Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol
*Cesium can be dangerous* *See * *http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/msds/492-cesium-chromate* *for hazards data* On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Creating cesium vapor is easier said than done. This way may be the least expensive way to do it. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA524737 From this reference on page 60 Cesium Source Materials 1. Titanium:Cesium Chromate Dispenser The first generation UM dispenser cathodes contained a bi-metallic compound made of titanium powder and cesium chromate (Ti:CrCs2O4) mixed at a 5:1 ratio and hand pressed into small pellets. At a temperature of 425°C the chromate reacts with titanium leaving free cesium in the dispenser cavity. This may fit in with your design since chromium and titanium are non-reactive in what you are doing. * * * * On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Axil, thanks mucho. You've given me a lot to chew on. This will take me a while to intergrate all your design guidelines. These are the kinds of design directions that I would like to hear more of. Already, I've figured out a way to integrate your double wall design. This was something that did not cross my mind. Your input bringing this to my attention is very helpful. I've been struggling a little bit on how to improve convection and flow inside the reactor and frankly, your novel double wall design did not enter my mind. Thanks Now, I need to figure out a way to integrate an adjustable powder plate and think of a way to include a transparent glass for viewing. Keep it coming. I appreciate it. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* jth...@hotmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:41 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol JoJo: Sorry for taking so long, but I wanted to think about my response for a while. This maybe a lot more feedback then you ever wanted, it so … apologies. You need not take this following design whole cloth; it is an attempt to describe some design priorities I think are important. The vertical cylinder is a good design because it is best to confine high pressure hydrogen. You cannot find a square hydrogen tank. Temperature control inside the reactor is important. Your reactor should include a number of heat zones. Experimentally, it is important to know how hot each zone gets. If you don’t do this you are flying blind. Without knowing what is going on inside your reactor in detail, it will be hard to determine if you are making progress. The more debugging tools that you can come up with, the more progress you will make in the long run. One zone would be close to the spark. Another would be on the powder; finely, the coldest part of the cylinder (where it contacts the steam) where condensation of the catalyst might take place. I would include a transparent window that lets through visible light and infrared radiation in your design. Place it in a convenient location on the surface of the cylinder… maybe at its top… where you can see all or at least most of these zones. This will allow you to remotely measure their temperature somehow, say with an infrared thermometer. Design the experimental reactor so that you can clean the inside of the window. It is no good having a window if you can’t see through it. Include a thin walled pipe axially positioned inside the cylinder to act as a chimney. Hot gas will rise up the pipe to the top of the cylinder, and then the gas will cool at the top of the cylinder then descend down the exterior side of the pipe between that exterior pipe wall and the inside surface of the cylinder. The gas will be further cooled by the inside surface of the cylinder if its outside surface is in contact with water and/or steam. This double wall configuration will establish a strong circular convective gas flow between hot zones and cold zones. Place the spark at the bottom of the pipe. Next place the catalyst near the spark covering the surface of a flat half ring. High heat is needed to vaporize the catalyst completely. The catalyst is initially in the form of a hydride and must vaporize. The flat ring (called the catalyst ring) is located on one side of the wall of the pipe. It should be positioned so that you can see the spark from the top of the cylinder. The flat half ring will allow you to see the spark through the hole in the ring. The spark should produce enough heat to vaporize the catalyst. The powder should also be placed on a half ring. This flat ring (called the powder ring) is located on the other side of the wall of the pipe opposite the catalyst ring. It should be positioned so that you can see both the spark and the catalyst ring through the window. This flat half ring will allow you to see the spark
[Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY NO 500-the last
My dear LENR friends, Please go to the EGO OUT blog and read, study the last issue of my newsletter. You will see that I have sacrificed the old newsletter on the altar of the Goddess Immediacy, but will come out with a fast publication *Qui Cito.* This decision was stimulated negatively by the fact that the newsletter sufferd of a type of informational obesity and its popularity was decreasing. But a very positive stimulus was the example of the small but agile Defkalion Green Technologies company going in a very short time from survival to great achievements in our snail like developing LENR domain. I am not speaking about science in this case but about technology. DGT is a FAST COMPANY, soon they will surprise us with good things. The 23rd Anniversary of Cold Fusion was still under the sign of the Question Mark but I am convinced that now the Era of Certainty starts- fast. i need more time to participate to it, to enjoy it. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
there is a guy 'woomera' over at Chris Martensons forum, who claims to have visited Defkalion: ... G'Day, I was JUST in Athens and met with representatives of Defkalion. They told me that they were going to begin selling their LENR device this July 2012. I was shown their RD model which just starts with a flick of the switch. It also turns off with a just a flick of the same switch. They have their model running at 250degc. ... read it there (post #43) http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/cold-fusion/51623?page=4#comments Hmmm. Guenter
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
Interesting ... but I hope it isn't that Aussie Guy . Interesting comments a couple of posts down, too, concerning Rossi and a report of the 1MW going unstable during the test. - Original Message - there is a guy 'woomera' over at Chris Martensons forum, who claims to have visited Defkalion: read it there (post #43) http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/cold-fusion/51623?page=4#comments
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Interesting ... but I hope it isn't that Aussie Guy . My thoughts, too. I wrote PDGT to ask if the post was true. I'll let the list know if they respond. T
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I guess I hit a touchy subject with this one. Rossi's device came up because his heat gain(6) is so low relative to, as example, DGT(20). Rossi has demonstrated a self-sustaining reaction lasting 4 hours. The ratio is infinite. Why do you say the ratio is 6? In any case, the ratio is easy to improve with any cold fusion device. It is just a matter of engineering. With any electrochemical FP device improving the ratio is trivial, but it is not done because that ends obscuring the results and making the experiment more difficult. This is Rossi's claim on every question that has been posed to him. If you read his blog, you will see that he only guarantees an output to input ratio of 6 to 1 and never more. Please check this out, I am not making it up. He has never suggested that self sustaining is a reliable mode of operation for very extended periods. I tend to agree with you that it should be an engineering problem to reach higher ratios but his own claims must trump our speculation. Why does he stick so strongly to the lower performance figure? I would like to know his reasons. The heat pump issue arouse just because of the relatively low gain performance . . . The word gain implies that the reaction is some form of amplification, or that output is coupled to input. There is no evidence for that. If that were the case, self-sustained heat would be impossible. Input power is needed to trigger the reaction or to keep the cell at operating temperature. You can do the latter with insulation. Rossi does not claim self sustaining operation for extended periods of time. That is something we are assuming. The gain term does not necessarily apply. All that he states is that the output is 6 times the input power by specification and most likely that is only true at full power output. We must consider that Rossi appears to be in a battle with thermal runaway at this point in his engineering development, hence the lower gain. The 1 hour time frame suggested as adequate to prove self sustaining of the reaction is absurd. If super accurate instrumentation were available to measure temperatures at many internal points and power input could be extremely well determined then that might be correct. No instrumentation is needed. Human senses alone suffice. The observers felt the heat coming from the device hours after the power was turned off. Simple first-principle physics and observations of everyday objects such as a pot of boiling water left to cool in the kitchen prove beyond doubt it was producing kilowatts of heat. There is no way it could be doing that from stored heat or chemical heat with such a small cell. No heat was stored prior to the self-sustaining phase. On the contrary, it produced a great deal of excess before that. Unfortunately, I have seen some well designed simulations on the web that have included internally stored energy being released for a long period of time that can not be totally dismissed. My best efforts suggest that the models are not capable of matching Rossi's performance, but they come much too close for total comfort. All of the closeness would go away if the test period were extended by a modest number of hours. Why should I trust my gut feelings about temperature- time relationships when they can be augmented by good test equipment and proven? I am not the only one who would like a modest amount of scientific proof instead of words. You are demanding instrumentation to prove something that any cook in the last 100,000 years would have known with absolute certainty. This is a distortion of the scientific method. Instruments are important to science, but even more important are observations and common sense knowledge of how things work. The human senses are reliable and just as good as any instrument for this particular test. Natural science observations of things like rocks, animal behavior, smell, appearance, heat and cold are just good -- and just as scientific -- as a reading from a multi-million dollar laboratory instrument. In modern science we have elevated the instrument and the computer too far above old fashioned, hands-on human interaction with objects, and the human senses. The primary school test in which an egg is sucked into a bottle is proof that there is a vacuum in the bottle. It is definitive, irrefutable proof. If you brought in a million-dollar vacuum gauge and measured the vacuum in the bottle to 8 significant decimal places, that would not prove the existence of the vacuum any better than the simple, direct, visual observation of the egg does. - Jed I disagree that the test results thus far are so very simple and obvious to everyone. Science with good instrumentation is required when the test is of short duration. If Rossi had run this test for several more hours then just about everyone out there would be convinced.
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
Interesting ... but I hope it isn't that Aussie Guy . Interesting comments a couple of posts down, too, concerning Rossi and a report of the 1MW going unstable during the test. - Original Message - there is a guy 'woomera' over at Chris Martensons forum, who claims to have visited Defkalion: read it there (post #43) http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/cold-fusion/51623?page=4#comments Aussie Guy / Greg Watson exchanged notes with Defkalion on their blog, stating his interest on behalf of the company he works for. Even if the project with Rossi was shot down, his company may still be interested in Defkalion, or have had their interest re-kindled, and have sent Woomera / Greg Watson to check them out.
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Why do you say the ratio is 6? This is Rossi's claim on every question that has been posed to him. If you read his blog, you will see that he only guarantees an output to input ratio of 6 to 1 and never more. I meant that other people have achieved higher ratios, including Defkalion and several others working with Pd-D. Rossi may not have. I am sure that higher ratios are possible. He has never suggested that self sustaining is a reliable mode of operation for very extended periods. On the contrary, he says it is unstable. Even if that is true, if you let it self sustain for hours at a time with occasional use of control current, the overall ratio should be much higher than 1:6. I tend to agree with you that it should be an engineering problem to reach higher ratios but his own claims must trump our speculation. His claims only apply to his cells. Other people have done much better than 1:6. Rossi does not claim self sustaining operation for extended periods of time. That is something we are assuming. I believe he said it can self sustain for about 6 hours. It went 4 hours in the demo. We must consider that Rossi appears to be in a battle with thermal runaway at this point in his engineering development, hence the lower gain. I believe he said something like that. Unfortunately, I have seen some well designed simulations on the web that have included internally stored energy being released for a long period of time that can not be totally dismissed. They can be totally dismissed. It is not possible to store energy and release it with a passive device and not have the temperature fall monotonically. That would violate the second law. You can see from the data that it did not fall. It rose at times. You can see from the photos of the inside of the device that it is passive; there are no mechanical baffles, pumps or any other physical mechanism that would allow the heat release to be controlled or increased. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
I am not sure what your observations are Not Me. Do you know of a heat pump that has a COP of 4.5/2 when having a source of input at 30 C while putting out heat at 120 C? According to wikipedia I calculate COP(heating)=T(hot)/(T(hot)-T(cool))=4.4 as the Carnot limit. This is using their equation just ahead of the table of various performances. Wikipedia discusses an example of a geothermal application using buried coils where the source is at 10 C in the UK for a home system that usually displays a COP of 4 to 5. Please review that article and let me know if you still think the COP would be 4.5/2 under those standard home conditions. Not Me, your assumption of 50% efficiency for the heat pump relative to Carnot appears low. How did you acquire your estimate? The article in Wikipedia discusses the fact that current heat pumps are in the range you suggest but that future developments will improve them significantly as the cost of input energy rises. They imply that the best designs will approach the Carnot limit. Maybe we need to understand why the present devices are so poorly performing before we assume that the best we can achieve is 50% efficiency. I am hoping for inputs from experts in the chemical industry that use equipment which transfers excess heat from exhaust processes to areas that need preheating. It should be common practice to save expensive heating costs by using waste heat in this manner. Perhaps petroleum engineers are aware of high temperature heat pump systems and it would be enlightening for them to bring these into the discussion. I am very curious about the active fluids and systems required. Would it be possible for us to limit this discussion to high temperature heat pumps and not refer to LENR devices? Perhaps the name should be modified to pertain more to the subject at hand? Dave -Original Message- From: Not Me energya...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no less than 60 deg. C.
Re: [Vo]:Physics depends on choice of coordinates
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:39 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to David Jonsson's message of Mon, 5 Mar 2012 15:57:44 +0100: Hi, [snip] Why have we been told that electric potentials in matter are too weak to cause nuclear reactions when the Madelung series summation can give a totally different result? ...perhaps because electron migration prevents the build up of high potential differences in metals? Could be. I haven't checked on that. David
[Vo]:Can the fusor inertial electrostatic confinement really work as described?
I have problems imagining Electrostatic pressure from the positively charged electrodes would keep the fuel as a whole off the walls of the chamber, and impacts from new ions would keep the hottest plasma in the center. which is said here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor#Design What is a more detailed and traditional way of describing this? David David Jonsson, Sweden, phone callto:+46703000370
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
Von: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com An: Guenter Wildgruber gwildgru...@ymail.com Gesendet: 21:47 Sonntag, 25.März 2012 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness Axil said: this factoid from Woomera if it is to be believed is fascinating and revealing. ... I wonder why DGT told him that. This sounds like a considerable safety-issue. Maybe the whole story gets a new twist. Also this: ...They have all the European certificates. Everyone else in the world recognises the EU certificates, except the United States. Defkalion had decided the US is in the 'too-hard-basket' and won't manufacture or sell to the US. ... Sounds about reasonable. Another detail: This woomera guy is registered at CMs forum since 2008 and has a total of 19 posts there. So he is not a typical loose-mouth. CM himself is a highly competent analyst of world affairs, and normally attracts people, who have their act together, and are typically in the pessimistic camp. On your point, Axil, that the line between 'good' LENR and the dangerous variety (LeClair/nanospire) may be blurred. I agree. Just think of Piantellis analysis, where several transmuted elements were found on his reactor-core The next two months will be interesting. I expect that the safety issue will be a big one. We discussed this already. It is also plausible from this, what the DGT-strategy is: The licencees have to take care of that in their world-region. DGT seems to have convinced them, that the problem is solvable, and present a solution via telemonitoring. The licencees obviously accepted that as a reasonable option, if this interpretation of the sory is correct. Thats about all from my side Guenter
Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:09:18 +: Hi Francis, [snip] Have you considered that if the nature of space time itself changes within a cavity, then if may affect the propagation of all the forces (including the nuclear force)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol
Hi Robin What micro-cavity physics does not explain is transmutation in liquid. For example, in the referenced experiment at the top of this thread, a solution of uranium salt in liquid was transmuted away from the plasma channel. No cavity was involved. Regards** On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:06 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 20 Mar 2012 18:09:18 +: Hi Francis, [snip] Have you considered that if the nature of space time itself changes within a cavity, then if may affect the propagation of all the forces (including the nuclear force)? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol
How to build a potassium ion dispenser. Prepare a 5:1 molar mixture(5 parts calcium to one part KCl) of Calcium and potassium chloride KCl with both chemicals in a powdered form. Since the chemical reaction depends on adequate fresh and abundant calcium surface area, At a minimum use a powder of Calcium prepared using a jeweler’s file and sieved through a woven wire mesh ~0.07 mm wire with 0.15 mm apertures. But the finer the powder mixture is the better. It could be that grinding the Calcium and potassium chloride KCl mixture in a mortar and pestle until the finest possible powder is produced might be optimal. This mixture was put into a small ‘‘boat’’ made from 0.125 mm thick Nichrome comprised of ~80%–20% nickel–chromium alloy foil that had been flame annealed, then mechanically cleaned and electro-polished. Electrical leads, 1 mm nickel wires, are spot welded to foil tabs on both sides of the boat. An efficiency of 20% potassium release can be expected but this efficiency is directly proportional to the quality and fineness of the calcium particles. . Apply current to get the temperature of the ‘boat’ up to 1400C. This is close to the melting point of Nichrome. An option is to make the boat out of tungsten to achieve higher temperatures. The higher the boat temperature, the more potassium ions are produced. The boiling point of the reactant calcium chloride is 1935 °C (anhydrous). This is the maximum temperature we need to stay under. Implementation is directed by detailed engineering constraints. On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Creating cesium vapor is easier said than done. This way may be the least expensive way to do it. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA524737 From this reference on page 60 Cesium Source Materials 1. Titanium:Cesium Chromate Dispenser The first generation UM dispenser cathodes contained a bi-metallic compound made of titanium powder and cesium chromate (Ti:CrCs2O4) mixed at a 5:1 ratio and hand pressed into small pellets. At a temperature of 425°C the chromate reacts with titanium leaving free cesium in the dispenser cavity. This may fit in with your design since chromium and titanium are non-reactive in what you are doing. * * * * On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Axil, thanks mucho. You've given me a lot to chew on. This will take me a while to intergrate all your design guidelines. These are the kinds of design directions that I would like to hear more of. Already, I've figured out a way to integrate your double wall design. This was something that did not cross my mind. Your input bringing this to my attention is very helpful. I've been struggling a little bit on how to improve convection and flow inside the reactor and frankly, your novel double wall design did not enter my mind. Thanks Now, I need to figure out a way to integrate an adjustable powder plate and think of a way to include a transparent glass for viewing. Keep it coming. I appreciate it. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Cc:* jth...@hotmail.com *Sent:* Sunday, March 25, 2012 4:41 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rydberg matter and the leptonic monopol JoJo: Sorry for taking so long, but I wanted to think about my response for a while. This maybe a lot more feedback then you ever wanted, it so … apologies. You need not take this following design whole cloth; it is an attempt to describe some design priorities I think are important. The vertical cylinder is a good design because it is best to confine high pressure hydrogen. You cannot find a square hydrogen tank. Temperature control inside the reactor is important. Your reactor should include a number of heat zones. Experimentally, it is important to know how hot each zone gets. If you don’t do this you are flying blind. Without knowing what is going on inside your reactor in detail, it will be hard to determine if you are making progress. The more debugging tools that you can come up with, the more progress you will make in the long run. One zone would be close to the spark. Another would be on the powder; finely, the coldest part of the cylinder (where it contacts the steam) where condensation of the catalyst might take place. I would include a transparent window that lets through visible light and infrared radiation in your design. Place it in a convenient location on the surface of the cylinder… maybe at its top… where you can see all or at least most of these zones. This will allow you to remotely measure their temperature somehow, say with an infrared thermometer. Design the experimental reactor so that you can clean the inside of the window. It is no good having a window if you can’t see through it. Include a thin walled pipe axially positioned inside the cylinder to act as a
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
'woomera' says Defkalion has all their EU certificates. I wouldn't know where to look, but if this is true, wouldn't it be possible to confirm the certification by checking an EU governmental website? harry On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Interesting ... but I hope it isn't that Aussie Guy . Interesting comments a couple of posts down, too, concerning Rossi and a report of the 1MW going unstable during the test. - Original Message - there is a guy 'woomera' over at Chris Martensons forum, who claims to have visited Defkalion: read it there (post #43) http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/cold-fusion/51623?page=4#comments
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
Perhaps instead of practical I should have said economical. You were the one who started comparing the overall energy efficiency of the E-Cat to heat pumps anyone could buy today. As the E-Cat is targeted to the residential market, it should only be compared to residential market heat pumps. If you look at what's actually available on the market, for example, http://www.lennox.com/products/heat-pumps/ you see the best HSPF rating is 9.5. This is a measure of the average efficiency over a heating season. An HSPF of 9.5 means if the heat pump produces 100,000,000 BTUs of heat, it will consume 10,500 kWh of electricity. 100,000,000 BTUs is equal to 28,500 kWh. Consuming 10,500 kWh while producing 28,500 kWh gives a COP of 2.7. Keep in mind, this is for the best, most efficient, most expensive heat pump available from this company for the residential market. For a heat pump at the minimum HSPF rating of 7.7 that can be sold, which is closer to what constitutes the majority of the market, the COP is 2.2. Gee, that's about half of 4.5. Sure, geothermal systems can achieve higher COPs in limited circumstances, but have you ever looked at the prices. Compared to a possibly theoretical E-Cat at $1,000 which heats water to over 80 deg. C, you're more likely to spend $40,000 for something that can't produce heat over 50 deg. C. The output of the heat pump will not be hot enough for radiators or hot water coils in an air handler, or to heat domestic hot water. A better argument against the E-Cat as an efficient produces of heat for the home would be to compare it to natural gas. Our standard electric rate is $.13 per kWh. We get natural gas at $.84 per therm (100,000 BTU). A therm is equivalent to 29.3 kWh, so a kWh of heat from natural gas costs $.029 (4.5 times better than electricity), while a kWh of heat from an E-Cat at a COP of 6 would cost $.022, which is just barely better. No ones going to be ripping out a functioning boiler and replacing it with a couple E-Cats if they can do simple math. In our case, the only way the E-Cat would make sense economically would be to switch to time of day electric rates, at $.05 off peak and $.25 on peak, and use the E-Cat to produce heat during off peak hours at an effective cost of $.008 per kWh, and use gas for heat during on peak hours. On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure what your observations are Not Me. Do you know of a heat pump that has a COP of 4.5/2 when having a source of input at 30 C while putting out heat at 120 C? According to wikipedia I calculate COP(heating)=T(hot)/(T(hot)-T(cool))=4.4 as the Carnot limit. This is using their equation just ahead of the table of various performances. Wikipedia discusses an example of a geothermal application using buried coils where the source is at 10 C in the UK for a home system that usually displays a COP of 4 to 5. Please review that article and let me know if you still think the COP would be 4.5/2 under those standard home conditions. Not Me, your assumption of 50% efficiency for the heat pump relative to Carnot appears low. How did you acquire your estimate? The article in Wikipedia discusses the fact that current heat pumps are in the range you suggest but that future developments will improve them significantly as the cost of input energy rises. They imply that the best designs will approach the Carnot limit. Maybe we need to understand why the present devices are so poorly performing before we assume that the best we can achieve is 50% efficiency. I am hoping for inputs from experts in the chemical industry that use equipment which transfers excess heat from exhaust processes to areas that need preheating. It should be common practice to save expensive heating costs by using waste heat in this manner. Perhaps petroleum engineers are aware of high temperature heat pump systems and it would be enlightening for them to bring these into the discussion. I am very curious about the active fluids and systems required. Would it be possible for us to limit this discussion to high temperature heat pumps and not refer to LENR devices? Perhaps the name should be modified to pertain more to the subject at hand? Dave -Original Message- From: Not Me energya...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Mar 24, 2012 11:15 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims I'd like more information on this alleged heat pump which could heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP 6 in conditions that exist in a usual residential setting, such as an ambient air temperature of 10 deg. C. The Carnot limit in these conditions is 4.5. Any practical heat pump in these conditions will have a COP of no more than half that. To heat water to 90 deg. C with a COP of 6 requires a cool sink that is no less than 60 deg. C.
[Vo]:Etch-a-sketch 3D
I know Orion's gonna want one of these! http://www.dump.com/virtualreality/ T
RE: [Vo]:Etch-a-sketch 3D
Terry sez: I know Orion's gonna want one of these! http://www.dump.com/virtualreality/ Yup! Thank you Terry! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims
It is not my intent to prevent use of ECATs in the world. I would love to see them and their kin everywhere, saving the environment and hopefully money at the same time. On many occasions I have pleaded with Rossi to work hard in an effort to increase the COP that he specifies so that cost comparison to heat pumps or natural gas or any other heating system becomes moot. Thus far he has stuck to his guns, but I think it is only a matter of time and engineering before that obstacle is overcome. The reference to heat pumps was brought up just as a numerical comparison which seems to be a relatively simple way to estimate the COP that should be exhibited by a new LENR system that is capable of generating electrical power that exceeds its own input requirements. I was thinking of the heat pumping process as a Carnot cycle engine in reverse. Take the numbers I calculated in the below listing as my example. A perfect heat pump that takes an input of 30 C and outputs its heat product at 120 C has a Carnot limit of 4.4. Maybe I have oversimplified the estimating by assuming that the best that can be achieved by the reverse device would be 1/4.4 or .227 times the heat pumped for generated electrical power when the input source is at the 120 C temperature and its sink at 30 C as before. If we add a little inefficiency to the generation process, we might expect the net output to be less. Unless this technique is woefully incorrect in prediction, which it might be, then a LENR device with an equivalent COP of 6 would be on shaky ground if it is expected to generate its own electrical input. This is where an expert in power generation would come in handy to clarify my misunderstanding. I have heard loud and clear that an LENR device that runs in the self sustaining mode need not generate electrical power for its input as it produces heat energy indefinitely. I am thinking of one that actually needs electrical input power and then is capable of self generating that same input plus excess electrical power for other uses. This type of system will no doubt become the real winner in the future. One way to consider the near self sustaining operation is to realize that the COP in that condition can be made to approach infinity as the thermal feedback is enhanced. Increase the thermal coupling to the core and get a higher overall COP as long as you maintain safe control. Now use the Carnot rule of thumb above and you see that a far less effecient heat engine is required for the generation of input drive power. Problem solved. Your calculations of the natural gas system as compared to the present ECAT would definitely suggest that gas would be best for today. We should give Rossi some time to improve his COP since this is version 1.0 and I believe that the improvements will come quickly until the input electrical requirement is of little concern. The marketplace should drive LENR systems in the desired direction, but it may take a little time. It is apparent that the current lowest cost heat pumps are not very good with an efficiency of only 50% as you point out. But engineers start at that level of performance and ask themselves why this is the case. Very few would accept a loss of 50% without a little fight. Perhaps the current management of their companies beat them into submission at that level since it is marketable at the moment. All we need is for the government agencies to dictate better devices and they appear. Maybe they cost a bit more, but the environment is important as well. For this reason, the 50% rule of thumb will most likely become history very shortly. If there is not a law of physics or thermodynamics that prevents us from reaching say 90% efficiency, then we should be thinking more of the Carnot limit. Dave -Original Message- From: Not Me energya...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thane Heins continues with his bold claims Perhaps instead of practical I should have said economical. You were the one who started comparing the overall energy efficiency of the E-Cat to heat pumps anyone could buy today. As the E-Cat is targeted to the residential market, it should only be compared to residential market heat pumps. If you look at what's actually available on the market, for example, http://www.lennox.com/products/heat-pumps/ you see the best HSPF rating is 9.5. This is a measure of the average efficiency over a heating season. An HSPF of 9.5 means if the heat pump produces 100,000,000 BTUs of heat, it will consume 10,500 kWh of electricity. 100,000,000 BTUs is equal to 28,500 kWh. Consuming 10,500 kWh while producing 28,500 kWh gives a COP of 2.7. Keep in mind, this is for the best, most efficient, most expensive heat pump available from this company for the residential market. For a heat pump at the minimum HSPF rating of 7.7 that can be sold,
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
This line from Woomera strikes me both interesting and odd: I was told that they were trying to actually see what happens in their device with some glass with a melting point of 1500degc. They saw it light up like the sun and then it melted the glass. This just took a second or two. If the reaction lights up like the sun, that bit of knowledge would make it much easier to replicate.. seems like a trade secret. Secondly, why would the glass melt if the reaction is not supposed to melt the nickel? There is a video on youtube that shows how resistant silica glass is to thermal shock... so not sure what to think. For replicators this company makes high pressure silica (1600C) and sapphire (2400C) glass windows that would screw onto a pipe thread.. http://www.rayotek.com/tech-specs/sight-windows.htm - Brad p.s. July would be nice.
Re: [Vo]:defkalion eyewitness
Woomera said: “I was told what their working theory was, but they really don't know what is going on. They have brought in several academics with a myraid of explanations.” DGT thought they knew what was going on, they had a working theory. Now this glass burnup incident has DGT totally flabbergasted. Mpw, they are so dumbfounded they don’t have any idea what their trade secret should. They are in the same boat that Rossi was in a ways back before LeClair told the Navy what was going on. ** On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: This line from Woomera strikes me both interesting and odd: I was told that they were trying to actually see what happens in their device with some glass with a melting point of 1500degc. They saw it light up like the sun and then it melted the glass. This just took a second or two. If the reaction lights up like the sun, that bit of knowledge would make it much easier to replicate.. seems like a trade secret. Secondly, why would the glass melt if the reaction is not supposed to melt the nickel? There is a video on youtube that shows how resistant silica glass is to thermal shock... so not sure what to think. For replicators this company makes high pressure silica (1600C) and sapphire (2400C) glass windows that would screw onto a pipe thread.. http://www.rayotek.com/tech-specs/sight-windows.htm - Brad p.s. July would be nice.
