that down. But you inferred this from what other wrote: Only those attempting to explain his assertion that running without input power is too dangerous have said that. I can't be responsible for what many commentators might have said, people have said all kinds of things about the device. The problem is one of intepretation here, though. What does running without input power mean? Under what conditions would it be safe and under what conditions would it be dangerous? It's easy to answer that question, and it's a harmonizing intepretation. Running without input power requires raising the reaction cell temperature to the point where no heat input is needed, where the cell maintains its own temperature from generated heat. This is quite certainly not the operating temperature in the demonstrations, it must be a higher temperature. We can know this because, in fact, input power was maintained at all points, so the temperature must have been below a self-sustaining point (or the temperature would have risen higher and we'd have been in runaway.) Yes, if we don't believe that the reaction is capable of being self-sustaining, this wouldn't make sense, which is why some might reject this out-of-hand, losing context, which is understanding how heat could control the reaction *if it's real*. It only makes sense if the operating temperature is below the self-sustaining temperature. If that heat is removed, we are, by definition, not at the self-sustaining temperature, and we have been dependent on additional heat to reach the current operating temperature, so it's easy to predict that, then, the temperature would fall, thus lowing even further the generated heat, until the whole thing cools to ambient. Running without power would require running at the self-sustaining temperature, which, then, creates the possibility of runaway, if we exceed that temperature by even a very small margin. Hopefully, we'd have time to see it happening and flood the thing with nitrogen, which is apparently what they have done. It's possible that there is some chaotic effect on the temperature, so a temperature that might work at one time might be too high, as some rearrangement takes place in the nickel, say. And if the temperature is too low, then it will start to cool, and again, the cooling runs away until it's not generating any power at all. Controlling this through controlling cooling is an alternative, but that requires moving parts, perhaps. Cooling through boiling water can possibly work, since the heat carried away will increase with temperature. It could be pretty complicated, and Rossi may be sticking with
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Stimulating is good, negative stimulents as Steve's reaction are better, it seems. (No more tests, who said it?) We had the opportunity to observe that the E-cat has quite sharp verbal claws, not always retracted. Let's hope there will be energetically independent greater E-cats. On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#** comment-46906http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46906 Dear C.Monti: Thanks for your smart insight. About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * When people start doubting, release new unexpected info. It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he will soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably long amount of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
What took so long? This is good-news/bad-news in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered, overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once started. IOW - this result is completely expected, and should not be a surprise to anyone - instead, the bad-news is why it has taken so long to become a part of the record. From recent images of the 4-unit E-Cat array - there does seem to be extra plumbing which is visible, and this would be the obvious way that excess heat from one unit is shared with others, so that eventually - the unit which started the recirculation process can itself be powered by the others; such that no input energy from outside the system is required. The probable reason this expected result has been delayed is that the trigger temperature is higher than Rossi has previously indicated. Indeed, Brian Ahern's results indicate a thermal trigger in the range of 500 C for his active material, which is not as active as Rossi's (yet) but which is already near the limit of the safe operating range, so temperature control becomes the big issue - if an when - you try to recirculate the working fluid between multiple units . and for ease of operation, you must AVOID steam, if possible. It would not surprise me to hear - and I will make this an official prediction that when the MW unit is put into production, water will NOT be the heat transfer medium between the E-Cats. Instead all of the units will be interconnected using a dedicated heat transfer fluid with lower volatility, which heat is eventually ported to an attached heat exchanger, which then heats the water for use in the factory or to drive a turbine. The fluid will probably be one of the new replacements for PCBs like diphenyl ether - the new Therminol or an equivalent, which is the current choice for solar trough units, despite some toxicity issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenyl_oxide Jones
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: What took so long? Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a couple of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi claims this mode of running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled. This has often been discussed here. It is listed here: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi%27s_Hints The reaction can be made self-sustaining with the resistance heaters turned off. This was done in a preliminary test with U. Bologna professors. (SL) This is “good-news/bad-news” in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered, overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once started. I don't see why. That is like saying an internal combustion engine should be able to run with the fuel pump turned off. IOW – this result is completely expected . . . It is not expected. That implies future tense. This result has already been reported. (It is conceivable that the reports are untrue, but in any case, something that has already reported cannot be expected.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Dear Peter, Rossi is dancing again. In CF it is called 'heat after death', but an energy investment is needed to elevated the cell into a operating region. Thereafter, with proper insulation, the reaction can continue indefinitely, against the cooling effect of phase conversion of water to steam. Randy conceived of a similar situation for one of his solid catalyst systems. If the E-Cat reaction has an inherent variability, managing a reactor array could be exciting, one might say. Such is an aspect of commecializability and can be a black hole for money in the attempt for 1 MW. Warmest Regards, Mike From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy Stimulating is good, negative stimulents as Steve's reaction are better, it seems. (No more tests, who said it?) We had the opportunity to observe that the E-cat has quite sharp verbal claws, not always retracted. Let's hope there will be energetically independent greater E-cats. On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46906 cpage=12#comment-46906 Dear C.Monti: Thanks for your smart insight. About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * When people start doubting, release new unexpected info. It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he will soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably long amount of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: Some more info: * * * Could you please share a few extra details about the experiment? - The size of the E-Cat (50cc or one liter in volume). - How high the output went before the test had to end. - What variables you are changing to allow for safe operation with zero input. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=13#comment-46959 Dear Herald Patterson, Thank you for your kind attention. Here are the answers: 1- 50 cc total 2- Once the Cat reached the stability, the output doesn’t change. It ends within 20 minutes after you stop it. 3- hydrogen pressure, but it is still dangerous Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On 2011-06-18 18:27, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Some more info: * * * 3) What do you consider is the maximum “safe” output level? 4) Do you think the one megawatt power plant being opened by Defkalion might operate with zero input? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=13#comment-46963 Dear Herald OPatterson, Here are the additional answers: 3- the maximum safe output level is 10 kW per module 4- Not so far, it is too dangerous. So far. We are making modiles operate without input in this precise moment, but under my direct control. Thans to you for communicate with me. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Dear Mike, As regarding heat after death in classical CF it was rather rare- I cannot remember more than 5 documented cases. Surely the Piantelli Cells and the E-cats have to be heated and stimulated to start. When I am thinking or writing about the Ecat I imagine that I am using one instead of my home Bosch gas burner for heating and warm water. We still have to learn much about the E-cats. The Defkalion Press Conference next week will be an opportunity, those nice people have to manufacture and sell the units, fast enough to be profitable and depend on real customers.They have my deepest empathy. Peter On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: Dear Peter, Rossi is dancing again. In CF it is called ‘heat after death’, but an energy investment is needed to elevated the cell into a operating region. Thereafter, with proper insulation, the reaction can continue indefinitely, against the cooling effect of phase conversion of water to steam. Randy conceived of a similar situation for one of his solid catalyst systems. If the E-Cat reaction has an inherent variability, managing a reactor array could be exciting, one might say. Such is an aspect of “commecializability” and can be a black hole for money in the attempt for 1 MW. ** ** Warmest Regards, Mike ** ** ** ** *From:* Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:28 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy ** ** Stimulating is good, negative stimulents as Steve's reaction are better, it seems. (No more tests, who said it?) ** ** We had the opportunity to observe that the E-cat has quite sharp verbal claws, not always retracted. ** ** Let's hope there will be energetically independent greater E-cats. ** ** On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=12#comment-46906 Dear C.Monti: Thanks for your smart insight. About the question: in these days we are making tests with zero energy input, to try to make them safe. Probably we are close. The day before yesterday a new Cat worked for one hour producing 15 kWh/h without energy input, then I had to stop mit because it was continuing to raise energy output. Anyway: yes, we have a power back up if grid goes black out. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * When people start doubting, release new unexpected info. It appears Rossi is now close to producing 15 kW E-Cat devices that can reliabily work with no input energy. Magnificent! Now, let's hope he will soon be able to show one of them to the public for a reasonably long amount of time. That would be the conclusive proof of validity. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com ** ** This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: As regarding heat after death in classical CF it was rather rare- I cannot remember more than 5 documented cases. Not true. Fleischmann andPons in France produced heat after death hundreds of times. They ran banks of 64 cells and pushed them all to a boil-off followed by heat after death. Biberian and Lonchampt replicated that. McKubre and the people at Energetics Technologies also say they have frequently observed heat after death. Frankly, I do not think heat after death is particularly important, or that it holds any deep secret. I think it is caused by having a large bulk of Pd that stores a lot of deuterium which gradually comes of the bulk to the surface. I do not think heat after death has any commercial value. On the contrary, you do not want a reaction that cannot be quickly quenched. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 12:08 PM 6/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a couple of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi claims this mode of running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled. I've seen some rather silly skeptical comment protesting that you can't control heat with heat. Of course you can. Unstated is that cooling is also a control mechanism. The cooling is by generation of steam or hot water. Assume that the reaction rate increases with temperature. At a certain temperature, it runs away, and there is risk of destruction of the device and other damage. With a certain rate of cooling and a certain input heat, the reaction can be kept below the temperature at which self-heating is adequate to run away (under the cooling conditions). The heating would be started at a high input to bring the cell up to operating temperature, then lowered to just maintain that temperature. If it's lowered too much, the operating temperature drops and the generated heat drops with it, further lowering the temperature until the whole thing cools down to a (much) lower temperature. It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs might limit the heat by limiting the fuel input, but that might be difficult to control as well, that is, there might be some OOP that is very sensitive. I can see why they'd want to control with input heat, it's pretty simple to manage, electrically, with few failure modes, and it's fail-safe, as long as one doesn't take the temperature up too high. Power failure, the thing shuts down. This would be the worry, that some uncontrolled condition cause an unexpected increase in reaction rate, taking the cell over the runaway temperature, in which case, obviously, lowering the input heat to zero would be ineffective, one would have to actually cool. Or quench with nitrogen, as was apparently done in one case. Having a cooling port where water would gain more direct thermal contact with the reaction chamber would be a shutdown mechanism that could be controlled. It is possible that the system could be engineered so that the presence of water in the cooling channels guarantees that the temperature doesn't go to runaway. All it would take is a *lot* of data and hard work.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 12:27 PM 6/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 16:07, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Today Rossi posted on his Blog some interesting info: Some more info: * * * Could you please share a few extra details about the experiment? - The size of the E-Cat (50cc or one liter in volume). - How high the output went before the test had to end. - What variables you are changing to allow for safe operation with zero input. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=13#comment-46959 Dear Herald Patterson, Thank you for your kind attention. Here are the answers: 1- 50 cc total 2- Once the Cat reached the stability, the output doesnât change. It ends within 20 minutes after you stop it. 3- hydrogen pressure, but it is still dangerous Warm Regards, A.R. Bingo. Controlling with hydrogen input. Problem is, if you put in a little too much hydrogen, it would then run away. The fuel is not used up rapidly! That balance point might be very, very sensitive. Safer to keep the thing a little cooler, so that you've got some margin of control.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 12:32 PM 6/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-18 18:27, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Some more info: * * * 3) What do you consider is the maximum âsafeâ output level? 4) Do you think the one megawatt power plant being opened by Defkalion might operate with zero input? http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360cpage=13#comment-46963 Dear Herald OPatterson, Here are the additional answers: 3- the maximum safe output level is 10 kW per module 4- Not so far, it is too dangerous. So far. We are making modiles operate without input in this precise moment, but under my direct control. Yeah. Controlling with electrical heat input is way simpler. It's been said that the output of one E-Cat could heat another. Not at the operating temperatures involved. It's necessary to be able to heat the reaction chamber to operating temperature, which is 450 degrees C or so. To do that, the generating E-Cat must operate at a higher temperature! Unless, of course, electricity is generated, which is inefficient, but they may not care, if the waste heat is still available in the output. Thermoelectric power, though, doesn't seem to be efficient enough, my guess, if the E-Cat is operating at 6:1 excess power over input power, thermoelectric wouldn't cut it. But a hybrid solution might work: i.e., recirculate working fluid to reach a generated internal ambient temperature, then boost it with thermoelectric-generated power to produce reaction chamber temperature that's higher. It's fun to think about but all this can easily be a waste of time. The simple solution is to use mains power. You get heating that is (say) six times the mains power usage, which is certainly worth doing if the costs are low enough. You get easy control by electronics, no moving parts needed. The mains power is not wasted, it all ends up as heat. Thermoelectrics would add a lot of equipment cost with not that much advantage that I can see. It's looking like an E-Cat is not much more than some plumbing, it could be very cheap to make with off-the-shelf parts. The expensive (and difficult) thing is the preparation of the catalyst/fuel, but they are claiming low refueling cost, and if that's true and not just smoke, then they will be, I'd expect, making money hand over fist at E 5000 per E-Cat, is that the price now?
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
I wrote: I think [heat after death] is caused by having a large bulk of Pd that stores a lot of deuterium which gradually comes of the bulk to the surface. I say that because the largest example of heat after death was Mizuno's event in 1991. The cathode was 100 g. That is 100 to 1000 times larger than most cathodes. As far as I know, it is the largest ever used. Heat after death is dramatic, and it proves that all skeptical objections to the calorimetry are nonsense, but as I said it probably has no deeper significance. It is not technologically useful or even desirable. You might classify all gas loaded heat as heat after death. That's a different story. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
IMHO, the mechanism behind the activity within the nano-sized nuclear sites in the Ni-H reactor type is derived from some unusual form of hydrogen such as Heavy Rydberg (H + / H –) system, Rydberg ions, atoms and/or matter in one form or another or in combination. Production of Rydberg matter through the catalytic action of an alkali metal is driven and controlled by both the high temperature and pressure of the hydrogen gas envelope as currently characterized by the Rossi reactor design. If the active principle in the Rossi reactor involves Rydberg matter in one form or another, control of the intensity of Rydberg atomic activity may be affected by electrostatic and/or magnetic means since Rydberg atoms in its various personifications are all characterized with large permanent electric dipole moments and have a high sensitivity to electric fields. One experiment that Rossi should try is to put a grid in the center of his reaction chamber that can be electrostatically polarized. If Rydberg matter is at the bottom of the Rossi reaction, some control might be forthcoming through adjusting the polarization of this grid. On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:08 PM 6/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Nothing took so long. They have been doing tests without input for a couple of years. Levi described one in December. However, Rossi claims this mode of running is dangerous because it cannot be controlled. I've seen some rather silly skeptical comment protesting that you can't control heat with heat. Of course you can. Unstated is that cooling is also a control mechanism. The cooling is by generation of steam or hot water. Assume that the reaction rate increases with temperature. At a certain temperature, it runs away, and there is risk of destruction of the device and other damage. With a certain rate of cooling and a certain input heat, the reaction can be kept below the temperature at which self-heating is adequate to run away (under the cooling conditions). The heating would be started at a high input to bring the cell up to operating temperature, then lowered to just maintain that temperature. If it's lowered too much, the operating temperature drops and the generated heat drops with it, further lowering the temperature until the whole thing cools down to a (much) lower temperature. It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs might limit the heat by limiting the fuel input, but that might be difficult to control as well, that is, there might be some OOP that is very sensitive. I can see why they'd want to control with input heat, it's pretty simple to manage, electrically, with few failure modes, and it's fail-safe, as long as one doesn't take the temperature up too high. Power failure, the thing shuts down. This would be the worry, that some uncontrolled condition cause an unexpected increase in reaction rate, taking the cell over the runaway temperature, in which case, obviously, lowering the input heat to zero would be ineffective, one would have to actually cool. Or quench with nitrogen, as was apparently done in one case. Having a cooling port where water would gain more direct thermal contact with the reaction chamber would be a shutdown mechanism that could be controlled. It is possible that the system could be engineered so that the presence of water in the cooling channels guarantees that the temperature doesn't go to runaway. All it would take is a *lot* of data and hard work.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results. I disagree that this common heat transfer fluid be heated by one of these devices for startup. More amenable to gas heating for initiation, since the optimal temp (maybe 500C could be reached for all of the fluid, then released through the piping to the reactor(s.) As they kick in, the flow rate used to adjust and hold the temp, dumping heat into steam production. With this level of temp control, the micro reactor array may be superseded by one large one. - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:44 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy What took so long? This is good-news/bad-news in a way. But it totally expected. In short, it can be shown logically that multiple units of any thermally triggered, overunity device MUST be amenable to operation with no input energy, once started. IOW - this result is completely expected, and should not be a surprise to anyone - instead, the bad-news is why it has taken so long to become a part of the record. From recent images of the 4-unit E-Cat array - there does seem to be extra plumbing which is visible, and this would be the obvious way that excess heat from one unit is shared with others, so that eventually - the unit which started the recirculation process can itself be powered by the others; such that no input energy from outside the system is required. The probable reason this expected result has been delayed is that the trigger temperature is higher than Rossi has previously indicated. Indeed, Brian Ahern's results indicate a thermal trigger in the range of 500 C for his active material, which is not as active as Rossi's (yet) but which is already near the limit of the safe operating range, so temperature control becomes the big issue - if an when - you try to recirculate the working fluid between multiple units . and for ease of operation, you must AVOID steam, if possible. It would not surprise me to hear - and I will make this an official prediction that when the MW unit is put into production, water will NOT be the heat transfer medium between the E-Cats. Instead all of the units will be interconnected using a dedicated heat transfer fluid with lower volatility, which heat is eventually ported to an attached heat exchanger, which then heats the water for use in the factory or to drive a turbine. The fluid will probably be one of the new replacements for PCBs like diphenyl ether - the new Therminol or an equivalent, which is the current choice for solar trough units, despite some toxicity issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenyl_oxide Jones
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:42:10 Jay Caplan wrote [snip]I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results.[/snip] Jay, Nicely said - you beat me to it but additionally I would like to point out that Rossi referred to this as a NEW ecat. I think he meant it was fresh off the assembly line with a fresh charge of powder. This goes back to a previous thread where we were discussing the level of activity sites from the moment of formation and the protection of these sites from overheating. It might even be necessary to keep the outer reactor surface permanently wet to protect the most active geometry from simply degrading down to a sustainable dry geometry by overheating and melting the smallest portions of the cavities closed. Rossi doesn't want to see his devices follow the performance woes associated with MAHG devices that would initially appear to produce anomalous heat but would quickly degrade down to almost nothing. I Agree with both you and Jones that an improved, faster and controllable heat sinking methodology is key to a free running reactor but think this will also require a new design where the entire reactor is designed as a heat exchanger and where the powder only exists as a thin layer/alloy sputtered or spin melted to the inner surface of the reactor wall (copper or SS). I would expect any bulk powder not annealed to a heat sink to very quickly reduce its active regions by overheating and melting the Ni in those regions where Casimir geometry is smallest the moment gas molecules permeate the geometry. Fran
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to Abd ul-Rahman Lomax's message of Sat, 18 Jun 2011 13:32:54 -0400: Hi, [snip] It's being operated, apparently, at a balance point. Other designs ...or as Dr. Schwartz would say, an OOP. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Fran, If you could sputter the powder surface onto the fins of a brazed heat exchanger http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/finbraze--2/item-1010?forward=1 then the H2 could be inputted through a tube surrounding the finned exchanger (with an outer lead pipe shield if there actually is gamma to deal with.) The heat transfer fluid running through the center tube - center tube welded to the outer tube at the ends to maintain H2 pressure. Brazed fins for continuous duty to 950 F. But it might be easier to have square fins with ~1-2 mm between them, and the adjacent two fins brazed closed on 3 sides. http://fintube.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/stamped-plate-fin/item-1015?forward=1 Fill the top side with the nanopowders, vibrate to settle, H2 still loads from the outer tube. ??? - Original Message - From: francis To: uniqueprodu...@comcast.net Cc: vortex-l@eskimo.com ; Teofilo, Vince ; zpe.asymmat...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 7:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:42:10 Jay Caplan wrote [snip]I agree. Since several devices have melted down before, it is obvious that it doesn't need elec input to work, just reacting nearby the high temps of the resistance element. Once heated uniformly to reaction temps and self sustaining, the key would be to pull off the energy fast enough with heat transfer fluids to keep temps below trouble levels, but in the best reaction range. When GE gets hold of this and turns their process engineers on to it (after 15 yrs of NRC delays) you may well see superb results.[/snip] Jay, Nicely said - you beat me to it but additionally I would like to point out that Rossi referred to this as a NEW ecat. I think he meant it was fresh off the assembly line with a fresh charge of powder. This goes back to a previous thread where we were discussing the level of activity sites from the moment of formation and the protection of these sites from overheating. It might even be necessary to keep the outer reactor surface permanently wet to protect the most active geometry from simply degrading down to a sustainable dry geometry by overheating and melting the smallest portions of the cavities closed. Rossi doesn't want to see his devices follow the performance woes associated with MAHG devices that would initially appear to produce anomalous heat but would quickly degrade down to almost nothing. I Agree with both you and Jones that an improved, faster and controllable heat sinking methodology is key to a free running reactor but think this will also require a new design where the entire reactor is designed as a heat exchanger and where the powder only exists as a thin layer/alloy sputtered or spin melted to the inner surface of the reactor wall (copper or SS). I would expect any bulk powder not annealed to a heat sink to very quickly reduce its active regions by overheating and melting the Ni in those regions where Casimir geometry is smallest the moment gas molecules permeate the geometry. Fran
