RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
JC wrote: Have I got it straight? Because if so, then I think the idea is whacked. If not -- if you think the ecat *can* produce intermediate powers -- please try to explain what would come out of the ecat if it were producing 2 kW power (in the Krivit demo). Presumably, if there is no forbidden region, it must pass that power level. I would bet that at this time, and from comments made about 'calibrating' the production units, the input water flow rate is determined by each eCat's reactor characteristics... you can't just use any flow rate with a specific reactor and have it perform as claimed. I.e., they can more or less deposit the Ni powder in a way that scales the reaction rate up or down to some degree, but the flow rate that allows it to run at the cusp of the phase diagram (Point-C on the diagram I posted in the last few weeks) varies with each reactor and thus they have to do some testing to determine exactly what input water flow rate matches the reactors heat production rate and will maintain a fairly constant water level in the lower section of the chimney. If the flow rate it too high then water will build up in the chimney and overflow, if the rate is too low then the water level will decrease and eventually fall below the top of the reactor. The resistance heaters then give them the fine-tuning needed to maintain a constant water level. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview -Dynamic Casimir Effect
That's fairly amazing, as quantum theory says nothing about particles, flittering, flitting or otherwise. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Abstract: One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence...
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview -Dynamic Casimir Effect
Sorry about that. I'm sure the remainder of the article could be interesting. Simply put, my objection is the the inclusion of particles rather than quanitzed fields in this abstract statement. Particles, as existent things, are an addition to quantum mechanics, not part of it. Nothing in quantum mechanics saysmatter 'n stuff comes in particles, unless we are talking about the old quantum mechanics of Niels Bohr or very speculative interpretations of quantum mechanics such as Bohmian Mechanics. The popular science culture always wants to talk about particles like little billiard balls because they are so much easier to understand. What particles? Well, they are an easy cruch for laymen rather than continuous fields. If you want an alternate perspecive to particles, see the Feynman Auckland lectures, presented in a manner accessible to laymen. So, nevermind. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: That's fairly amazing, as quantum theory says nothing about particles, flittering, flitting or otherwise. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:07 AM, francis froarty...@comcast.net wrote: Abstract: One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence...
Re: [Vo]:New Sergio Focardi interview
Yes it is. How would you explain it? On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The Lewan demo shows no such clear increased heating phenomenon, so that data is even more puzzling.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit could be correct on Rossi
I disagree. There is a lot that can be known beyond which has been commonly discussed here as pertains to Rossi's device in its various incantations. A few Phd's entered the scene with cold feet and limited access, obtained incomplete data then reported their impressions months ago. In these interviening months there has been time to pick-and-needle at these reports for information. Many photographs and videos supply additonal information. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As for Rossi, there is really nothing that will be known until October, and it is already looking like he is hedging on the timetable. He has done everyone involved a disservice by calling Julian Brown a clown.
Re: [Vo]:The Mats Lewan demo
did you write this, Jed? What is a sparge test in this context? On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Exactly right. Rossi said this, very clearly. When he invited me, I said I wanted to do confirmation test, where I measure temperatures independently and do a sparge test with a short hose. He said no, he does not want any more tests until after the 1 MW demonstration.
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
Yeap. This is what I expect transpire:- A 1 MW unit will be qualified in the very same way the individual devices have been qualified: volumetric input of liquid water will be compared to electric power input. It should be a marketing success. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Dear people, How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with 600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to 1MW to emulate the big e-cat. If this is a scam, we won't have the means to know that easily in October with the presentation of the big e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit could be correct on Rossi
Tell me Lomax. Would you destroy the reputations of others to advance your own. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Hello Jouni It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy ( a normal situation during spring and summer). Look at to calculate the pressure corrected boilingpoint : http://www.csgnetwork.com/prescorh2oboilcalc.html Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:12 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat 2011/7/18 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: teapots don't have a fixed water flow input. Rather, water is added when the level declines. This is irrelevant difference. Water flow is there only to ensure that water level does not drop below reactor core, so that core does not expose to air. Water is not there to demonstrate how much E-Cat produces energy, but it's main function is to control reactor temperature and prevent reactor meltdown. This is the very essence of boiling water reactors. See, the purpose water for measurements is irrelevant component, but it is used, because water is very convenient substance as boiling water reactor coolant. That is because the enthalpy of water phase change is so high. This enables to divert much of the heat energy away from reactor core while the temperature of coolant remains constant. This is very crusial, because according to sig. Rossi, his E-Cat is very sensitive for internal temperature of reactor. The problem with this is that dry steam above boiling would require a chamber hotter than boiling, this can't happen unless the chamber substantially empties. It is perfectly possible that pressure rises inside E-Cat so that boiling point is at 100.5°C or 0.8°C higher. But what is impossible without very special setup, is that reactor produces wet steam and such a high pressure simultaneously, that it could cause boiling point to rise. If steam is very wet, then the energy output of the reactor is very low. And it cannot heat up reactor that much that it will cause significant pressure build up. Pressure build up depends on that there is significant amount of dry steam present! But, it is possible that if heating element is very hot, steam temperature can rise somewhat over boiling, because surface tension of water enable the bubble formation. And this gives some time for heating element to heat steam directly in gaseous phase although heating element is under water. Therefore it should not be impossible, that steam temperature finds its equilibrium that is 0.1-2.0 °C higher than actual boiling point. This depends on what is the temperature difference between heating element and boiling water. A teapot with a fixed flow input could overflow, indeed, if that's the only way that water is added, we can predict that, unless there is some complex feedback mechanism either on flow or on heat vs water level, the water will either boil away and the chimney temperature will increase, or water will start to overflow, some portion of the water will flow out. You do not have any evidence for that E-Cat can overflow, therefore this is just empty speculation. If you could even speculate with this possibility seriously, you should know what is the inner volume of the E-Cat. But you do not know even such a rudimentary detail about the E-Cat. This kind of speculation is useless and nonproductive, because first of all, temperature reading would be below 99.7°C, because there cannot be pressure build up without intensive production of dry steam. But as I stated this problem is easy to fix, that you just introduce a secret heating element near thermometer that feeds false temperature readings. On the other hand, if E-Cat is a hoax, it far more easy to construct such a way that Rossi just hides a internal hydrogen tank. E.g. I have suggested that the stand where E-Cats are mounted could be hollow hand that would be easy way to hide a hydrogen bottle. Therefore Kullander's and Essén's observations about the E-Cat has exactly zero scientific value, because they cannot tell a part, whether they witnessed a catalyzed hydrogen burning or catalyzed cold fusion. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
2011/7/18 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. Oh, I have constantly talked that the measured boiling point of water is 99.7°C. Apparently my memory did error as I meant that boiling point according thermometer is 99.6°C! Notice that absolute accuracy of thermometer is ±0.4°C. Although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. This alone proofs that there is considerable amount of pressure build up and pressure can only be build up if there is lots of dry steam present. Therefore only explanation for heat anomaly is that there is internal power source within the E-Cat structure. Electricity just cannot explain the temperature of 100.5±0.1°C if we assume that thermometer readings are not falsified, e.g. with secret heating element near thermometer sensor. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I do not argue with ghosts. I don't blame you, after the pathetic wet steam is not possible salvo. Ah yes, those ghosts which grab splashy droplets and lift them out of the reactor. Indeed, what spiritual thermodynamics!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down the duration. It is hard to estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and the temperature should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I say this because the specific heat of iron and copper is about 10 times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass, and an immense amount of energy is removed by boiling. Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove. If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would be proof of anomalous heat. I did a test boiling 2 L of water the other day in a pot with a glass cover and a K-type thermocouple. Less than a minute after cutting off the heat the boiling stopped, and 5 min. later the water temperature was down several degrees and the headspace down ~5 deg C. That was the case even though the metal pot was pretty heavy and of course much hotter than boiling temperature. It is a shame Brown did not observe heat after death for 5 or 10 minutes. - Jed
[Vo]: Anybody seen this GUT before?
http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_67x.html -Mark
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Rossi could serve many negative examples for a course of Prestige Management He reminds me one of the 'casts' of this fable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog It seems he does not care, because if the E-cat woirks well at the industrial level, these gaffes will be forgotten. Let's wait and see! Peter. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.comwrote: On 2011-07-17 21:16, Akira Shirakawa wrote: And this was Rossi's answer: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#** comment-53792http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-53792 It looks like Rossi has updated his answer on JONP, without adding a note about that. I personally find this phantom editing behavior despicable, but that's the way he communicates to the public after all. This is what the comment looks like now: Andrea Rossi July 17th, 2011 at 1:54 PM Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing, also because he inspired me no trust, because said he is a Quantum Physicist, but said so much stupidities that not even a 13 years old student of middle school could say, so I understood he was an impostor. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have had many probabilities to be accepted: I was very baffled, because I could not understand how an officer of the European Patent Office could behave like that: he asked me to be paid by my company’s shares in change of his help! After some day I received from this clown ( who until that moment spoke only positively of all what he saw) some text, simply ridiculous, for a new patent (I conserve the copies, of course) and in these texts there was written that my patent was to be based on an already granted patent made from one competitor of mine, obviously a “friend” of his. I made a research and discovered that the patent of my competitor he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitor to spy and to try to mess up with patents. I wrote him a mail inviting him not to contact me again: he was clearly an impostor. At this point he made the comment on Ecatnews… Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that he is an officer of the Patent Office (if he is, he made a crime, because he asked me, in change of his help, shares of Leonardo Corporation), he lies when he says he is an expert of patents, he lies when he says that my competitor he works with has a patent on this matter granted in 1995. It is clear that somebody, desperate of the fact that a 1 MW plant is close to be started up from us, is trying to use all the methods of a snake to try to put clubs in the wheels. But all this is just clownery: my plants will give evidence in the real market of the validity of my effect. It is also clear that at this point I cannot allow any more info or courtesy visit before the start up of my 1 MW plant. I have evidence, registrations and witnesses of all what I wrote here: BY THE WAY, ALL MY LABS AND FACTORIES, FOR SECURITY ISSUES, ARE SUPPLIED BY HIDDEN CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES TO REGISTER EVERYTHING WHICH HAPPENS AND IS SAID INSIDE. Warm Regards, A.R. So he now says he's got evidence backing up his statements about JB. I wonder if he will actually use that. Cheers, S.A. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
If Rossi was a scammer, he'd never accept this kind of visit or would make a more decent presentation like he did with Lewan or would just remain silent. This explosive behavior makes me think that e-cat is true... Unless he is simulating a true behavior to hide a scam. This is a kind of recursive thing. BTW, one thing that always bothered me about Krivit's video it is that there is a long time cut from the time between Rossi pulls out the hose from the wall and when he shows the steam against the black t-shirt. Maybe Rossi decreased the steam rate to avoid harming people there?
Re: [Vo]: Anybody seen this GUT before?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_67x.html No, but do you know many HAMs? http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_1x.html :-) T
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
At 01:56 AM 7/18/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Yeap. This is what I expect transpire:- A 1 MW unit will be qualified in the very same way the individual devices have been qualified: volumetric input of liquid water will be compared to electric power input. It should be a marketing success. Andrea Rossi July 18th, 2011 at 11:21 AM Dear Maryyugo: I repeat: no more public tests will be made. The tests will be made by our Customers with the plants they will buy, based on precise guarantees we give. If our Customers will want to make their plants tested from third parties, this will be a right of them. Warmkest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi July 18th, 2011 at 6:31 AM Dear Ing. Albert Ellul: Honestly, I must say that it will take time before we will be ready to deliver small units. We will start in November to accept orders for 1 MW plants. For the small units many problems have to be resolved still, starting from the issue regarding the authorizations, which are more complex for units destined to households, for obvious reasons. It is too soon to talk of the characteristics of the small units, in any case when they will hit the market the version will be supplied with all the items deriving from the experience with the 1 MW modules. Warm Regards, A.R. [ I thought that Defkalion said they were taking orders for small Hyperions in November. ]
RE: [Vo]: Anybody seen this GUT before?
My dad was! W6PXZ W6-Peter-Xray-Zanzibar Used to sit in the 'ham-shack' and watch him CQ all the time... Then there was the time when my sister's college roommate's dad was trying to buy Palmyra island in the Pacific and the only communications they had with guy left on the island was via HAM, so my dad offered to help out and served to be the comms dude here in the states for a number of months. He tried to track down a fuel injector for an old military generator set that was still on the island. He looked all around but don't think he ever found a replacement for it. Unfortunately, the owners of the island kept raising the price and the deal fell thru... Fun and interesting while it lasted! I was in my early to mid teens at that time... And a close friend here in Reno is a HAM... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 9:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Anybody seen this GUT before? On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_67x.html No, but do you know many HAMs? http://www.k1man.com/web60/Page_1x.html :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. I don't even think you believe the nonsense you write. You just spew words that sound sorta right so that you can make a pretence of continuing to support the unsupportable. Then you put your fingers in your ears when people (on your side) try to set you straight. Anything between 600W and 5 kW (for Krivit's ecat) produces a mixture of steam and boiling water at the boiling point. That's not a knife edge. What you (pretend to) claim -- that it is all boiled all the time giving a completely stable power output -- *that's* a knife edge. This is really so basic and simple, that I don't believe an accomplished person such as yourself, doesn't understand it. It must be a pretence. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Unfortunately all the better tests are hidden from the public. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. That's not heat after death; that's thermal mass. Say it takes 300C in the ecat to just boil the water, and 1500C to boil all the water. At any temperature in between the output is gonna be at the boiling point. Then if you goose it for a while to bring the temp up to 400C or so, it will take a little while to cool off to 300. And in that time the temperature will stay at the boiling point. Simple. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down the duration. It is hard to estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and the temperature should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I say this because the specific heat of iron and copper is about 10 times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass, and an immense amount of energy is removed by boiling. Look at how slow it heats up in the early stage, and how slow it cools off (below boiling) in the January demo to get an idea of the thermal mass. The temperature range while the temperature is at boiling point is much larger than the 80C or so in the heating up and cooling off phases. So, the time to cool off could easily be longer (up to 7 times longer) depending on how close to complete vaporization you start at. So this heat after death proves nothing. Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove. Not so quickly with an electric stove though. If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would be proof of anomalous heat. Not a chance. That's a fraction of the time it takes to cool from boiling to ambient. So the power would have to start from much less than double the boiling onset power, and still far away from complete vaporization to explain it with thermal mass. I did a test boiling 2 L of water the other day
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
At 10:02 AM 7/18/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: [ I thought that Defkalion said they were taking orders for small Hyperions in November. ] Their products page says http://www.defkalion-energy.com/products The 1MW Hyperion will be inaugurated in Q4 of 2011 with its production phase to commence in Q1 of 2012. No mention of schedule for small hyperions. ps : They have a big black-box pop-up warning AVOID SCAMS.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
P.J van Noorden wrote: the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint must have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4 degrC). At these temperatures with boiling water I doubt the water temperature was uniform. I have recently been calibrating some thermocouples and thermometers at various temperatures. I have seen considerable non-uniformity. There is no mixer inside the eCat. Barometric pressure also varies during the day and from place to place. A 0.4°C difference from the boiling point based on weather reports is not surprising. I will upload some notes about my calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 12:55 AM 7/18/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 09:14 PM 7/17/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: So most of the time he now performs stress tests on his modules in self-sustaining mode, apparently. That's an amazing claim! Just demonstrating one of those running for a reasonable amount of time would have rendered pointless most of the discussions and criticisms on steam issues made so far, even Julian Brown's. Now consider this possibility: Rossi wanted this exact situation, that he'd look like a complete scammer. He need to make the demo for some reason, whether it was personal for Focardi, or whatever, it doesn't matter, but he had a contrary need, to throw others off track, to inhibit attempts to replicate what he's doing. If he looks like a fraud and a scammer, that will seriously impact the ability of others to get funding to try to figure out what he's doing. The only problem with this theory is that it doesn't explain his boast about running the ecat without input, or for that matter, getting 120 kW in the 18-hour test. No theory explains everything, it is an intrinsic limitation of all theories. However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. - Jed
[Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
I posted a message titled Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples with an itty-bitty 17 kilobyte photo attached. Did the message come through? Did the picture come through? If you cannot see the picture and you really want to see it, contact me directly and I will send it. It is no big deal. I am curious to see if it came through. I suppose the archives will not show it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
jed, I got the post and the picture... -Mark _ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 12:22 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible? I posted a message titled Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples with an itty-bitty 17 kilobyte photo attached. Did the message come through? Did the picture come through? If you cannot see the picture and you really want to see it, contact me directly and I will send it. It is no big deal. I am curious to see if it came through. I suppose the archives will not show it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
It is perfectly visible. But let's measure the enthalpy of the steam not any other characteristic Peter On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I posted a message titled Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples with an itty-bitty 17 kilobyte photo attached. Did the message come through? Did the picture come through? If you cannot see the picture and you really want to see it, contact me directly and I will send it. It is no big deal. I am curious to see if it came through. I suppose the archives will not show it. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
[snip] However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing! _ Abd, They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. This may have all been covered before, but: Provided this is not a scam (important caveat), it is best explained that an operating E-Cat is difficult to keep stable. With the large water flow, Rossi was running the E-Cat closer to its self-sustaining temperatures. It would run away at times, and it was merely luck that the nano nickel did not melt and bring the experiment to an abrupt halt. In Rossi's effort to keep the E-Cat stable, he runs WELL below the self-sustaining temperatures and pressures. As J.C. has gone to great pains to illustrate, water at the boiling point is an excellent medium to absorb energy fluctutations. It's always possible that A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to turn the E-Cat down, - ended up turning it off. In Krivit's demo (and others) it may have not been working. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means that it may not have in those demos. All demos should've shown a kink in the heating curve, when the E-Cat turned on. Rossi may be ignoring valid criticisms, because knowing that the E-Cat works, he can't accept that it might not be working just then.
Re: [Vo]:Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples
I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot. I wrote: 3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C, marked in 1°C increments Correction: -10 to 110°C Regarding the heat-after-death event that Brown observed, I am assuming -- or pretending, really -- that the power measurement was drastically wrong and there was enough input power to make the thing boil. That is not actually possible. Power meters are reliable. In both the Brown and Krivit demos, the input power is not high enough to allow boiling because much of the power goes to heat the eCat metal which radiates into the room, even with that insulation. In real life, the temperatures close to boiling alone prove that there is anomalous heat, but to humor the skeptics we will pretend you can heat water inside a metal container without losses. Anyway the pretend scenario is that a couple of kilowatts of heat go into the cell because the input power is mismeasured. It boils. The power is turned off to demonstrate heat after death. Brown is not sure how long; roughly 2 minutes. Either because there is anomalous heat, or because there is so much heat left in the metal, the temperature does not fall significantly. Or, at least, Brown did not notice a persistently lower temperature. This may or may not indicate anomalous heat. As I said, it is a shame Brown did not write down temperatures, duration, the change in the mass of cooling water shown on the weight scale and other observations, and it is a shame he did not think to ask Rossi to leave the cell in heat-after-death mode for 5 minutes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Is the itty-bitty photo visible?
Peter Gluck wrote: It is perfectly visible. But let's measure the enthalpy of the steam not any other characteristic I am calibrating thermocouples. Is that not allowed? More calibrations and more specific information about temperatures, duration, the mass of metal and the mass of cooling water would enhance this discussion. To paraphrase the monster in Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein: Calibrations, good. Heat, _go-o-o-od_. Blather, bad. Unfounded speculation, bad. I measured the approximate enthalpy of steam a couple of months ago, with an electric frying pan. I did not observe the miraculous event that skeptics believe is so common, wherein the water disappeared at 7, or 20 or 1000 times the textbook rate. Due to inefficiencies and the frying pan heating the room air, I found it took considerably more energy to boil away the water than the textbooks indicate. No surprise. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
How do you take a 30 minute glance? On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: How do you take a 30 minute glance? Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30 seconds. Perhaps Rossi just means for a short while. I do not think he means 30 seconds in the literal sense. It is a shame Rossi gets bent out of shape so easily. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/7/18 Subject: Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat To: vortex-l@eskimo.com (He also told me this.)
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. This reminds me of the joke about a person who says Shakespeare did not write his plays, it was another man of the same name. - Jed
[Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
Hi All, I have been trying to replicate the E-Cat transmutations in an open-source kind of way and I'm ready to start asking the community for suggestions on how to proceed. I have two identical reactors that I can pressurize with hydrogen up to 20 bars and heat to 300C. I can measure, graph, and log the temperatures of the two units as they are heated in parallel. One unit contains Ni powder, the other sand, and I am trying to replicate the transmutation of the nickel. (My whole setup is $2K) My first few experiments have been with just 30nm nickel powder and hydrogen at 8-9 bar pressure heated to 250C. So far, nothing obvious that suggests a reaction. I do not have radiation detection or a spectrometer, so I can only watch for a temperature difference. The two main unknowns are prepping the Ni powder and the mystery catalyst(s). My understanding is that the Ni should be degassed to remove oxides, or otherwise processed. Besides leaving my samples under 8.5 bars (120psi) of H pressure for a few days, I have not tried any preparation. (Isotopic enrichment is not an option.) I do have a vacuum pump, but don't have a step-by-step recipe for degassing or hydrogen loading. Suggestions welcome. Anyone know how to create tubercles on Ni powder?! The mystery catalyst list of possible suspects include: Ti, C, MnO2, Mn, Co, Na, NaO, Li, LiO, K, KO... Does the catalyst convert hydrogen to H+? Is there something else to try? What would you like to see tried for a catalyst? I created a simple wordpress blog where I will try to follow replicators. ( ecatbuilder.com) I will write about my research and say what works and what doesn't. Hope to hear from those with constructive ideas for experiments. If you know of professional or novice replicators, please let me know. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: I have been trying to replicate the E-Cat transmutations in an open-source kind of way and I'm ready to start asking the community for suggestions on how to proceed. It took Rossi 15 years and hundreds of tests to figure out how to make this work. Highly experienced experts are trying to replicate him, with some success, but nowhere near the high input to output ratios he reports. I do not think there is enough information publicly available to support an open source replication because it is not open source. It is secret. That is unfortunate but it is mainly the fault of the Patent Office. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
Good degassing references can be found in the Stremmenos interview on the 22Passi Blog: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/05/stremmenos-cold-fusion-will-solve.html?m=1 Also, references can be seen in Brian Ahern's replication efforts. Stremmenos observes that the oxidization coating the nano nickel may inhibit hydrogen permeability, but recent leaks seem to elude to another mechanism. Apparently, irregularities in the nickel surface may contribute to better reaction sites. (Look for larger-sized nickel with tubercules on the surface). Rossi said that in experimentation, he could look at the nickel surface and tell if the reaction was going to work Apparently, he discovered which characteristics to look for. As for the catalyst, one of the proposed chamber diagrams showed the catalyst as a coiled metal band inside the reactor. (I don't remember the video title, but it contained multiple 3-D CAD renderings of the reactor, with three possible permutations of reactor construction). Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:13:50 -0700 From: ecatbuil...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication Hi All, I have been trying to replicate the E-Cat transmutations in an open-source kind of way and I'm ready to start asking the community for suggestions on how to proceed. I have two identical reactors that I can pressurize with hydrogen up to 20 bars and heat to 300C. I can measure, graph, and log the temperatures of the two units as they are heated in parallel. One unit contains Ni powder, the other sand, and I am trying to replicate the transmutation of the nickel. (My whole setup is $2K) My first few experiments have been with just 30nm nickel powder and hydrogen at 8-9 bar pressure heated to 250C. So far, nothing obvious that suggests a reaction. I do not have radiation detection or a spectrometer, so I can only watch for a temperature difference. The two main unknowns are prepping the Ni powder and the mystery catalyst(s). My understanding is that the Ni should be degassed to remove oxides, or otherwise processed. Besides leaving my samples under 8.5 bars (120psi) of H pressure for a few days, I have not tried any preparation. (Isotopic enrichment is not an option.) I do have a vacuum pump, but don't have a step-by-step recipe for degassing or hydrogen loading. Suggestions welcome. Anyone know how to create tubercles on Ni powder?! The mystery catalyst list of possible suspects include: Ti, C, MnO2, Mn, Co, Na, NaO, Li, LiO, K, KO... Does the catalyst convert hydrogen to H+? Is there something else to try? What would you like to see tried for a catalyst? I created a simple wordpress blog where I will try to follow replicators. (ecatbuilder.com) I will write about my research and say what works and what doesn't. Hope to hear from those with constructive ideas for experiments. If you know of professional or novice replicators, please let me know. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Krivit could be correct on Rossi
At 05:57 AM 7/18/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Tell me Lomax. Would you destroy the reputations of others to advance your own. Would you ask leading questions to preserve your own position? I reserve what can be called personal attacks for those who personally attack. I risk my reputation with everything I write, since I'm a known person. And you, Damon Craig? Care to tell us who you are? Which Damon Craig?
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 10:08 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: P.J van Noorden wrote: It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high pressure system is covering Italy . . . In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by immersing it in a pot with boiling water, and the measured value was then 99.6 degrees centigrade. Later during the test they measured vapor at about 100.5 degrees centigrade. There is no doubt that was vapor, since it is substantially hotter than the boiling water, plus you can see steam coming out of the pipe. I expect that backpressure is minimal with this system. Jed is correct here in one way. The boiling test rules out atmospheric pressure as a cause of an increase boiling point. However, Jed is not correct that backpressure is minimal. Even a little back pressure, from the steam, could cause the elevated temperature. Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. This is not a characteristic of dry steam. Now, if the temperature record for the higher temperature shows substantial variation, this would be different. It's not seen in, say, the Kullander and Essen data. What is seen in the Lewan data is, shall we say, puzzing, but there was some variation above boiling. Problem is, they were sparging steam and they, themselves, said that this explains the elevated temperature. I.e., back pressure.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 10:46 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. That's an error, I'm sure. Raise water to the boiling point. It does not vaporize. To vaporize it requires additional energy. Okay, okay, some water will vaporize below boiling, but it carries away heat as if it were boiling. Two issues are being mixed here. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. So, I have boiling water in the E-Cat, under some level of back pressure because the steam must escape through the hose. You are saying that the water in the E-Cat is cooler than the steam? How does that happen? Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet. Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool flowing water as you claim? As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you talking about? Further, we have no evidence that power is increased or decreased in the later demos. It was changed in the January demo, it seems. There is no way of observing the water level in the E-Cat, to determine how much to increase it or decrease it. In the Kullander and Essen demo, the temperature increases until it hits boiling and it's nailed there. No feedback is possible on that temperature. If it happened later, great. But we weren't provided with that data. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Is the temperature constant there? Overflowing can cover a range of conditions, there would be overflow with boiling and overflow without boiling. If an experiment is controlled to keep the temperature just below boiling, that could easily be done, with feedback from the coolant temperature. That's not done here, but that only means that the experiment has been taking into the boiling range. Not that it has gone to dry steam. With dry steam, no overflow, the temperature would again start to increase unless somehow the chamber is kept full to the same level. By mysterious means. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. We agree that increased flow rate, no boiling, is clearer. In that case, we don't have much of an issue with vapor/liquid ratio. Given that a huge issue with Rossi is the *level* of the results, the deficiencies in the demonstrations are quite important. I've pointed out that, in the extreme, the deficiencies could erase the apparent excess heat. I'm not claiming that this is likely, but that it's possible; it might take more than one artifact. Or more than one fraud. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Seems better to me. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 12:07 PM 7/18/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-07-17 21:16, Akira Shirakawa wrote: And this was Rossi's answer: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=16#comment-53792 It looks like Rossi has updated his answer on JONP, without adding a note about that. I personally find this phantom editing behavior despicable, but that's the way he communicates to the public after all. This is what the comment looks like now: Let's see what he changed. Here was the original, at least what was quoted here: Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him ahd he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invired hin to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have many probabilities to be accepted. After some day I received from this clown some text simply ridiculous, and in these text there was written that my patent text removed (altered) was based on patents made from my competitors. I made a research and discovered that the patents of my competitors he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitors to spy and to try to mess up with patents. Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that [text altered:] he is or has been an officer of the Patent Office, he lies when he says he is an expert of patents, he lies when he says that my Competitor he works with has a patent on this matter granted in 1995. It is clear that somebody, desperate of the fact that a 1 MW plant is close to be started up, is trying to use all the method of a snake to try to put clubs in the wheels. But all this is just clownery: my plants will give evidence in the real marlet of the validity of my effect. It is also clear that at this point I cannot give any more info or courtesy visit before the start up of my 1 MW plant. This is the new text (as quoted by Akira, I haven't verified it). Andrea Rossi July 17th, 2011 at 1:54 PM Dear Paul Story: Very funny: this clown, named Julian Brown, wrote me saying he was an officer of the Patent Office and that he wanted give me suggestions. I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. He saw nothing, I said nothing, [text added:] also because he inspired me no trust, because said he is a Quantum Physicist, but said so much stupidities that not even a 13 years old student of middle school could say, so I understood he was an impostor. We agreed, after a short meeting, that he would have mailed to me a text of a patent that he thought would have had many probabilities to be accepted: [text added:] I was very baffled, because I could not understand how an officer of the European Patent Office could behave like that: he asked me to be paid by my companyâs shares in change of his help! After some day I received from this clown [text added:] ( who until that moment spoke only positively of all what he saw) some text, simply ridiculous, for a new patent [text added:] (I conserve the copies, of course) and in these texts there was written that my patent was [text altered/added] to be based on an already granted patent made from one competitor of mine, obviously a âfriendâ of his. I made a research and discovered that the patent of my competitor he referred to had not been granted, but had been refused. Of course he has been sent from such competitor to spy and to try to mess up with patents. [text added:] I wrote him a mail inviting him not to contact me again: he was clearly an impostor. At this point he made the comment on Ecatnews Conclusion: he lies when he says he made a test, he lies when he says he has seen an E-Cat enough to say anything about it (just has taken a 30 seconds look), he lies if he says he has seen the steam, he saw nothing because the circuit was ermetically closed, he lies when he says that [text added/altered] he is an officer of the Patent Office (if he is, he made a crime, because he asked me, in change of his
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 12:20 PM 7/18/2011, P.J van Noorden wrote: To conventionally explain the boilingpoint of 100.5 degrC the backpressure in the Ecat must have been 30mbar (for a boilingpoint of 99.6degC) and 20mbar for a boilingpoint of 99.9degC. This compares to resp 30.6 cm and 20.4cm water and this is about the hight of the chimney. The difference in temperature of the steam can ofcourse only be explained if the chimney of the ecat is almost completely filled with water. This is ofcourse the big question. That's brilliant, actually. Add to this head of water, a little bit of steam back-pressure, it's quite easy. In other words, if the E-cat is filling with water, to overflowing, we would expect the temperature, when the thing starts to boil, to exceed 100 degrees, even if there is flowing water, and, in fact, *especially* if there is overflowing water, the chimney is full to the level of the hose. Exact placment of the thermometer may be important.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I am not sure if you could do this procedure in any place. In not all places the accused is allowed to produce evidences against his/herself. If Brown didn't say what Rossi claims, I'd suggest Brown may want those recordings *immediately* subpoenaed. If he did say that, and if what he said was, in fact, illegal, slinking quietly away may be in order. What I do *not* recommend is slinking away if he didn't say those things, because he could easily suffer the damages anyway. Brown already requested that his blog comment be removed, because of the hassle, or something, already appearing.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 03:15 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi wrote: I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds, after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing, he just has taken a 30 seconds glance at a totally closed box. I believe this is meant to be 30 minutes, not 30 seconds. Brown observed the machine for longer than 30 seconds. While thirty minutes certainly would make more sense, in context, Rossi emphasizes 30 seconds, repeating it three times and not correcting it when he edits the comment later. He's making the point that this was extremely brief. Since we must assume that Rossi is quite aware of the difference between a minute and a second, and if you are right, Jed, it shows again how careless Rossi is about what he says. He might be sloppy rich soon. Or just sloppy. Depends, eh?
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd wrote: Whatever is the cause, that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. It's only been recently that Rossi admits to achieving completely dry steam, and from Kullander's report we can estimate that the steam has less than 2% liquid content (1.4% from his report). How you ask??? If the Relative Humidity is below saturation, the one can use that and the temperature and pressure to give you the mass of water vapor per volume of steam. I know this is beating that dead horse again, but the absolute certainty with which some argue the opposite point is, in my opinion, not justified. If the steam is nearing saturation (95% RH) then I might agree that its use is seriously questionable. I don't remember seeing any figures for the RH when the Testo probe was used inside the chimney... If it was over 95% then I would concede the skeptic's point. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd wrote: ... that the temperature is nailed shows that there is steam and water in equilibrium. This is not a characteristic of dry steam. It all depends on the consistency of the inlet flow rate and water temperature, and the reactor's heat production. With most of the tests the pump used can be considered to provide a consistent flow-rate, and the fact that they were taking water from a large container would provide a pretty consistent temperature, so the only real significant variable would be the reactor heat production rate... And with highly controlled particle size and what is most likely a very specific process of applying the Ni-catalyst powder to the inside of the reactor, very consistent heat production is certainly reasonable. The semiconductor industry can deposit layers of atoms only a few atoms thick, and do it quite precisely and repeatably. The circuits that come out of those processes are extremely consistent. It really isn't a stretch at all to think that some careful deposition processes could be used to obtain a consistent layering of the 'fuel' in the e-Cat's reactor to provide very consistent performance. And when you have a working fluid with the large heat capacity that water has, then you've got a system that can stand considerable fluctuations of heat which are smoothed out by the water's specific heat. In all the talk about the start up slope and thermal mass, one can almost forget the metals. Here are the specific heats for most of the materials that make up the majority of the e-Cat: - Hydrogen (gas) 14.30 J/g*K - Water (liquid) 4.18 J/g*K - Stainless0.5 J/g*K - Nickel 0.46 J/g*K - Copper 0.39 J/g*K - Lead 0.13 J/g*K The only thing that has any real heat capacity is the water and hydrogen... The material that is probably the most by mass, the lead, is also the lowest specific heat of all the materials. In addition, the rubber hose has about HALF the heat capacity of water, so it can absorb a considerable amount of heat before it changes temperature... -Mark
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 03:42 PM 7/18/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: [snip] However, we know that Rossi is, shall we say, enthusiastic, and not terribly careful about what he says. The 18-hour test allegedly showed a transient temperature phenomenon that has been interpreted as 120 kW. Just for starters, that might be explained, for example, by some scale whacking the flow drastically for a short time. Or it might be that the thing actually produced 120 kW for a short time, which would make me really worried about putting one of these in my basement! It is possible to have too much of a good thing! _ Abd, They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. I was living for a time in an industrial building near here. They had a fire suppression system, built many years before, with sprinklers all over the inside of the building, and a huge water tank underneath the parking lot, and a pump to maintain water pressure that would come on automatically if there was any drop in pressure. As it happened, there was some kind of backflow leakage, and this system would turn on at about 5 AM when the local water supply suffered a common drop in pressure, there would be backflow and loss of pressure, so the automated system would turn on. The fire alarms would turn on and everyone would have to leave the building, the fire department would show up and we wouldn't be let back in until the fire department verified it was all clear. It got very old after a while. Water systems can suffer substantial changes in pressure from changes in flow. If the water flow was full-on, as apparently it was, basically the maximum they could get to come out of a tap, this would be particularly sensitive. The possible effect of this? Unclear. This may have all been covered before, but: Provided this is not a scam (important caveat), it is best explained that an operating E-Cat is difficult to keep stable. With the large water flow, Rossi was running the E-Cat closer to its self-sustaining temperatures. It would run away at times, and it was merely luck that the nano nickel did not melt and bring the experiment to an abrupt halt. In Rossi's effort to keep the E-Cat stable, he runs WELL below the self-sustaining temperatures and pressures. I think the analysis is correct. As J.C. has gone to great pains to illustrate, water at the boiling point is an excellent medium to absorb energy fluctutations. It's always possible that A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to turn the E-Cat down, - ended up turning it off. In Krivit's demo (and others) it may have not been working. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means that it may not have in those demos. All demos should've shown a kink in the heating curve, when the E-Cat turned on. That's what I'd think, but we don't know what temperature that would be. We are only seeing the cooling chamber pressure. Of greater interest would be the reactor temperature, which I'm practically certain Rossi is monitoring. Controlling this thing by only looking at coolant temperature would be asking for major oscillation, too much thermal inertia. Rossi may be ignoring valid criticisms, because knowing that the E-Cat works, he can't accept that it might not be working just then. We can speculate until the cows come home. What's become clear to me is that excess heat has not been *clearly demonstrated.* It looks like, sometimes, there may be some. Excluding fraud, of course. It is how much that is quite unclear.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 05:25 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha mailto:danieldi...@gmail.comdanieldi...@gmail.com wrote: So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office is the same as the one of this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ? Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. Of course, Rossi claims all kinds of things, eh? This reminds me of the joke about a person who says Shakespeare did not write his plays, it was another man of the same name. That's an obvious preposterousness, because Shakespeare did not write his plays specifies the name no more than Shakespeare. But could there be two people named Shakespeare? Perhaps. There certainly could be two people named Julian Brown, I think I found more than two in a search. I'd think you might have prior contact with Julian Brown, physicist, associated with or previously associated with Oxford, right? You should be able to tell, or at least you'd have a good idea. He might be a little skittish, now, if that request to take down the blog note actually came from him!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
In one of my comments, I put a website that lists people with given names up to 200. There are over 200 Julian Browns in the UK, that is, they exceed the maximum amount allowed to be displayed in the website. So, that is a common name.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the machine, as far as I know. A sub-meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. No, it isn't. The water meter shows total consumption, not just instantaneous demand. If the flow rate had changed for a long time the total consumption would have fallen and this would have shown up in the final numbers. That would be true even if they used the building meter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. I missed that. As far as I know he is the fellow who has been involved in cold fusion for a long time. I have no idea where he works. I am sure he attended Oxford. I have no reason to doubt he is who he says he is. I suggest people should ignore Rossi's outbursts and insults. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
At 06:13 PM 7/18/2011, ecat builder wrote: I created a simple wordpress blog where I will try to follow replicators. (http://ecatbuilder.comecatbuilder.com) I will write about my research and say what works and what doesn't. Hope to hear from those with constructive ideas for experiments. If you know of professional or novice replicators, please let me know. I'd like to know about them. For now, my suggestions: Think small. Think many tests at once. Figure out the minimum size that might show some measurable effect, if you get anywhere in the vicinity of a working composition, and then design your apparatus to test many, many of these at once, as many as possible. You can then run large numbers of explorations. The calorimetry doesn't need to be stellar, indeed, you might just be looking for a relatively small temperature increase over control cells. You can test promising materials, later, in more accurate ways. As I think of this, you have a thermocouple on each cell, you might have dozens or a hundred cells, even, with the data multiplexed. You'd load the cells with different materials, same mass in each cell, and the whole thing would be heated up to some operating temperature above the expected optiman level, with each cell's temperature being recorded during the heating, and during the cool-down. You would be looking for a bump. When you see one, if you see one, you'd then try a number of cells with those ingredients, looking for some reproducibility. Then you'd vary the parameters for those ingredients, running a range of values in a combined run, looking, say, to plot temperature behavior versus, say, the concentration of an ingredient, trying to find an OOP, an optimum operating point. Gradually, you will build up data on many different possible ingredients. Good luck finding any bumps. There may be false bumps, i.e., chemical effects. That's fine, you don't actually care -- not much, anyway. You'll sort this later. It is *comparative behavior* you are looking for. Once you find the best you can find, then you'd want to look to see if this is chemistry. That's my idea, any way.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet. Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool flowing water as you claim? I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around pretty quickly. That is one of the things I observed calibrating the thermocouples the other day. There are larger gradients in ice slurry, unless you vigorously stir it. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you talking about? I meant only that when it is fulling up, the cold water cools it somewhat, but when it is full, not only does the cold water cool it, but a nearly equal volume of hot water leaves. If flow rate is 5 ml/s, it is as if you add 5 ml of cold water and then remove another 5 ml of hot. Perhaps this does not make much difference, depending on the total volume. Further, we have no evidence that power is increased or decreased in the later demos. Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. - Jed
[Vo]:Mythbusters: gets microwave boiling physics wrong
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Jones Beene wrote: I suspect you were using pure water and it superheated. You were lucky - superheated water from a microwave can explode and cause a burn. Microwave coffee explodes. Soup explodes. Spaghetti sauce especially explodes. So do egg yolks (no shells.) Mythbusters don't know this? Pure water? Distilled water required? Uh sorry, no. DANGER: COFFEE EXPLOSION http://amasci.com/weird/microwave/voltage2.html#coffee (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. Beatyhttp://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/ beaty, chem washington edu Research Engineer billb, amasci com UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74 206-543-6195Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 08:49 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: I am not sure if you could do this procedure in any place. In not all places the accused is allowed to produce evidences against his/herself. If Brown didn't say what Rossi claims, I'd suggest Brown may want those recordings *immediately* subpoenaed. If he did say that, and if what he said was, in fact, illegal, slinking quietly away may be in order. What I do *not* recommend is slinking away if he didn't say those things, because he could easily suffer the damages anyway. Brown already requested that his blog comment be removed, because of the hassle, or something, already appearing. First of all, I don't know where the meeting took place, actually. Probably Italy, though. In the U.S., generally, given the circumstances, discovery could start immediately, with Rossi presented with interrogatories legally requiring him to provide those documents. (I.e., the recordings.) Whether Brown would want to do this, of course, depends on the situation. Who is the accused? Rossi is accusing Brown of malfeasance or worse, it looks like. If that's not true, then Rossi may have libelled Brown, and Brown could have a cause of action. If it's true, that's another story. Brown could still require disclosure, even if it's true, but it might be a Bad Idea! If prosecutors see this, and think that a crime was committed, they may themselves go to Rossi and demand the recordings.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Any data or estimates as to the volume inside the Rossi device, available to be filled with water up to the exit hole, and the additional space above the maximum water level, available to be filled up with mist, foam, froth, bubbles, and steam? If the available water volume is, say, 180 cc, then a flow of 2 cc/sec would take 90 seconds to fill it and then start filling the 9 m black output hose. I wonder if some of the kinks in the water temperature measured by the thermister (which is only one data location in a complex witch's cauldron) might turn out to reflect a possibly intricate water flow. Could steam vapor blocks form to block and switch some of the flows? Data! More data! Give me data, I say!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
The meeting took place in Bologna. The thing that could happen is Brown accusing Rossi of defamation and show a picture of the website as a proof. If Rossi didn't present defense, the purported recordings, he would get a sentence. No need for a subpoena.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 09:20 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their impromptu flow meter. I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the machine, as far as I know. A sub-meter. The 120kW spike could merely be a water pressure drop from someone flushing a toilet. I'm only half-joking. It's not a joke, that's a real possibility. No, it isn't. The water meter shows total consumption, not just instantaneous demand. If the flow rate had changed for a long time the total consumption would have fallen and this would have shown up in the final numbers. Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. That would be true even if they used the building meter. However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 09:22 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy. Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an imposter. I missed that. As far as I know he is the fellow who has been involved in cold fusion for a long time. I have no idea where he works. I am sure he attended Oxford. I have no reason to doubt he is who he says he is. I suggest people should ignore Rossi's outbursts and insults. Thanks. If you think people will ignore the outbursts and insults, you have almost as low a set of people skills as Rossi. These things affect credibility, and a great deal rests on Rossi's credibility, which is, because of an accumulation of outbursts and insults -- and various facts and personal history, very low. That doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means that people will want to see clearly independent evidence. Rossi has no obligation to provide it. In fact, one of the mysteries is that he's put so much time into answering comments on his blog. Given the business he's up to, couldn't he delegate that to someone? One would think!
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
According to Rossi, high output of heats does yield a lot of radiation, I think gamma radiation. I think he said somewhere that he had to stay 30m away from the e-cat so that radiation were not harmful. I am not sure of this.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
At 10:22 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: The meeting took place in Bologna. The thing that could happen is Brown accusing Rossi of defamation and show a picture of the website as a proof. If Rossi didn't present defense, the purported recordings, he would get a sentence. No need for a subpoena. Sentence? No, defamation, at least in the U.S., is not ordinarily criminal. The plaintiff would be seeking damages. Money. Perhaps an apology or correction. But we don't know exactly what happened, and a great deal could depend on exactly what was said. Was Brown just trying to help Rossi with some advice about patents, or was he offering undue influence (which would probably be illegal)? Did Brown misrepresent his position, in an effort to gain compensation. That would be strange, to be sure, being compensated by stock would be a big red flag, singularly stupid. People selling influence illegally don't ask to be paid with checks, not to mention stock certificates or promise to provide stock! They want cash! Small bills, please! Rossi's story simply doesn't make sense. But lots of things don't make sense
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
I am not referring to US, but to Italy, since I suppose they have a criminal Law similar to my country, Brazil.
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this equipment, at this flow rate. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50. (Sub-meters are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler room for one boiler.) However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables. There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after the transient. - Jed
[Vo]: Hydrogen may also determine final Ni grain size/shape
Here's an excerpt from a science news story today about the effect that hydrogen has on graphene... perhaps there is some relevance to what happens inside the reactor when the H2 becomes heated and pressure to increase... === Findings of researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory demonstrate that hydrogen rather than carbon dictates the graphene grain shape and size, according to a team led by ORNL's Ivan Vlassiouk, a Eugene Wigner Fellow, and Sergei Smirnov, a professor of chemistry at New Mexico State University. This research is published in ACS Nano. Hydrogen not only initiates the graphene growth, but controls the graphene shape and size, Vlassiouk said. In our paper, we have described a method to grow well-defined graphene grains that have perfect hexagonal shapes pointing to the faultless single crystal structure. === So the real size and shape of the Ni/catalyst fuel is probably not known unless you prepare to run the reactor, and pressurize it, and even heat it up to ignition, then stop it and look at the fuel... http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-hydrogen-key-growth-high-quality-graphene.html -Mark
Re: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Jed, Agreed. The 18 hour test, assuming the observations we are given are fact, would be conclusive. I made the comment about someone flushing the toilet to demonstrate that some of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure. There was no continuous monitoring of flow rate, and this was not a fixed-displacement pump. It is not an effort to discount the test as a whole, but to merely demonstrate the problems that arise when measurements are replaced with assumptions. I could've said that while Rossi and Levi were watching the temperature rise, Focardi thought that it would be a good time to fill the hot tub. It's lack of official reports and data that raise doubts to the 18 hour test. It effectively lives as an anecdote. Assuming the numbers supplied were true, and not tarnished by fraud or slight-of-hand, they do show remarkable energy production. Some skepticism is healthy here. Most skeptics will be satisfied by a properly documented, sufficiently long, single-phase test by a neutral third-party (hopefully a few of them with controls). Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short time. About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this equipment, at this flow rate. Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and that would be for a long time, relatively. They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50. (Sub-meters are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler room for one boiler.) However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short time. Gremlins? Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply entities unnecessarily. What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables. There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after the transient. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:European Patent Office observer criticizes Rossi's E-Cat
Robert's statement here, if true, would be tragically hilarious! It's always possible that A.R.'s too stubborn to listen to criticism and, in an effort to turn the E-Cat down, - ended up turning it off. That would be one for the history books! -Mark
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat open source replication
Be careful about high electric power inputs into a resistor in water in a small metal cell -- complex thermal corrosion, for example, cracks in resistor at high temperatures, may lead to electric shorting and arcing and explosion of the resistor, leading to disruption, chemical reaction, and explosion of the Ni powder in its stainless steel cell. How much is heat transfer reduced when the cell is almost completely filled with hot steam? Do careful preliminary studies with a very small cell to test what input electric power levels lead to resister damage and catastrophic failure. Most CF experiments are black boxes -- the reaction zones are hidden from view. Consider 2D cells with strong glass walls, maybe the superstrong glass used now for cell phone displays. To be safe, the network of experimenters must focus on the complex details of what actually happens in a standard very small cell. Can the runs be shared real-time to everyone via video on the Net? Also recorded, and conversations automatically transcribed. In mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 thermal corrosion effects in the Rossi reactor -- recent posts: Rich Murray 2011.07.18 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=enshva=1#inbox/13129463f4f98e07 Vortex-L@eskimo.com discussion thread [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration Rich Murray to vortex-l show details Jul 14 (3 days ago) The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim... Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality? Rich Murray to michael, Rich, vortex-l show details Jul 14 (3 days ago) I examined the video frame by frame for the 15 frames that were part of the 15 seconds that showed the end of the black hose -- several frames clearly show the water mist expanding as a cone directly from the end of the hose -- thus no proof that invisible steam made it to the end of the 3 m hose. Examine the posts by Joshua Cude for clarifications by one far more capable than me... Every day so far is another day without clear-cut proof of actual excess heat output... fromRich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com, michael barron mhbar...@gmail.com, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com, svj.orionwo...@gmail.com, stev...@newenergytimes.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com, Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com, jpbiber...@yahoo.fr, b...@bobpark.org, danieldi...@gmail.com bcc h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateFri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM subject Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration mailed-by gmail.com Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat. I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario that Rossi found that increasing the electric power input to the heating resistor, deep inside the active core of his reactor, still outside the 50 cc stainless steel chamber, full of nanopowder Ni and a catalyst, at some high level of power produced dozens of explosions, which he attributed to runaway LENR, converting N 62 and Ni 64 to Cu 63 and Cu65, with, if I recall his most recent interview correctly, 0.1 to 0.5 Mev gammas, easily shielded by a few cm of Pb, from intermediate radioactive isotopes with half-life up to a maximum of 20 minutes. I visualized with increasing input electric power with time of operation, increasing thermal conductivity resistance from the stainless steel chamber and the heating resistor (probably something like NiCr wire inside a high temperature insulating ceramic), due to decreasing heat flow transfer rates. 1. In the chamber, even 1 % mass of the 2 gm/sec input water flow being boiled into steam would produce 34 cc/sec steam, enough to bubble and froth the water in the chamber, steeply decreasing its ability to conduct heat by radiation, conduction, or complex convection -- so at some point of increasing input energy, the complex situation will reach and pass a trigger point of instability, leading to steeply increasing heat retention, temperature rise, melting of the metals, explosion of the resistor, complex chemical reactions from O2 dissolved in the city input water, H2 in the Ni nanopowder, Fe, Cu, Cr, Ni, the catalyst, and the resistor ceramic components, the Pd shielding, and finally the exterior insulation and Al, and atmospheric O2 and N2 -- do we know the actual volume inside the reactor, the witch's cauldron for the witch's brew? 2. The failure of the heating resistor would allow sudden transient added electrical arcing and shorting of the power supply, feeding the reactions and sustaining very high temperature chemistry -- which thus is a promising target for
