Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have already been discussed.» And where they are discussed and by whom? There might be problems, and first is that steam can carry 10-20 times more heat than water coolant. But these are just problems that can be solved with creativity. I am sure that these are not relevant obstacles by any means. With your analysis, how do you explain up to 2.0°C temperature anomaly above local boiling point? That was observed in December test. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
The computations in the following pdfs are provided in order to hopefully permit more meaningful discussion or understanding of the percolator effect as it relates to Rossi type devices and simulators: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/KrivitFilm.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Cantwell2.pdf It appears there has been a failure to understand the significance of my recent post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50661.html One problem is a failure to grasp that pure water can be expected to accumulate within such devices until a percolation effect causes the water to be ejected or overflow from the device. There is a failure to either understand or accept that the percolator effect can be expected to happen in at least two locations: (1) anywhere the hose rises, including at the exit, or (2) in the vertical flow column (chimney) in the device itself. This leads to problems with interpreting experimental results, such as the assumption that the percolator effect happens only due to water that has condensed in the hose due to heat loss through the hose wall. The time constant for percolation events in the hose clearly can be expected to differ from such events occurring at the vertical flow column, the chimney. This false assumption has even been applied to Rick Cantwell's excellent experiment, discussed in the above referenced vortex posting. This strikes me as very odd because all the parameters are known - there is no possibility of excess heat from nuclear effects. As my computations show, when Cantwell's device is at equilibrium in mode 2 or mode 3, significant water, the majority of the input water, is necessarily pumped out of the device without boiling at all. The KrivitFilm pdf provides enough information to show that the Rossi demo device in the Krivit 14 June 2011 film necessarily pumps out liquid water unless the thermal power of the device is above 5012 W, and the steam flow is 3.2 liters per second from the device. The hose can not condense a significant portion of the steam coming out of the device at this power, as an upper bound for condensation power for 3 liters of hose should be about 460 watts. Tis assumes a delta T of 10°C, as Rick Cantwell observed. Even if the outer wall temperature is 80°C, the most condensing power is about 920 watts, only one fifth the water flow. This leaves the steam output at over 2500 cc/sec. Assuming even a 2 cm tube inner diameter, that is over 8 m/sec output velocity, clearly far more than the Krivit video shows. If the thermal power of the device is below the dryout temperature, *it is necessarily true* that water must spill out of the chimney. Suppose for a moment that the device is actually performing above the dryout power of 5012 watts. When equilibrium is finally reached, the steam laving the lower boiler area is necessarily heated by the excess energy. As the calculations show, this steam heating in the boiler area results in a dramatic increase in chimney steam temperature. No such increase was ever observed in the Rossi device. It is therefore necessarily true the device never operated even a small amount above the dryout power of 5012 W. For the claim that the steam was dry to be true, that there was no percolator effects in the device itself, no water overflow, the device would have to operate at exactly the dryout power output *at all times*, because it never operates at thermal output above that condition. It is noteworthy that the dryout condition for such devices is when J/ gm applied is greater than or equal to the heat of vaporization per gram of water plus the heat required to raise a gram of water to boiling. Thus the formula Dryout condition in J/gm = Dcond = Hvap+(Bpoint-Wtemp)*Hcap is used in the computations. Given a constant flow F in gm/s is used the critical dryout power Pcrit is given by: Pcrit = F * Dcond If a thermal power of P watts is present, the critical flow rate Fcrit is given by: Fcrit = P / Dcond The critical values result in all the water being boiled with no significant power heating the steam itself, i.e. dryout conditions. If operation at even a very small percentage above dryout conditions is achieved then output steam temperature should be very significantly above boiling temperature. It is notable that if steam temperature is elevated well above boiling then some heat flux through the steam tube is required to drop the temperature to condensation range. This results in less condensation in the steam tube than operation right at dryout conditions. It seems obvious that percolator effects can be expected within the Rossi device even if operating with significant excess (nuclear) power, and that steam quality can not be expected to be anywhere near perfect. If the hose is removed it can be expected that water will be seen
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have already been discussed.» And where they are discussed and by whom? I discussed it in response to you if I recall, and provided a reference to an actual application of a similar isoperibolic calorimetry application, specifically one where a post experiment temperature decline curve was determined, and the associated problems noted. There might be problems, and first is that steam can carry 10-20 times more heat than water coolant. But these are just problems that can be solved with creativity. Well, sure, if you competently design a calorimeter you can get rid of a lot of problems ... but then it is no longer just sparging steam into a bucket. I am sure that these are not relevant obstacles by any means. With your analysis, how do you explain up to 2.0°C temperature anomaly above local boiling point? That was observed in December test. —Jouni The problem with such an anomaly is there is no confirming source. It can be due to intermittent measurement error, such as momentary contact with a metal surface whereby heat is transferred directly through metal from the source to the thermometer. It can be a real temperature rise due to pressure increase in the hose due to water accumulation in the hose and the significant rise from the floor to the drain. It might be due to momentary electrical contact problems, corrosion and/or electro-chemical reactions. It could be due to digitizer or computer problems, parts overheating or operated out of spec. There are probably many other explanations to be ruled out as well. The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself, preferably using dual methods. Then there is little need for issues like this that involve a lot of guesswork. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. This is not a moon mission. I expect Rossi could have had competent high quality calorimetry done for free many months ago, and without divulging anything about his device. I find all this very depressing. Billions of people are likely going to be affected by timely development of the LENR field. If the Rossi thing is a bust it could cost a major setback for LENR research support, and millions of lives. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. What is the difference? An eCat is a reactor vessel, and so is a Defkalion reactor. You can only perform calorimetry on a vessel of some sort. Are you suggesting they should examine the powder itself as it reacts, with some sort of window in the vessel? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. If we have a well characterized vessel (i.e. we know heat conduction properties well we can use it to contain the reaction. Then we might be able to charcterize heat flow from it better. This might also be done by solding the vessel in a vacuum and measuring the IR spectrum to characterize radiation. It could then be compared with nickel or another metal in the vessel with an inert gas (maybe deuterium). After intensive investigations there should be a conclusion possible. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction. What is the difference? An eCat is a reactor vessel, and so is a Defkalion reactor. You can only perform calorimetry on a vessel of some sort. Are you suggesting they should examine the powder itself as it reacts, with some sort of window in the vessel? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
On Aug 25, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The correct thing to do is to do calorimetry on the output using a well calibrated professionally designed calorimeter independent of the device itself . . . Defkalion claims they have done this. Alarm bells should go off in your head when you see the amount of discussion this issue has had, and the lack of meaningful progress. Lots of response, but no progress. Just a lot of churning churning churning. Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS news list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc. This has nothing to do with what Rossi and Defkalion are doing. Alarm bells should not go off because people here who have nothing to do with the research and no information about it are speculating. I refer to the fact that repeated public demos are made and extensive argument and even bluster, ad hominem, etc. is put up on the issue of calorimetry, without even the most nominal effort or expense to publicly examine the heat output independently of the E-Cat. I still find it incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. What evidence do you have for this assertion? How do you know that no one has done proper calorimetry? In their web site discussion group, Defkalion claimed they did, and they claimed the Greek Min. of Energy did as well. No details or reports have been published, so perhaps it is not true, but can you be sure it is not true? - Jed The above statement is in regard to the repeated public demos, and continued public discussion - the public information which can potentially attract investors. It is not relevant what has supposedly happened behind the scenes. What matters is the fact that there has been continual public interfacing with nothing but talk talk talk, continual stirring of the public relations pot, concurrent with repeated flawed demos, when even an amateur level of attention to calorimetry in the public demos could potentially blow the lid off on the prospects for investment, for both Rossi and others. Serious criticism by serious scientists, that could easily (and potentially very inexpensively) be answered experimentally, is met with true believer fluff and smokescreens from both Rossi and the true believer peanut gallery. There is serious reason to doubt any useable nuclear heat is being produced at all. There is very good reason to believe liquid water is being spurted out of the steam exit port of the E-Cat, even if a large amount of nuclear energy is actually being created. This steam quality issue has not been addressed, despite intense public debate and criticism by serious scientists. The demos are highly flawed, to the point of demonstrating nothing. No amount of bluster and name calling can change that. Krivit has it right in his seven points. An obvious question is why would Rossi would engage in such time consuming public interfacing when there is so much to do technically? I think the answer has to do with money. Hopefully I have it right on the points I made quantitatively with regard to the percolator effect. There has thus far been no appropriate reasoned response on the quantitative issues my post discusses, main points of my post. I suppose there is good reason for that; it is a lot easier to engage in blather instead of doing any real work. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Joe Catania wrote: I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. Phase changes are a problem, although ice calorimetry has been around for a long time. The only kind of calorimetry that happens without heat leakage is bomb calorimetry, which can only be done for brief reactions or it explodes (hence the name). If we have a well characterized vessel (i.e. we know heat conduction properties well we can use it to contain the reaction. Then we might be able to charcterize heat flow from it better. This might also be done by solding the vessel in a vacuum and measuring the IR spectrum to characterize radiation. I do not see how this would be any better than flow calorimetry, which is what Defkalion uses, and what Levi did in the 18-hour test. For a kilowatt-scale reaction I think that is the best method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Hold on there! I assume you refer to the discussions and churning here, in this group. You assume wrongly. I refer in addition to Rossi's blog, the CMNS news list, Krivit's blog, public press, etc., etc. Ah, well these other forums are also populated by people who know practically nothing. Rossi's blog is colorful but it does not say much because, as Rossi says, he cannot reveal trade secrets. The above statement is in regard to the repeated public demos, and continued public discussion - the public information which can potentially attract investors. Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based on those demos would be insane, in my opinion. It is not relevant what has supposedly happened behind the scenes. Unless you know what is happening behind the scenes how can you judge whether it is relevant to potential investors? Assuming Defkalion has done what they claim in their blog and White Paper, with tests conducted by the Greek government and so on, why would you say this is irrelevant? It seems to me that such tests would be far more relevant and important to an investor than the 4 public demonstrations, which were hardly more convincing than a typical trade-show demonstration. (Not to say there is anything wrong with a trade-show demo for the purposes such demos serve, but in that kind of venue you cannot do a serious test or a serious evaluation.) What matters is the fact that there has been continual public interfacing with nothing but talk talk talk, continual stirring of the public relations pot, concurrent with repeated flawed demos, when even an amateur level of attention to calorimetry in the public demos could potentially blow the lid off on the prospects for investment, for both Rossi and others. If Defkalion has actually done what they claim, that should impress any serious investor who is shown the experimental data and the machines in operation. That would not be talk, talk, talk. If they have not done what they claim, and there are no tests underway in the Greek government, they are engaged in fraud. I do not see any middle ground here. Either they have done what you demand and their work makes the public demos irrelevant to investors, or they are frauds. An obvious question is why would Rossi would engage in such time consuming public interfacing when there is so much to do technically? If you mean writing his blog, I believe he does it for relaxation. It is a hobby. He has not spent much time doing demos. A few hours over 8 months. He told me he does not have time to do a more extensive test than the kind he showed Krivit. In my opinion, that test was so brief and so inadequate it would have been better not to do it at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Thank you Horace, I think you really have driven the final nails into the Rossi coffin, with your exemplary analysis of the percolator effect, along with cogent remarks about the endless wan discussions. within mutual service, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
So, you believe the issue is settled by the use of flow calorimetry (hopefully you mean without phase change). - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect Joe Catania wrote: I'm suggesting what I believe many others have. What should be eliminated is complications like anything flowing, anything shanging phase, heat leakage. Phase changes are a problem, although ice calorimetry has been around for a long time. The only kind of calorimetry that happens without heat leakage is bomb calorimetry, which can only be done for brief reactions or it explodes (hence the name). If we have a well characterized vessel (i.e. we know heat conduction properties well we can use it to contain the reaction. Then we might be able to charcterize heat flow from it better. This might also be done by solding the vessel in a vacuum and measuring the IR spectrum to characterize radiation. I do not see how this would be any better than flow calorimetry, which is what Defkalion uses, and what Levi did in the 18-hour test. For a kilowatt-scale reaction I think that is the best method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace wrote: «Sparging steam into a bucket, though far better that other steam methods applied to date on Rossi's devices, and publicly disclosed, has numerous serious drawbacks, which have already been discussed.» And where they are discussed and by whom? My apologies. I should have provided some references. I consider it rude when sites are referenced and no URL provided. Here is one place where we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50611.html Begin quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques. See my reference in one of the above posts for an actual application where I applied thermal decline curve measurement and estimated a complete energy balance. Ultimately, the best method involves simultaneous dual calorimetry techniques which establish *total energy balances*, like that used by Earthech International: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf and which in the past has been provided free of charge. Earthtech also has excellent equipment for measuring total electrical energy in. The Rossi devices can be treated like black boxes, with no knowledge of any trade secrets or internals required. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote. My reference to practical problems with an actual application of isoperibolic calorimetry I had in 1997 was documented starting on page 9 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BlueAEH.pdf which shows some basic amateur calorimetry, including use of a post experiment temperature decline curve to estimate heat loss thorough the container walls, a technique which might be useful applied to a barrel calorimeter, though it is obviously best to insulate the barrel. It was noted in the above study that use of dewar flask provided far less exciting results. This is an indication of the general weakness of the technique. It was also noted that there were changing values of the W/(deg. C) calorimeter constant with temperature for the cell, and that this could mean more mechanisms affect heat loss at higher temperatures, e.g. evaporation and IR radiation are more significant. Obtaining a brief decay curve at high temperatures is not adequate for analysis. Good stirring and mixing is also essential for obtaining a mean temperature of the water during a run. Just sparging steam into a bucket is a very inaccurate method. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
