Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
These communications by Rossi are taking a bizarre turn. All this paranoid talk about reporters acting for competitors and telling everyone to just wait for the big demonstration a few months away is making me very suspicious of Rossi's claims of inventing a new energy producing device. I was involved in an effort by another so called energy inventor named Dennis Lee who reacted in a similiar way to criticism of his energy device. Attacking those who found faults, instead of addressing the faults that were found. Talking of conspiracies against him and his organization and telling everyone to just wait for the big demonstration of his technology that will prove him right. The problem was that the big demonstration never happened, and he was never proven right. I fear we may witness the same from Rossi. Don't be surprised if the big October rollout of Rossi's E-Cat is delayed, then delayed again, as the excuses mount. This pattern of behavior is familiar with these sort of inventors. I hope my inclinations are wrong about Rossi, but I have to go with what I have experienced before. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: ...Or at least, this is what Rossi is implying in the comment below pasted from his blog. It looks like we will know more details about it after the presentation of the 1-MW plant in October. Rossi paints a grim picture where LENR researchers backstab each other in order to obtain research funds and exclusivity rights. Very sad if true. Let's hope it's just confabulation following his anger outburst. * * * http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.com/?p=497cpage=8#**comment-47160http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=8#comment-47160 June 19th, 2011 at 9:17 AM Dear Staffan: Your comment opens the space to an intriguing consideration. Many Scientists have taken the correct approach: wait for the 1 MW plant in operation, then make due considerations. This is what smart People did. About pseudo-Scientists and their reaction to my Effect: probably you have read of the “Snake” report after an interview he made in Bologna. Now, as probably most of you have understood, we have very good , (VERY GOOD), intelligence working with us; after the “snake” (disguised as a journalist) who has this week penetrated our organization and made a report based on a fake steam diagram, we asked to our intellicence organization to probe what was behind, and we discovered that: 1- The fake diagram of steam has been given to the “snake” from an Italian competitor that is afraid to lose the funds due to the fact that the taxpayers are tired to give him money while we have reached results without any funding 2- this Italian clown has been given the fake diagram fro an American Laboratory, competing with us, which gave it to him for the same reason 3- the snake has been sent to us to try to dwarf us to allow them to get funding All this is very funny. The names and the particulars of this paper tigers will be explained from me as an anecdote after the start up of the 1 MW plant in Greece: after the start up, after the explication of the theory, this will be the dessert. Something to laugh with. Warm Regards, A.R. * * * Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
Suffice it to say that E-Cat won't save Greece in time Original Message Subject: Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect From: Rock_nj rockn...@gmail.com Date: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:18 am To: vortex-l@eskimo.com These communications by Rossi are taking a bizarre turn.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Axil, Good idea, The geometry of the powder to tungsten interface might be a concern because of the high melting point of tungsten but as far as material selection the anomalous behavior of tungsten and atomic hydrogen goes all the way back to Langmuir. My question is regarding the spin melting or alloying method of the powder to reactor surface - how would it work with tungsten? Regards Fran Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS.
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
t...@wonksmedia.com wrote: Suffice it to say that E-Cat won't save Greece in time How do you know that? How bad is Greece? The problem is largely a matter of confidence. How much time will it take? It could start to have an effect in months, since people tend to discount the present in favor of the future. That is why, for example, the cost of oil is likely to fall if it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real. The cost of extracting oil will not fall, and supplies will not grow. Only future demand will be affected. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
Rock_nj wrote: These communications by Rossi are taking a bizarre turn. All this paranoid talk about reporters acting for competitors and telling everyone to just wait for the big demonstration a few months away is making me very suspicious of Rossi's claims of inventing a new energy producing device. This is how Rossi talks. This is his personality. I suggest you ignore this and try to judge the situation based on what other people who have observed and reported about his machine. As I have often said, if we are going to judge this claim based on the personality of the inventor, we will dismiss it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Complex explanations have been proposed, ranging from insensitive equipment to bizarre multibody fusion theories. Yet, a very simple explanation covers the result very well: Rossi lies. That is not a very simple explanation. It would be a very complicated one, and highly unlikely, because it would not suffice to explain what is happening. You would have to make this: Rossi lies, and so do Focardi, Levi, EK, everyone at Defkalion, and all of the others who have observed this cell and other Ni cells in operation. If Rossi alone was making these claims, that might explain it. As I mentioned, an independent expert analysis was recently published explaining the temperatures and so on. I do not recall where it was. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
It is more about the personality of the generator. Even if the elementary conditions of intensity and continuity are fulfilled there are serious doubts regarding its complex *reliability -* day to day, E-cat to E-cat, batch to batch reproducibility, adjustability, constancy. Rossi speaks about danger to much, why smaller E-cats are more safe. The problem of scale-up is unsolved- and combining 300 unreliable generators has small chances to give one great reliable machine. The basic know-why seems also weak. THe Defkalion people know more about the reliability of the E-cat, hopefully they will revert this bad impression. They have to sell the E-cats, in clutters or as individual sets. After selling chairs with one foot missing your marketing is in great trouble. For example if they say- we have already teste d 120 E cats- see here the results in statistical form and they are OK...then I go to the Greek restaurant in our town and drink a small glass of ouzo. As Hamlet would say: To be reliable, or not to be! Peter On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rock_nj wrote: These communications by Rossi are taking a bizarre turn. All this paranoid talk about reporters acting for competitors and telling everyone to just wait for the big demonstration a few months away is making me very suspicious of Rossi's claims of inventing a new energy producing device. This is how Rossi talks. This is his personality. I suggest you ignore this and try to judge the situation based on what other people who have observed and reported about his machine. As I have often said, if we are going to judge this claim based on the personality of the inventor, we will dismiss it. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
Failure to Disclose From the the way I read his post on the 22passi blog, Daniel is catching hell for not disclosing that he went to high school with Dr. Levi. Or am I reading it wrong? T
[Vo]:do not respond to requests from me to join Linked in
I responded to linked in after several requests came in to join from a friend. Now it is bugging everyone on my email list to join. I cant seem to stop it. I may only have written to you once only years ago. Do not responded to requests to joined Linkedin on my behalf Sorry Frank Znidarsic
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall. A paper cup!? Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your skin, in a flash. Maybe if you are *fast*, you wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't advise trying it. Neither would I, but that is what I have seen grizzled boiler room workers do. They don't hold their hands in the steam! They wave their hand through, quickly. The way a person can wave a finger through a the flame of a candle. If the steam is wet, droplets adhere to the skin and that hurts. They do not do this with superheated steam, obviously. Only process steam a little above 100°C. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
That's an error- I have read the blog starting Jan 15 and Daniele Passerini has told from the very start that he is a good friend of Levi and this was the reason he made the report of the Bologna conference. I consider this absolutely not relevant, he writes well, understands many technical issues. He is a poet, not a journalist. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Failure to Disclose From the the way I read his post on the 22passi blog, Daniel is catching hell for not disclosing that he went to high school with Dr. Levi. Or am I reading it wrong? T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: No it didn't because it wasn't public and details weren't documented. Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, Stephen means didn't confirm for the rest of us. Basically, confirmed is an interpretation, not a fact. Ever. Since it is meaning supplied, who supplies the meaning is crucial. That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word for it, this is not proof for you. Also, as I said, I am a little irritated with Levi for not publishing a detailed description of the second test. After he did this test, I assumed that he would publish a short paper with details such as the type of flow meter, the precise temperatures and flow rate, graphs and so on. I do not think he has published such a paper. I haven't seen one. Perhaps he intends to, and he is still working on it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Eh? ALL those people have observed non-natural isotope ratios? That was what I was talking about there. On 11-06-20 09:51 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Complex explanations have been proposed, ranging from insensitive equipment to bizarre multibody fusion theories. Yet, a very simple explanation covers the result very well: Rossi lies. That is not a very simple explanation. It would be a very complicated one, and highly unlikely, because it would not suffice to explain what is happening. You would have to make this: Rossi lies, and so do Focardi, Levi, EK, everyone at Defkalion, and all of the others who have observed this cell and other Ni cells in operation. If Rossi alone was making these claims, that might explain it. As I mentioned, an independent expert analysis was recently published explaining the temperatures and so on. I do not recall where it was. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: That's an error- I have read the blog starting Jan 15 and Daniele Passerini has told from the very start that he is a good friend of Levi and this was the reason he made the report of the Bologna conference. I consider this absolutely not relevant, he writes well, understands many technical issues. He is a poet, not a journalist. Maybe you can better translate his blog post today. Google translates the last sentence as . . .but at present the elements that tell me I smell like something else, and poison ... Thanks! T
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
On 2011-06-20 18:50, Terry Blanton wrote: . . .but at present the elements that tell me I smell like something else, and poison ... [...] After the last email he wrote me (of which I reserve the right to disclose to the public or not), I got annoyed probably more than Levi. I would like to be convinced that Krivit's has just been a regrettably wrong move, but at the moment the elements at my disposal show a far different story which smells like poison. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 06:44 PM 6/19/2011, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: If one were trying to reach the operating temperature of the device, wouldn't it make sense to have no water flowing until it was reached (or at least close)? Consider the complications. For a reminder, there are two chambers in the device, a reaction chamber, which needs to be raised to 450 C or perhaps greater, for the reaction to be significant, and a water or coolant chamber. If we have gravity feed of water to the coolant chamber, and no water exit except as water vapor, then there is no coolant flow until the coolant chamber water temperature reaches boiling. Steady state, the reaction chamber is at, say, 450 C., and the coolant chamber is at 100 C. The thermal resistance between them must be such that the selected operating temperature is maintained, with reaction heat plus (by their specifications), maybe 1/6 of that as input electrical power. That is actually a fairly high resistance. The only drag on reaching operating temperature is through this, and it's just the energy to heat the water from ambient to 100 C. I'm way too lazy to do the math. It would be way fascinating, though, to see how the generated energy varies with heat. It's pretty obvious that more efficient designs can be done, but, that's engineering, it could be much more complicated, and time is of the essence for Rossi now. This seems quite simple, and cheap to manufacture (except for the catalyst/fuel, about which we know little). All you have to do is to keep the reaction chamber below runaway temperature, and keep water in the coolant chamber. If you have done this, with adequate safety margin, the device will not run away and melt or explode. Rossi seems to have a PLC running this. The displays of a single digit cannot be given any specific interpretation, for all we know those could be the numbers of a series of operating modes. The controller would monitor reaction chamber temperature and maybe other variables, but the reaction temperature seems like the only necessary parameter.
RE: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume
Another way to look at it is that due to the barometer equation, the pressure on the bottom is higher than the pressure on the top so there's always an upward force. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US -Original Message- From: Michele Comitini [mailto:michele.comit...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 6:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot air rises, even in constant volume Air baloon float because of Archimedes' principle. Pressure inside the baloon balances external pressure + baloon surface elastic force any time. So if inner temperature is high enough air density inside is lower that air density outside. pV = nRT mic
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
What he says simply- I want to believe that this was an error of Krivit, but it seems to be bad intent. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: That's an error- I have read the blog starting Jan 15 and Daniele Passerini has told from the very start that he is a good friend of Levi and this was the reason he made the report of the Bologna conference. I consider this absolutely not relevant, he writes well, understands many technical issues. He is a poet, not a journalist. Maybe you can better translate his blog post today. Google translates the last sentence as . . .but at present the elements that tell me I smell like something else, and poison ... Thanks! T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: What he says simply- I want to believe that this was an error of Krivit, but it seems to be bad intent. Ahh. Thanks to you and Akira! T
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
I wrote: Lost performative here. That's why Stephen and Jed are talking past each other. Jed means confirmed for Levi and Rossi, . . . That's exactly what I meant. Obviously if you don't take Levi's word for it, this is not proof for you. I should have said: this is not CONFIRMATION for you. The reason this is confirmation is because they employed a different method: liquid state flow. In some ways that is easier and more reliable. I do not think there is any chance they made a significant error, so if the report is false, that can only be because they lied. That's plausible, but I find it so unlikely, I dismiss it from serious consideration. Too many people have seen this effect in too many places for this to be a lie. However, just because I am sure that Levi et al. are not lying, that is no reason why Stephen Lawrence should believe them. The reports of these tests have been inadequate. I wish that better reports were available. The tests themselves have some significant deficiencies in my opinion. They could be improved with better computerized data collection and redundant instruments. It is reasonable that some people are not fully convinced by inadequate reports of second-rate calorimetry. It is also reasonable that other people, including me, are convinced. This is partly a judgment call, and partly a matter of speculating about people's personalities and motivations. In such things there can be honest disagreements. This is not a math equation proof, with a single, irrefutable answer. Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is more skeptical than I am. That's reasonable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
At 10:19 PM 6/19/2011, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play. The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts. Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength. The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. Randy June 20th, 2011 at 10:29 AM Dear Mr Rossi I saw this post and thought it might interest you. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48058.html Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:33 AM Dear Randy: Interesting. Warm Regards, A.R. (and a related post : ) Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AM Dear Brad: 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk. Good questions. Warm Regards, A.R.
[Vo]: Was Dr. Robert Duncan at the MIT colloquium?
Did any attendees that are on this list see Dr. Duncan there? Also, is he aware of the e-Cat? I can't imagine that he isn't, but I don't think I've read any posts that indicate he is... Same question as to Dr. Bushnell from NASA... Was he there? Garwin was probably there, but in drag... :-) -Mark
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
Peter Gluck wrote: What he [22Passi] says simply- I want to believe that this was an error of Krivit, but it seems to be bad intent. To address Passi's comment: I doubt there is any bad intent. I would say it was bad timing (Krivit should have waited), a bad attitude, and Krivit's unfortunate tendency to upset people. He is tactless. He frames questions in way that professors find presumptuous. I seldom get upset by anyone, but Krivit sometimes rubs me the wrong way. Plus we have Rossi, who is mercurial. Rossi + Krivit is an explosive mixture. Regarding Rossi's assertion that there is a worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect, I do not think there is any such conspiracy, but I expect there will be, starting next year, once it becomes generally known that the effect is real. I do not expect this conspiracy will succeed in stopping the technology, but it may slow it down. It would be naive to think that a technology that will quickly put OPEC and the oil companies out of business will not meet with widespread organized opposition, both open and surreptitious. The latter is a conspiracy, by definition. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Was Dr. Robert Duncan at the MIT colloquium?
Mark Iverson wrote: Did any attendees that are on this list see Dr. Duncan there? Also, is he aware of the e-Cat? I can't imagine that he isn't, but I don't think I've read any posts that indicate he is... I do not know whether Duncan was present but he is aware of Rossi. I have discussed this with him. Everyone associated with cold fusion is aware of Rossi's work. Not everyone believes his claims. - Jed
[Vo]:Phone Interview with Kullander
Phone Interview with Sven Kullander http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/phone-interview-with-sven-kullander/ a) Kullander not sure, but thinks steam measurement was by volume b) Rossi paid their expenses
[Vo]:what consensus on bulk powder vs the interface layer to reactor?
Where does the Vort consensus stand on the bulk powder vs the interface layer to the reactor walls? For a long time I thought the heated powder just sat in the reactor while pressurized hydrogen permeated the geometry of the powder to produce anomalous heat. It wasn't till I understood the design of the MAHG where the nickel was sputtered into a thin surface on the inside of the reactor walls [no bulk powder] and later mention of surface coating by Rossi and more recently Brian Ahern that the importance of this interface occurred to me. Obviously it transfers the heat to the coolant fluid and should provide the fastest response to hot spots in the Ni coating on the inner reactor wall surface. Is there a mutually beneficial relationship between these coatings and the bulk powder? I do recall the thread about there being a possible critical volume of powder but not on how this relates to the coated interface.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
For a cold fusion reactor like any other reactor type, the guiding design goal is to produce a large, cost effective, passively self-limiting, reactor design that is intrinsically safe rather than a design that has 1000’s of inefficient hard to control and resource intensive units. Electric utilities love economies of scale and high power density. Low power density is a great handicap for any reactor to bear. Rossi’s large multi-unit reactor design will lose in the market place to a well-controlled materials efficient simplex reactor boasting a high power density. These multitudes of small weak units are the great design compromise in Rossi’s approach and he will pay a high competitive price for weakness going forward. On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 10:19 PM 6/19/2011, Axil Axil wrote: Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen As a compromise, carbon/carbon composites could also be used and is far cheaper but carbon is transparent to EMF radiation so lead radiation shielding must stay in play. The hydrogen explosion risk is from failure of the reaction vessel at high temperature. Currently, the reaction vessel will fail before the powder melts. Reaction vessel rupture will not happen if tungsten, carbon; TZM (Mo (~99%), Ti (~0.5%), Zr (~0.08%)), tungsten carbide, or many other possible refractory based materials that could be used for the body of the reaction vessel. The nickel powder will melt long before the reaction vessel loses significant strength. The expense of these refractory capable materials would be offset by the increase in energy gain factor up to 200 that they would support as opposed to 6 as currently exists. On high temperature unit could replace 34 low temperature reactors. A 1 Mwt reactor would contain 10 high temperature units instead of 1000 and run at higher efficiency. Randy June 20th, 2011 at 10:29 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=8#comment-47350 Dear Mr Rossi I saw this post and thought it might interest you. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48058.html Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:33 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47371 Dear Randy: Interesting. Warm Regards, A.R. (and a related post : ) Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47373 Dear Brad: 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk. Good questions. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
I hear the all we can do is wait until October a lot. If just a few people were working on replication, we could get details a lot sooner than October/November... Rossi is very kind to answer questions on his blog. I've asked a number of questions trying to learn about what is going on and without fail he has responded. (He doesn't respond well to all questions, but polite and sincere ones he is good.) I was the one who asked him if an exploding e-cat would be radioactive and/or poisonous. He said only that there was no risk of explosion. Which makes me think that the secret catalyst is indeed something not totally harmless. A hydride of Li, K, Rb, or Cs is a good conjecture from Mills, Axil, et. al. Anyone have a thought as to which one would be the smartest choice for an E-Cat? - Brad Lowe p.s. Please drop me a message if you're attempting a home-brew e-cat and we can compare notes. Andrea Rossi June 20th, 2011 at 11:46 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497cpage=9#comment-47373 Dear Brad: 1- if a unit overheats inside the reactor Nickel melts and the reactions are stopped: it is intrinsecally safe 2- Hydrogen cannot explode because we have not oxygen inside the reactor. Antway, the amount of hydrogen is so small ( 1 gram) that there is not any explosion risk. Good questions. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
From Jed: ... Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is more skeptical than I am. That's reasonable. Since you brought it up, it obviously begs the question: Can you elaborate a little more about such unpublished information. Can you post the information our here, or are there constraints preventing you from doing so. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 04:02 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I've asserted recently that it was obvious to me that the steam was wet, and I've said, several times, that it would take too long to explain why. I've got a few minutes, so I'll see if I can fit in a coherent explanation. I think you have made some unwarranted assumptions, but let's see. By the way, I do think, from all the evidence, that there was some effluent water, it was not all dry steam. I'm not disagreeing with that conclusion, only with how you get there, which may very much affect our understanding of *how much* this was a problem. The attached graph (with my annotations) is from the paper http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf It has several interesting points. Aw, these reports drive me nuts. I'd not read this one, I think. They have a pump for cooling water, it seems. So when they start up, they are pumping an estimated 6.47 kg per hour of water. They assume that this flow rate remains the same. Why? I'm banging my head against my desk. I have to stop doing that. However, it's not a *terrible* assumption. It merely raises its own problems. What I'd worry about, here, is in the other direction. They have this thing boiling away all the feed water. That means they cannot guarantee that the chamber cools at a constant rate, I suspect, as there comes to be less water in the chamber, the cooling rate will go down. Control problem. This thing gets hotter, the cooling declines, so it gets even hotter Unless they back way off on the input power, quickly. First, as I've said in previous email, the total power dissipated in the device can be estimated from the slope of the curve and the temperature of the effluent. The power needed to heat the output water goes up linearly with the temperature of the output water, and the power needed to heat the device goes up linearly with the slope of the curve. Okay. There was a claim of ignition at about 60C, at which point the device started generating power. Looks like that. In fact, the graph says that can't be right. If the device generated no power before it hit 60 degrees, the temperature would not have gotten to 60 degrees so quickly, because (as stated in the paper) the heater temperature was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used in the experiment. So, the heating curve, instead of looking like a straight line, would look like a capacitor charging curve, and it would have taken much, much longer to reach ignition. This is the problematic assumption: that the input power was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used. This is derived from their statement: If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. That's preposterous, as you note. Had there been no generated heat, there would have been a continued rise in temperature, at the previous rate of increase, declining asymptotically, as you state. Quite simply, there is no stated basis for this claim. It should therefore, be discounted. The experimental evidence shows otherwise, so I assume this was a simple error on their part. I'll assume that they intended to say that the rate of increase of temperature would not have increased. The steam was claimed to be dry in this experiment. Yes. That claim comes from a visual examination of the steam valve, and assumes that there was no flow out of the hose at this point. Again, they are not explicit about this, but they only talk about visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. If there is no flow out of the outlet tube (the hose?} and there is live steam at the valve, easily seen by the short gap where the steam is invisible, the physical arrangement would be adequate for this assumption to be at least approximately correct. They measure steam quality: Between 11:00 and 12:00 oclock, control measurements were done on how much water that had not evaporated. The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized. Did they measure this inside the outlet tube, i.e., inserting the probe through the thermocouple access port? I notice no gap in the temperature recording from the thermocouple. So there is a question there. However, this is where we rely on authority. I don't see any reason to suspect that Essen and Kullen didn't know what they were doing. What I can say is that *from the report alone,* there are questions. Let's see what Stephen comes up with. In that case, the output power was something on the order of 10 kW once it started producing steam. But the output power before that point, which we can
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Axil Axil wrote: For a cold fusion reactor like any other reactor type, the guiding design goal is to produce a large, cost effective, passively self-limiting, reactor design that is intrinsically safe rather than a design that has 1000’s of inefficient hard to control and resource intensive units. Electric utilities love economies of scale and high power density. I agree that a large, integrated unit has some advantages, but it might be made up of many small identical mass-produced components. This is somewhat analogous to the way a computer is made up of chips, or a fission reactor is made up of rods that contain fuel pellets. I do not think electric power utility companies will last long enough to have much impact on the design of cold fusion reactors. Cold fusion will put them out of business. In the 1950s there were some tests with high speed gas turbine railroad engines for passenger transport in the U.S. This was an attempt to use aeroderivative technology (aircraft jet engines) for an obsolescent mode of transportation that was competing with jet aircraft. It did not work out. Progress in jet aircraft was swifter than progress in using jet aircraft technology in a competing industry. Along the same lines, no matter how quickly the power companies try to adapt the use of cold fusion technology, individual household level reactors will spread even more quickly, which will eliminate the need for more power company equipment at first, and later drive the power companies into bankruptcy. It is inevitable, just as the collapse of the Pennsylvania Railroad was. In some cases, an obsolescent technology is revived for a few decades by selective use of new technology from a competing industry. My favorite example was the clipper ship. These were sailing ships that employed the latest marine engineering and materials, and that could not have worked without steam power tugboats. (They were too unhandy to sail into port by themselves.) Arthur Clarke and I predicted a good many new technologies will emerge in the future. Okay -- he predicted most of them, and I just go along. Most of these will come as a natural outgrowth of present-day technology. Most will be the result of incremental changes gradually leading to something quite different from what we now have. Others will be radically different, with no relationship to previous technology. For example, indoor food factories are now gradually coming into use. These are an incremental improvement to today's greenhouses. Technology developed for the indoor farm such as robot harvesting tractors may also find a place in conventional outdoor farms. The outdoor farm will be obsolescent when indoor food factories are perfected, but things like the robot harvester may even extend the commercial viability of the outdoor farm for a few generations. The next step after the food factory is the universal replicator. This is a machine that can assemble anything out of raw materials, putting together atoms to form molecules, and molecules to form whatever the template specifies: a tomato; an entire meal including the dishes and cloth napkins; a new left hand for the victim of an accident; or a precise copy of the Mona Lisa. Anything you want, in the blink of an eye. That will make all forms of agriculture and manufacturing unnecessary. No one can say when a a universal replicator will emerge, or even whether such a machine is possible. Clarke was confident that it is possible and we will have one sometime in the next few thousand years. I think so too. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
On 11-06-20 03:35 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:02 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I've asserted recently that it was obvious to me that the steam was wet, and I've said, several times, that it would take too long to explain why. I've got a few minutes, so I'll see if I can fit in a coherent explanation. I think you have made some unwarranted assumptions, but let's see. By the way, I do think, from all the evidence, that there was some effluent water, it was not all dry steam. I'm not disagreeing with that conclusion, only with how you get there, which may very much affect our understanding of *how much* this was a problem. The attached graph (with my annotations) is from the paper http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf It has several interesting points. Aw, these reports drive me nuts. I'd not read this one, I think. They have a pump for cooling water, it seems. So when they start up, they are pumping an estimated 6.47 kg per hour of water. They assume that this flow rate remains the same. Why? It's a constant displacement pump. That's what it does. I'm banging my head against my desk. I have to stop doing that. However, it's not a *terrible* assumption. It merely raises its own problems. What I'd worry about, here, is in the other direction. They have this thing boiling away all the feed water. That means they cannot guarantee that the chamber cools at a constant rate, I suspect, as there comes to be less water in the chamber, the cooling rate will go down. Control problem. This thing gets hotter, the cooling declines, so it gets even hotter Unless they back way off on the input power, quickly. You have put your finger on the problem. There is no need to go any farther. Unfortunately, you took your finger off the problem later on, where you apparently forgot about the constant flow rate assumption... it's that CD pump which at the heart of all of this. First, as I've said in previous email, the total power dissipated in the device can be estimated from the slope of the curve and the temperature of the effluent. The power needed to heat the output water goes up linearly with the temperature of the output water, and the power needed to heat the device goes up linearly with the slope of the curve. Okay. There was a claim of ignition at about 60C, at which point the device started generating power. Looks like that. In fact, the graph says that can't be right. If the device generated no power before it hit 60 degrees, the temperature would not have gotten to 60 degrees so quickly, because (as stated in the paper) the heater temperature was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used in the experiment. So, the heating curve, instead of looking like a straight line, would look like a capacitor charging curve, and it would have taken much, much longer to reach ignition. This is the problematic assumption: that the input power was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used. This is derived from their statement: If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. That's preposterous, as you note. Had there been no generated heat, there would have been a continued rise in temperature, at the previous rate of increase, declining asymptotically, as you state. Quite simply, there is no stated basis for this claim. Of course there's a simple basis for it (but not a *stated* basis, admittedly, but it's an awfully simple step to get here): The flow rate (which is *fixed* by the CD pump), times the coolant temperature rise (scaled by the specific heat, of course), gives the power carried off by the coolant. They're claiming that the heater power and power carried off by the coolant match at 60C. If they don't, then the paper is in error. It would be pretty simple to check their arithmetic on this one but it didn't occur to me to do so; so, they could very well be wrong about this, which would in turn throw off my calculations (but not the overall conclusion). It should therefore, be discounted. The experimental evidence shows otherwise, so I assume this was a simple error on their part. I'll assume that they intended to say that the rate of increase of temperature would not have increased. You can assume they said something other than they said, but it's not what they said. The steam was claimed to be dry in this experiment. Yes. That claim comes from a visual examination of the steam valve, and assumes that there was no flow out of the hose at this point. Again, they are not explicit about this, but they only talk about visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. If there is no flow out of the outlet tube (the hose?} and there is live steam at the valve, easily seen by the short gap where the steam is invisible, the physical
[Vo]:Clarifications on steam quality issues and Galantini's statement
Hello group, The following Google-translated link pointing to the latest Blog post by Daniele Passerini (22passi) and containing, among other things, a statement from dr. Galantini (the thermodynamicist in charge during earlier E-Cat measurements), will probably be able to shed some light on the issues arose on this matter over the past few days. Please ask if something is not 100% clear, so that I will try to translate it in readable English. Google translated short URL: http://goo.gl/IZECR Original URL: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-now-what.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Can you elaborate a little more about such unpublished information. Nope. Sorry. Over the past year I mentioned several times that I heard about private tests of the eCats. Some worked, others did not. Some of the people doing these tests shared a few results with me. As I said at the time of the January U. Bologna demonstration, mainly what they had been telling me is Don't dismiss Rossi. Our tests indicate there is something to it. We're getting 5 or 10 kW. Rossi told me 10 kW too, but I had great difficulty believing it. I hope I did not fully _disbelieve_ it. Anyone familiar with the difficulties of cold fusion will know why it seemed outlandish to me. It wasn't a black swan in the sense of being totally unanticipated, but it was a bigger leap than I thought possible. My position was similar to that of a knowledgeable French person interested in aviation in 1908 who gets a letter from a U.S. colleague saying: the Wrights reportedly flew for 24 miles in 39 minutes, in 1905. In 1908, the best French aviators barely managed to get off the ground. They flew uncontrolled hops, lasting a minute or so. The notion that anyone could fly for miles over a half hour must have seemed preposterous. It is no wonder the French experts did not believe the claims. The day after Orville actually flew in front of those experts, every one of them believed it -- even the ones who were not present and only heard about it from others. They were a small group of people who understood one another, and trusted one another (mostly) and they were in close communication. Some of them had colossal egos, and considered themselves the best experts in aviation in the world. Yet the moment those present saw the flight, they instantly admitted: Well, we are beaten! We just don't exist! (Delagrange). They told all the other experts and within a day. In a similar way, the Italians and French researchers at the Rossi demonstration were instantly convinced. They know calorimetry well enough to judge this issue. I probably would have been convinced if I had been present. As soon as I heard from them I had no real doubt about it. This comparison works better than you might realize, because there were a number of stunts and uncontrolled flights before 1908 in Europe in the U.S. There were powered dirigible balloon flights, including one by Santos-Dumont around the Eiffel tower in 1906. A person who did not understand aviation back then would have had some difficulty distinguishing between what Orville did in his flight, and what what the French aviators had accomplished earlier. The difference was like night and day to them, but to an outsider it might be obscure. I am sorry to sound condescending, but some of the skeptical comments about Rossi (including a few of the ones here) sound to me like a person in 1908 saying: How do you know the Wright airplane is not actually a dirigible with a motor on it? And how can you be sure he really did control the flight? The answer back then was: I can tell by looking; and, M. Wright would have been killed had he not been fully in control of the aircraft. (It flew straight toward a grove of trees, but he veered around them.) The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it. Can you post the information our here, or are there constraints preventing you from doing so. If I were not constrained, I would publish it on LENR-CANR.org. I hope that I will be allowed to do that before long. The Defkalion press release says they will release a lot of information on July 23, including some technical information. Unfortunately they do not plan to demonstrate a reactor, which is why I am not going. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications on steam quality issues and Galantini's statement
OK, Galantini named a probe. (We've had probe part numbers before, FWIW; Levi mentioned one, IIRC.) And Galantini told us that he measured temperatures in excess of 100.1 C. (That's lower than numbers given by Levi, BTW, and certainly *far* too low to indicate the steam was dry without some major supporting data.) And Galantini said the pressure in the chamber was equal to the ambient pressure. But he didn't state the ambient pressure! So that statement regarding the pressure is kind of useless. I've read elsewhere that during the first public test the ambient pressure was such that boiling would have been at 101C, rather than 100C -- and nothing Galantini said here contradicts that. And -- most important -- he sure didn't include any actual data which could lead to any conclusion about the dryness of the steam, as far as I could see. Numbers, guys. We want to see numbers. I certainly don't take Dr. Galantini's conclusion as absolute truth -- that was kind of the point, in fact. We *know* Galantini thinks the steam was dry. But what data is he basing that on? And how dry is dry? Really, where's the data? I love this next quote: ...and the results obtained during these tests were not significantly different from those obtained with the Text 176 H2 CODE 05721766. Which results were NOT PUBLISHED so it doesn't tell us anything to say the new results match the old ones. And of course the word significantly is a value judgement, unless he cares to hang some numbers on it. Most of the rest of the page drivels on about how people are being unreasonable about this, how there's a hoax circulating which involves using incorrect steam tables to discredit Rossi, and how evil Krivit is. I saw nothing on that page which would convince anyone who wasn't already a believer. FWIW I'm not overly fond of Steve Krivit but I sure think he's one of the guys in the white hats in this particular brouhaha. And this whole steam discussion is just sounding worse and worse for Rossi's team. Deny, then accuse, then give out some irrelevant information, claim to have answered the questions, and get angry when people keep asking. That pattern is common, but not among honest researchers. C'mon, I want to see some of the existing red flags get taken down. So far, all that's happening is more are being put up. On 11-06-20 04:19 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: Hello group, The following Google-translated link pointing to the latest Blog post by Daniele Passerini (22passi) and containing, among other things, a statement from dr. Galantini (the thermodynamicist in charge during earlier E-Cat measurements), will probably be able to shed some light on the issues arose on this matter over the past few days. Please ask if something is not 100% clear, so that I will try to translate it in readable English. Google translated short URL: http://goo.gl/IZECR Original URL: http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/06/and-now-what.html Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Aw, these reports drive me nuts. I'd not read this one, I think. They have a pump for cooling water, it seems. So when they start up, they are pumping an estimated 6.47 kg per hour of water. They assume that this flow rate remains the same. Why? It's a constant displacement pump. That's what it does. That's right. They also measured the flow rate by letting the water fill a 500 ml bottle. You can't repeat that test once it produces steam, except by sparging, which is another reason I would like to sparge the steam. (Mainly to capture the enthalpy.) They should have put the reservoir on a weight scale they way they did in the first test. (Maybe they did, and did not report that, which would be unprofessional.) But anyway, it is not likely the flow rate changed significantly. As you say, that's what those pumps are for. This is, as I said, second-rate calorimetry, but still completely convincing. It would not be as convincing if the heat were not so high, or if they had not also tested the gadget with liquid state flowing water. The flow rate (which is *fixed* by the CD pump), times the coolant temperature rise (scaled by the specific heat, of course), gives the power carried off by the coolant. They're claiming that the heater power and power carried off by the coolant match at 60C. That is correct, and it does. I checked. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications on steam quality issues and Galantini's statement
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: And of course the word significantly is a value judgement, unless he cares to hang some numbers on it. I believe he means mathematically significant, not value-judgement significant. It is frustrating that these people do not publish data, and a more formal report. As I said, I was expecting they would by now. - Jed
Fwd: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
I received this message a few minutes ago. Take it FWIW. Original Message Subject:Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:21:54 -0400 From: LEGUILLON Robert robert.leguil...@us.thalesgroup.com To: sa...@pobox.com sa...@pobox.com Stephen, I'm not a member of the Vortex forum, but I've cracked the steam enthalpy question, if you wouldn't mind posting (I already tossed it on New Energy Times): 1. Misunderstandings and Defensive Behaviors Hurt Everyone... A Little Research Helps In Kullander's own report Report by Hanno Essen and Sven Kullander on Focardi and Rossi ECat (Cold Fusion, they say that The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized. The Testo 650 probe is capable of displaying Relative Humidity (%RH), Absolute Humidity (g/m3), degree of humidity (g/kg) and enthalpy (kcal/kg). If they had read a percentage off of the Testo 650, without further calculations, they were reading Relative Humidity, which is indeed a measurement of mass, albeit a convoluted one Relative Humidity = [(actual vapor density in g/m3)/(saturation vapor density in g/m3)]x100% So the quick answer is Rossi and Levi were right, and Krivit was right to ask, and EVERYONE was wrong. Ref: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2733806/posts http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf;jsessionid=963FCCEDC864E54B23F0F3D7D70BA86C Best, R. Leguillon
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 04:59 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-19 04:38 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 11:57 AM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I won't argue this with you again, Jed, I had enough trouble getting you to admit that it's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C at 1 atmosphere of pressure. Stephen, perhaps you are making the same mistake here, misunderstanding what's being said. ? What point did I miss ? It's possible to have steam at higher than 100 C, but it would take post-generation heating. Obviously. It boils at 100C, and to make it hotter than that, you need to heat it some more. Right. The transfer of energy from the walls of the cooling chamber to the steam is inefficient, compared to the transfer to water. I'm sorry, but I seem to have totally missed the point of what follows. It appears to be a rehash of all that's been said already regarding steam. Certainly there's nothing to disagree with in it (save one item I flagged), but I don't understand what point you were trying to make. The point is that Jed was probably talking about the practical situation, that, in it, there would be no practical way to get steam at higher than 100 C. BTW regarding fire walkers, part of the trick may be something Lawrence was made to say in the film Lawrence of Arabia: The 'trick' is not caring that it hurts. That's an effect, for sure. However, that would not explain the lack of burns. From what I understand, sometimes there are minor burns, and if a person were to react to the pain, then might then suffer greater burns, so both effects could be operating. The relative lack of burns would be a protective effect from water vapor. The close contact with the coals is kept very short. Fire walking is not a casual stroll, with pauses! My guess, though, the Rossi devices would spit water. That could be avoided by redesign, and this may be what they have done. It would spit water if the manner of heating, inside, allowed pockets of steam to be trapped, with water blocking the exist path, so the water would be blown out. Basically, gravity could be used to keep the water in the bottom of the cell, with the steam rising out the top. But the E-Cat appears to have a horizontal design. So that it would spit isn't terribly surprising. This might be avoided by simply tipping the thing a little, so that the exit tube is the highest point inside, and bubbles of steam rising from anywhere inside would rise directly to that point, with no place for them to be trapped. Once the thing doesn't spit, there is no need for the tube to the sink, nor any need to collect water, since there would be no water coming out at any point. There is a need, actually. It's generating so much heat (10 kW + ) that it would rapidly turn the lab into a sauna if it weren't vented someplace. Stuffing the hose down the sink dumps the heat, not just the water. That sounds like a nifty excuse to me. How about ventilation of the lab, fans blowing. If it gets warm, that will just improve the impressiveness of the demonstration. Don't turn the fans on until people ask for it! The window would have been OK but the sink was apparently more convenient (and besides, if it were spitting out the window, passersby might object). If it's spitting, there would be more objections than that. Spitting is trivial to handle in ways that would be completely visible. It can simply spit into a jar. But it shouldn't be spitting at all, unless it's not properly designed. The worry would be that it was designed to spit and thus to appear to be generating more heat than it actually was. More likely, though, they simply did not take care to prevent spitting. I find Rossi's claim that pulling the hose up was dangerous to be evidence that it, at least sometimes, spits.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 05:32 PM 6/19/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Also think about how you find yourself responding to my comment. Do you find yourself imagining that I have a motive, You must have a motive but I can't imagine what it is. (It never, in a million years, would have occurred to me that you were trying to embarrass anyone, BTW. You don't do that sort of thing, not as far as I know. It seems clear you're lecturing me about something, but I really don't know what.) Thanks. A bad habit of mine. I explore topics as they occur to me, and the particular topic here was the conflict between you and Jed. 'Nuff said?
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications on steam quality issues and Galantini's statement
On 11-06-20 05:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: And of course the word significantly is a value judgement, unless he cares to hang some numbers on it. I believe he means mathematically significant, not value-judgement significant. Maybe, but it doesn't sound that way to me ... which just goes to show, it's ambiguous. In fact even the mathematical concept of significance is not overly precise. The word is commonly used to mean there's less than a 5% probability of a particular result occurring by chance, but since there's nothing magical about the ratio 5/100, and since that level of significance implies one experiment in 20 will get a false positive but significant result, it's common to also state the actual significance level. As, for instance, ... did not significantly differ (P 0.01) ... It is frustrating that these people do not publish data, and a more formal report. As I said, I was expecting they would by now. They apparently don't care about what us plebes think. Either it's all solid, the units will roll off the assembly line as planned in 2012, and there's absolutely no reason for them to waste time trying to convince us of anything, or it's all smoke and mirrors and there is no convincing data to publish. Wish I knew for sure which it is... (Does Intel publish the architecture manual for their new processor chip before they've finished designing it? No, they wait until it's all done and their process is in place, then they ship the chip and clobber the competition. Until that day, only a Chosen Few companies get to see so much as a user's guide, and that comes in binders with bright orange covers labeled RETURN TO INTEL and CONFIDENTIAL and other such stuff.) (They've promised the Big One in October, as I recall. Assuming this is all real, we can probably actually expect to see it some time in October, but *when* in October is the question. Given the usual engineering slippages, we should probably expect it to arrive long about October the Ninetieth, as one of my coworkers would say... IOW, if it's not here by October 31 that still won't prove anything either way.)
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 10:52 AM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: There is a classic demonstration, used to be common in high school physics labs: you boil water in a paper cup, over a flame, as I recall. A paper cup!? Yeah. I think one of my high school science teachers, the chemistry teacher as I recall, had a contract with Dixie to come up with science experiments using Dixie Cups, and this was one of them. There are lots of pages on the internet on this, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-50249.html is one that discusses it, with some experimental reports. Please, folks, don't stick your hand in that invisible steam. It may only be at 100 degrees, but it's dangerous, it's carrying a lot of heat, which it will cheerfully transfer to your skin, in a flash. Maybe if you are *fast*, you wouldn't get burned, but I wouldn't advise trying it. Neither would I, but that is what I have seen grizzled boiler room workers do. They don't hold their hands in the steam! They wave their hand through, quickly. The way a person can wave a finger through a the flame of a candle. If the steam is wet, droplets adhere to the skin and that hurts. They do not do this with superheated steam, obviously. Only process steam a little above 100°C. I have my own method, as well, of determining if a metal surface has possibly dangerous 60 cycle AC eletrical leakage currents. This will detect even pretty low leakage, below the dangerous level. I make sure my shoes aren't wet, nor am I touching any grounded metal, and I run the back of my fingers over the metal surface. If there is leakage, I can feel the vibration. Used to be common with electrical appliances with no ground plug. Turn the plug around, it usually eliminated the effect. With polarized plugs, assuming that people wired the socket correctly, this became a non-problem. (except for those badly-wired sockets!). With grounding plugs, again, not a problem, assuming the ground is connected! It's nice to know about the perceived vibration effect (it's probably due to electrical stimulation in the muscles of the fingers, just enough to be perceivable. If there is a dead short to a hot wire, it's still not painful. Long as I don't touch a ground somewhere!)
Re: [Vo]:A worldwide conspiracy against the Rossi effect
At 01:19 PM 6/20/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-06-20 18:50, Terry Blanton wrote: . . .but at present the elements that tell me I smell like something else, and poison ... [...] After the last email he wrote me (of which I reserve the right to disclose to the public or not), I got annoyed probably more than Levi. I would like to be convinced that Krivit's has just been a regrettably wrong move, but at the moment the elements at my disposal show a far different story which smells like poison. Ah, too bad. This would be classic Krivit, he's even worse when he's defending himself. (This is why reporters should seriously avoid allowing themselves to become part of the story!) Let's hope that it's just some communication problem that will clear up. Fingers crossed. Should I light a candle?
[Vo]:Steam quality and humidity
We all know a humidity probe was use to estimated the steam quality. The probe tells you the density of water in the air. This can be used with the temperature to calculate the steam quality by mass OR volume. Since the steam quality was not measured directly by volume or mass so I don't understand all the fuss...or am I missing something? Harry
Re: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Ah yes. It is right there in the testo.com brochure, isn't it? I vaguely recall that I checked this months ago for the instrument used in the first test: the Delta Ohm model HD37AB1347 IAQ with a high temperature HP474AC SICRAM sensor. I listed that in the news item with a link to the brochure here: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The first thing that brochure says is that it measures lots of stuff simultaneously including enthalpy. That's what we're looking for! Right? Without knowing as much as this helpful person Leguillon, I figured that would be enough, and I dropped the subject. I should have recalled that's what the brochure says and mentioned it here earlier. To avoid confusion let me just reiterate: in the first test they used the Delta Ohm, and during EK's test they used a Testo 650. Different instruments. My guess is that all of these instruments are designed to measure enthalpy. Why else would people pay all that money for them? What else would someone measuring steam quality want to know? - Jed
[Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Hello group, Sorry for cluttering the mailing list by creating yet another new thread (please do tell me if it's starting to be an annoyance), but I wasn't unsure of where to post this and I thought it probably deserved a discussion of its own. It's a freshly uploaded Youtube video from Steven Krivit, filmed in Bologna, Italy, during his visit. I found the link in one of the latest comments on 22passi blog and strangely it hasn't appeared on New Energy Times as of yet. It shows Andrea Rossi explaining his Energy Catalyzer. But enough talking from me, I'll let the video (and Rossi) do it instead: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
An excellent video. The best yet. The sound quality is good. Unfortunately it cuts off after 18 minutes. You have to hand it to Krivit: he knows how to use a video camera to good effect. That's harder than it seems. If it were me behind the camera, you would only see the person from the neck down, or the lighting would be wrong, or the voice inaudible. In this steam test, Rossi weighed the reservoir to determine the total mass of water consumed. He weighed it before and after the test rather than leaving it on the scale, the way they did in the Jan. 14 test. When you leave it on the scale, you can record the weight periodically to be sure the flow rate remains constant. However, as pointed out here today, those pumps are reliable and do not vary, so this is not a big issue. EK do not mention whether they did this during the tests they observed. I think Rossi usually does. It is the kind of common sense technique he prefers. He is kind of slapdash at times, and he prefers rough estimates to exact numbers, but he knows what he is doing. I don't see a steam quality meter in this latest video, but I really, really think that issue should be put to bed. There was never any reason to doubt the steam is mostly dry, what with the second test. The brochures from Testo and Delta Ohm close the book on that dispute. Maybe I should update the LENR-CANR.org news item to point that out. I should make it explicit, since this wet/dry steam controversy has dragged on. I am sure the reason I linked to the brochure in the first place was to address this. I would have noticed if the brochure said it was not suitable! It said enthalpy and I thought bingo, that settles it, and honestly, it slipped my mind after that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Hah! Someone said there were no magnets involved. But, I heard the distinctive click of magnets as Rossi put the halves of his glasses together to read the gamma meter. :-) T PS Post as many threads as you please, Akira.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Unless liquid water is traveling up the chimney to the hose, the only way for the water to exit the reactor is to first be converted to a gas. T
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:19:48 -0400: Hi, [snip] Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS. Tungsten is also opaque to x-rays/gamma-rays can replace lead shielding; and very importantly, it is also impermeable to hydrogen [snip] This may or may not make a difference. It depends on where the balance point is. If it's below the melting point of SS then it won't make any difference, because as soon as he goes beyond the balance point, the thing just runs away and keeps on heating up until the either the container or the Ni melt (whichever has the lower melting point). Either way the unit is destroyed. However if the balance point is above the melting point of SS then it would make a difference. From what I have seen so far, my guess would be that the balance point is below the melting point of SS. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 02:42 PM 6/20/2011, Akira Shirakawa wrote: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E A very clear explanation ... but NOT an EXPERIMENT =8-) And, of course, it doesn't exclude a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake !
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
He beams the water out with a teleporter. ;) Haary - Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 6:46:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) Unless liquid water is traveling up the chimney to the hose, the only way for the water to exit the reactor is to first be converted to a gas. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: And, of course, it doesn't exclude a Tarallo Water Diversion Fake ! It doesn't require a diversion. If the water level reaches the hose, liquid water will flow. If the water level never reaches the hose, it must be converted to steam to leave the reactor. They need a watch glass or an external water level indicator to prove that liquid water never reaches the level of the hose. Then they have proved their point by simply measuring the amount of water that is pumped into the reactor. Right now there is no way to tell how far the water level goes up the chimney. How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: He beams the water out with a teleporter. ;) Haary Krishna? :-) T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry wrote: How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? Terry speak for how the hell do I know for sure that liquid water is not flowing into the hose? If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. Harry
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 2011-06-20 23:42, Akira Shirakawa wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E It appears from this video that the data logger used during Krivit's visit was a Testo 177 T3 model which can only log temperatures. Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong: http://i.imgur.com/QBsJT.jpg Testo US website for the 177 T3 logger: http://goo.gl/OGONu The Testo 176 H2 logger mentioned elsewhere can instead log both temperature and humidity. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: They need a watch glass or an external water level indicator to prove that liquid water never reaches the level of the hose. Then they have proved their point by simply measuring the amount of water that is pumped into the reactor. I don't understand what you mean. If that were happening, you would see liquid water flowing out of the pipe when Rossi removed the pipe from the drain. I suppose that does happen at first, before the heat turns on. How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? As I said, you would see it, wouldn't you? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. So will condensed steam once the hose diameter is blocked. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, you would see it, wouldn't you? Watch it. AR lifted up the hose to drain the water into the wall before showing the steam. Look, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just presenting a fact. Water can't get out of the reaction vessel without direct flow or becoming a gas first. If AR is right, steam condenses inside the hose. That will happen. Frankly, I tend to believe him; but, he seems to want to try to convince the world. He needs to show that he is not overflowing the chimney with water to convince me (at least). T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. Water changing state is always endothermic, even by evaporation (it's what cools humans on a hot day). Water cannot walk up the chimney and out the hose. Only a gas can do that. It's Newton's law. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Watch it. AR lifted up the hose to drain the water into the wall before showing the steam. Ah. I see what you mean. At around 10:50 he lifts up the hose. If AR is right, steam condenses inside the hose. That will happen. Yes, with such a long hose it has to be radiating heat, which means the water has to condense. That's why I suggested he test it with a short hose. A window would also be good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 05:42 PM 6/20/2011, you wrote: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Remarkable. In this video, at about 10:40, Rossi acknowledges that there is a little water that, he claims, condenses in the hose. very small condensation, because this is very short, and so the maximum part is steam, that goes out. Krivit asks to see the steam. Rossi picks up the hose. He takes care, quite deliberately, it seems, raising the hose first, I interpret this as ensuring that water condensed in the hose runs down the drain. He pulls the hose out, holds it for a moment in the air, puts it back in the drain. Krivit starts sputtering himself, but Rossi understands. Meanwhile Levi has come up with a black T-shirt or other garment, which he holds up so that Rossi can hold the hose against it and we can see the steam, at about 11:25. I'm not certain what I'm seeing here. It seems to me sometimes that the steam is existing invisbly for a very short distance, which would indicate dry steam. Howver, sometimes I see the steam next to the outlet, this could be related to the end being moved around by Rossi. The volume of steam coming out seems low for the claimed power, just my impression, easily could be wrong. Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. (A tee with valves on both branches would do it. The hose would run to the drain, as they have. To allow viewing the steam, they would open the valve on the vertical section of the tee fitting, and close the valve to the hose, wait a little while for the tee to heat up, and then one could view the steam plume clearly, with a black background, up very close. Nice test would be a small increase or decrease in heater power, which should fairly rapidly lengthen or shorten the position at which the plume becomes visible. I've suggested having a steam whistle on the vent, for fun. But the flow rate might not be adequate. Maybe a small whistle. Levi, by the way, has a great deal of fun with the black T-shirt or sweatshirt, clowning for the camera. Nice human touch.) My inclination is to believe that the device is actually boiling all the water going through, but that's got to be qualified by hedges. If we could see that the steam exiting the E-cat was invisible, and that no water was spitting out, that would ice it, and that should be so simple to do that I'm left with what has become my default hypothesis. Rossi is making weak demonstrations, and deliberately. And, of course, Krivit is not made a witness to details such as weighing the water input, etc. This is basically a Trust me demo, which is his right, and we can even appreciate the opportunity to see this, but I have to conclude that Rossi has no interest in convincing skeptics. It's quite understandable. Either way! (Real/fraud.)
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:47 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Terry Blantonhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Water changing state is always endothermic, even by evaporation (it's what cools humans on a hot day). Water cannot walk up the chimney and out the hose. Only a gas can do that. It's Newton's law. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. Well, as you said, it might be filling up the chimney and then flowing out. You need a window to be sure. If he had held the tube up to the black cloth for several minutes I suppose we would have seen it. I don't see an RH meter in this test. Rossi says the hose is short but it seems long to me. Enough to radiate a lot of heat. About as much as a 1 or 2 kW electric heater, which means the steam has lost a lot of its umph by the time it reaches the end, to address Abd's concern. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the output. http://disq.us/2bl5a3 * We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry). We can see. That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube. Its inside diameter is less than 10 mm. Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity as 14 cm/s. But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster. Let's say 25 cm/s Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate of flow in cm/s). ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑ 2 = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second. Now, as I recall, I was expecting about 3120 ML/s. That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35% of expected for a 4.7 KW unit. 0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts. 16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts. Sure as the sun rises, this demonstration is bullsnot. Complete bullsnot. With that relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700 watts. Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range electric burners. Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam flowing from a hot-water kettle. Bullsnot. Thanks for the video. Unforgettable tripe. G O A T G U Y *
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 02:19 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Another factor is that I have some unpublished information about this test, and about some other private tests. I do not have a huge amount of information, but enough to give me more confidence in the results. Stephen Lawrence does not have this information so naturally he is more skeptical than I am. That's reasonable. I want to underscore this. It's pretty obvious, at this point, that skepticism about Rossi and the E-Cat is reasonable, no matter what Rossi says. Jed has additional information, and my experience with Jed is that he's likely sober about this. But that's certainly not any kind of proof. I'm rather turned off by the crap about Krivit and fake reporter. Rather, they have reacted very strongly, it seems, to some transient personal impressions, in the Levi interview, and from the -- harmless to this observer -- preliminary report by Krivit. The video by Krivit, I just reviewed a little. I see no attempt by Krivit there to be hard-nosed about what he was being shown. Knowing Krivit, in fact, I'm a little disappointed! Ah, Mr. Rossi! So there is water in the hose, even if only a little, as you say. How much? Can we watch this thing for while, then, this time, you empty the hose into a bucket so we can see how much water accumulated in so many minutes. Can we have the hose empty into the bucket for a while? I know that people are interested in this question of water in the outlet hose, that is how much is only a little? Let's see, may I mark the input water jug while we watch this thing for a time? Or measure the water level distance from the ground? Then we can pour in a measured amount of water to restore that original level, to see how much water was pumped through the system, as a visible confirmation in my video. Are there variations in the input power, or does this thing operate at constant input power? Mind if I take an occasional picture of that meter? Asking to see steam at the vent would have been too much for this set-up, I can easily see Rossi refusing it. But a close-up of the hose held at right angles to the camera, very close, so that the margin can be seen clearly, should have been possible. The point would have been to have the hose held firmly without it moving Jed has nailed the basic problem here, that Rossi was just doing a presentation for an ordinary reporter, who frequently won't ask very technical questions. I can understand why Rossi would come to think that Krivit wasn't a real reporter, because Krivit, in a sense, knew too much. But I'd think Mats Lewan would also ask questions like this In the Essen report we just saw here, Essen looked at the steam valve. My sense is that he saw it to be dry steam, or he'd have made a great fuss! At that point, there should be no flow out the hose at all, it should really be shut off with a valve, or it introduces a possible error.
Re: [Vo]: Was Dr. Robert Duncan at the MIT colloquium?
At 02:24 PM 6/20/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Did any attendees that are on this list see Dr. Duncan there? Also, is he aware of the e-Cat? I can't imagine that he isn't, but I don't think I've read any posts that indicate he is... Same question as to Dr. Bushnell from NASA... Was he there? Garwin was probably there, but in drag... :-) Heh! No, I don't think any of these people were there. Mitchell has a list of attendees, there was a fee this time ($30.)
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi says the hose is short but it seems long to me. Enough to radiate a lot of heat. Yeah, in the video, he knew better than to grab the hose with his hand. He paused to grab something to hold the hose. The hose is hot; so, heck yeah, it's radiating a lot of heat. T
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
sorry to say: in that video I hear a stroke frequency of 20/min, perhaps a bit more. That means flow 3 kg/hr. For 7 kg/hr you would need 60 strokes/min. Mains tension in Italy is 230 V and not 220 V, see Wikipedia. A bit shocked, Angela -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: in that video I hear a stroke frequency of 20/min, perhaps a bit more. That means flow 3 kg/hr. For 7 kg/hr you would need 60 strokes/min. Well, he says they weigh the reservoir before and after. Other people who have observed the tests told me they weighed it. If the video was long enough we would see them do that. So I do not think you need to worry about the flow rate being incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications on steam quality issues and Galantini's statement
I just looked up testo 176 H2. I found: testo 176 H2 Temperatur, Feuchte-Datenlogger, Messschreiber, 2 Mio Messwerte, -20 bis +70 °C That means in English: logger for temperature and rel. humidity, 2 mill. data points, -20 to +70 C This means, you can't use it for temperatures over 70 C ! -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Clarifications on steam quality issues and Galantini's statement
Angela Kemmler angela.kemm...@gmx.de wrote: That means in English: logger for temperature and rel. humidity, 2 mill. data points, -20 to +70 C This means, you can't use it for temperatures over 70 C ! Well, it shows 101 deg C on the screen so evidently it does go over 70. I think it would show 70, an error, or some impossible number if the value exceeded the rated value for instrument. Published specifications for instruments are often out of date or incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Well, he says they weigh the reservoir before and after. Other people who have observed the tests told me they weighed it. If the video was long enough we would see them do that. So I do not think you need to worry about the flow rate being incorrect. - Jed But then tell us please, why on march 29 the calculated values (audible stroke freq x volume) were exactly equal to the measured values, but this time they were so different? Angela time to go to bed over here... 3 hours left for some sleep -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Goat Guy did not account for the heat loss over the length of the tube. Harry - Original Message From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 9:08:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the output. http://disq.us/2bl5a3 * We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry). We can see. That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube. Its inside diameter is less than 10 mm. Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity as 14 cm/s. But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster. Let's say 25 cm/s Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate of flow in cm/s). ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑ 2 = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second. Now, as I recall, I was expecting about 3120 ML/s. That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35% of expected for a 4.7 KW unit. 0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts. 16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts. Sure as the sun rises, this demonstration is bullsnot. Complete bullsnot. With that relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700 watts. Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range electric burners. Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam flowing from a hot-water kettle. Bullsnot. Thanks for the video. Unforgettable tripe. G O A T G U Y *
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
But that would mean an almost complete loss... Daniel
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
I agree the gas flow out the end of the black hose seems to be visible right at the end -- whereas steam would be invisible for a short distance. Trained as a dishwasher since age 10, 80 miles E of Houston, Texas, I am sure that hot water gives off mist in low altitude, warm, humid climates. Rossi seems to be saying that cool steam is slightly visible as a mist, while hot steam is invisible! All steam is invisible, by definition. Rossi seems to me to be natural, relaxed, matter of fact, genuine. Isn't it possible for the pump to fill the reactor up totally with water, which would then overflow and exit as water just below boiling, or water exactly at boiling, mixed with variable amounts of steam? Would any bubbling at the outlet of the reactor be audible? How noisy is the background? Since about 1 m of the hose lies on the floor, before rising about1.5 m to pass through a hole in the wall, wouldn't that part of the hose on the floor fill up completely with water, with a flow of 7 kg/hour? How much pressure results from the 1.5 m rise in the hole? Also the hose on the floor, if full to 1.5 m, would be equally full on both arms of its U bend... If so, then would that ensure that all steam is condensed while passing through a full U bend? How much output heat is there if very little of the water is boiled within the reactor? My guess is that the Rossi team actually don't have a clue about what is happening between the device outlet and the far end of the hose.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 05:42 PM 6/20/2011, you wrote: 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (duration: 13m 24s) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Remarkable. In this video, at about 10:40, Rossi acknowledges that there is a little water that, he claims, condenses in the hose. very small condensation, because this is very short, and so the maximum part is steam, that goes out. Krivit asks to see the steam. Rossi picks up the hose. He takes care, quite deliberately, it seems, raising the hose first, I interpret this as ensuring that water condensed in the hose runs down the drain. He pulls the hose out, holds it for a moment in the air, puts it back in the drain. Krivit starts sputtering himself, but Rossi understands. Meanwhile Levi has come up with a black T-shirt or other garment, which he holds up so that Rossi can hold the hose against it and we can see the steam, at about 11:25. I'm not certain what I'm seeing here. It seems to me sometimes that the steam is existing invisbly for a very short distance, which would indicate dry steam. Howver, sometimes I see the steam next to the outlet, this could be related to the end being moved around by Rossi. The volume of steam coming out seems low for the claimed power, just my impression, easily could be wrong. Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! Measured at between 100 and 102C, in fact, according to what I've read. So, no, it's not superheated steam. It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. It's going to be within a degree or so of 100C, which is the reported temperature in the chimney. Certainly no cooler, since there's steam coming out, and certainly not much warmer. So, I don't think you'd see anything interesting with two thermometers. Remember, steam with entrained droplets is buffered, and will stay at almost exactly 100C even if it either gives up or absorbs some amount of heat. (This is the internal feedback mechanism I've referred to elsewhere.) Spitting water would also function to nail the output temperature at or near 100C, by the way. It doesn't have to be entrained droplets -- just some liquid water which is carried all the way to the end of the boiler, so it can hold the temperature of the steam at boiling, rather than letting it heat up farther. And occasional spitting might very well allow them to still measure the steam as dry, come to think of it, even though, like wet steam, spitting would result in some water passing through unboiled, and would allow for easy balancing of the energy budget with a fixed output temp of just over 100C. And, of course, a hose which is wet on the inside will also keep steam at 100C quite nicely, as the wet inner surface functions as a buffering agent -- but the water on the inner surface will eventually crawl out the end of the hose, so it needs to be replenished, either from condensation or from spitting. (A tee with valves on both branches would do it. The hose would run to the drain, as they have. To allow viewing the steam, they would open the valve on the vertical section of the tee fitting, and close the valve to the hose, wait a little while for the tee to heat up, and then one could view the steam plume clearly, with a black background, up very close. Nice test would be a small increase or decrease in heater power, which should fairly rapidly lengthen or shorten the position at which the plume becomes visible. I've suggested having a steam whistle on the vent, for fun. But the flow rate might not be adequate. Maybe a small whistle. Levi, by the way, has a great deal of fun with the black T-shirt or sweatshirt, clowning for the camera. Nice human touch.) My inclination is to believe that the device is actually boiling all the water going through, but that's got to be qualified by hedges. If we could see that the steam exiting the E-cat was invisible, and
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Yeah, that's why clouds always fall to Earth as soon as they form. Particularly those heavy things packed with solid icicles, like you get down in Antarctica. You see one forming, man, you better put on your hardhat quick before it comes down! Hmm.. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 04:10 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Aw, these reports drive me nuts. I'd not read this one, I think. They have a pump for cooling water, it seems. So when they start up, they are pumping an estimated 6.47 kg per hour of water. They assume that this flow rate remains the same. Why? It's a constant displacement pump. That's what it does. Sure. But does it pump the same regardless of back pressure? Did they record the number of pump cycles per minute more than at initiation? Imagine that the pump has a leak in its internal mechanism, say a leaky flap valve. If it did, then the flow rate would vary with the back pressure. I'm just pointing out that this is an assumption, without reason and conditions for it being stated. I'm banging my head against my desk. I have to stop doing that. However, it's not a *terrible* assumption. It merely raises its own problems. What I'd worry about, here, is in the other direction. They have this thing boiling away all the feed water. That means they cannot guarantee that the chamber cools at a constant rate, I suspect, as there comes to be less water in the chamber, the cooling rate will go down. Control problem. This thing gets hotter, the cooling declines, so it gets even hotter Unless they back way off on the input power, quickly. You have put your finger on the problem. There is no need to go any farther. That statement wasn't complete. If there is a discrepancy between the feed rate and the boil-off rate, one of two things will happen: either the reservoir will fill or empty, accordingly, or they will adjust the input power to increase or decrease the boiloff rate. They have not stated that the input power is constant, and it looks like Essen did not check for this. Unfortunately, you took your finger off the problem later on, where you apparently forgot about the constant flow rate assumption... it's that CD pump which at the heart of all of this. I think I've heard of the pump rate being changed. In some experiments the input power was changed. The assumption that both remained the same is still possible, if the values were chosen for operation at close to steady state as to chamber volume filled. That condition might last for quite some time before it went over the edge at either end! First, as I've said in previous email, the total power dissipated in the device can be estimated from the slope of the curve and the temperature of the effluent. The power needed to heat the output water goes up linearly with the temperature of the output water, and the power needed to heat the device goes up linearly with the slope of the curve. Okay. There was a claim of ignition at about 60C, at which point the device started generating power. Looks like that. In fact, the graph says that can't be right. If the device generated no power before it hit 60 degrees, the temperature would not have gotten to 60 degrees so quickly, because (as stated in the paper) the heater temperature was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used in the experiment. So, the heating curve, instead of looking like a straight line, would look like a capacitor charging curve, and it would have taken much, much longer to reach ignition. This is the problematic assumption: that the input power was only adequate to maintain it at 60 degrees with the flow rate used. This is derived from their statement: If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. That's preposterous, as you note. Had there been no generated heat, there would have been a continued rise in temperature, at the previous rate of increase, declining asymptotically, as you state. Quite simply, there is no stated basis for this claim. Of course there's a simple basis for it (but not a *stated* basis, admittedly, but it's an awfully simple step to get here): The flow rate (which is *fixed* by the CD pump), times the coolant temperature rise (scaled by the specific heat, of course), gives the power carried off by the coolant. They're claiming that the heater power and power carried off by the coolant match at 60C. They said that, yes. But they stated no reason for that comment, and, frankly, it doesn't make sense. By assuming it's true, you are led to contradictions. How about simply considering that there was some problem with that unsupported statement? If they don't, then the paper is in error. The paper is in error. Like, so? Lots of papers are written with errors, happens all the time. Essen should be asked about this. He's stated a conclusion that is not supported by the data he presents, the opposite. I think it was just a slip of expression, that he meant to say something else. This is an unpublished paper, not subject to editing or peer review. It would be pretty simple to check their arithmetic on this one but it
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Ho! I had forgotten about this one -- one of the early issues raised was that 14 kW of steam coming out the end of a hose should be a little like a rocket engine, and it would have been nice if some witness had mentioned that. Trouble was, there was no video, and witnesses didn't comment on it either way, so no conclusion could be drawn. Now we've got a video, albeit of a lower power demo -- and it doesn't sound like the plume visuals are living up to their billing. Well, well. On 11-06-20 09:08 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: Here is an estimative of the power output of the steam based on the video. What do you people think? Is it OK? It gives only 16Wats as the output. http://disq.us/2bl5a3 * We, who've actually boiled water on a stove, we who've actually done any thermodynamics in the lab (or industry). We can see. That is a ½ inch (13 mm) copper tube. Its inside diameter is less than 10 mm. Using those dimensions, and a video editor, then following the turbulent features, I measure the steam maximum velocity as 14 cm/s. But hey — the invisible part is undoubtedly faster. Let's say 25 cm/s Circular volume is circular area times length of a cylinder (or rate of flow in cm/s). ( 14 cm × (3.14 × (($radius = ( 1.0 cm / 2) ↑ 2 = 11 cubic cm [ML] per second. Now, as I recall, I was expecting about 3120 ML/s. That makes this evolution 11/3120 … 0.35% of expected for a 4.7 KW unit. 0.35% ( 4700 ) = 16.5 watts. 16 watts Daniel, is nowhere NEAR 4,700 watts. Sure as the sun rises, this demonstration is bullsnot. Complete bullsnot. With that relatively tiny pipe, I'd expect a roaring plume to come out at 4,700 watts. Because, lest anyone (and especially you, since you seem kind of naïve in the ways of boiling-water physics) forget… 4,700 watts of heat is approximately 2 of the “large” coil standard kitchen range electric burners. Even ONE of those gets a remarkable amount of steam flowing from a hot-water kettle. Bullsnot. Thanks for the video. Unforgettable tripe. G O A T G U Y *
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
- Original Message From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 8:34:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. So will condensed steam once the hose diameter is blocked. True, but with water flowing a water plug should form relatively quickly and you should hear a spurting sound shortly after the hose is put back in the drain. You would have to wait much longer if the water plug formed from condensate. Also the Swedes did get an opportunity to view the steam leaving the chimney of an earlier version of the e-cat. However Steven Krivit presents the observation as ambiguous based on his telephone interview Sven Kullander: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/phone-interview-with-sven-kullander/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 04:38 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it. Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of information that is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people are going to discuss it. What I find offensive is Rossi's dismissal of questions and inquiries as being based in pseudoskepticism. There are grounds to be skeptical. After all, the implications are huge. You yourself stated that you were skeptical, until you heard this private information repeated, over time. The rest of us were neither eye-witnesses, nor do we have that private information, except through you. I personally place a great deal of weight on it, because it comes from you. But I completely understand if others don't, just as I don't expect skeptics (real skeptics!) to fall down and believe in cold fusion because I say that the evidence is convincing, if reviewed carefully (which takes a lot of time! Rather, it's my responsibility to present that evidence, clearly and cogently, if I want people to look at it. If I fail in that, it's my fault, not theirs. I will also claim that it's the responsibility of the U.S. DoE to act on the recommendations of their own panels, both in 1989 and 2004, to fund research to answer the obvious questions. That should not depend on my political skill! Or that of the cold fusion community.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
On 11-06-20 10:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:10 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Aw, these reports drive me nuts. I'd not read this one, I think. They have a pump for cooling water, it seems. So when they start up, they are pumping an estimated 6.47 kg per hour of water. They assume that this flow rate remains the same. Why? It's a constant displacement pump. That's what it does. Sure. But does it pump the same regardless of back pressure? YES -- That's exactly what it does! That's the whole point -- you can use it for calorimetry because its flow rate is unchanged! You can't do that with pumps that don't have a predictable flow rate. It's like the thing found in the basement of East Campus, labeled 1 Amp -- No Matter What. Did they record the number of pump cycles per minute more than at initiation? Imagine that the pump has a leak in its internal mechanism, say a leaky flap valve. Oh, for goodness sake. And every time they run the test they happen to use a defective pump, eh? Suppose the reservoir has a leak, too, while you're at it, and nobody noticed the wet floor. They also weighed the reservoir before after, as a double check. You can forget about varying flow rates -- there is no evidence to support the idea.
Re: [Vo]:Steam quality and humidity
At 05:37 PM 6/20/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: We all know a humidity probe was use to estimated the steam quality. The probe tells you the density of water in the air. This can be used with the temperature to calculate the steam quality by mass OR volume. Since the steam quality was not measured directly by volume or mass so I don't understand all the fuss...or am I missing something? If it is telling you the density of water in air, it's not exactly functioning as the literature on the device says. What the literature shows is relative humidity, which is the percentage of maximum water that the air can carry at the given temperature. What I'd expect this thing to show is 100% relative humidity. The specifications on the meter used by Essen and Kullander was +/- 2%. I really don't know how they got their figures, they might be perfectly correct, but ... I don't understand it. Wet steam will have a relative humidity of 100%, plus there is some liquid water present. Dry steam will have ... what? The same? My mind is boggled. Yes, if we have a direct measure of water density in the air, that will tell us steam quality, at some temperature. the problem, though, would be, I'd think, measuring that if the water is present in liquid form. My guess is that the meter only measures the gas. But that would make a humidity meter totally useless for measuring steam quality. Someone 'splain this thing to me!
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it. Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of information that is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people are going to discuss it. As noted elsewhere, it turns out we can rule out steam quality issues, just as Rossi claimed. I should have made that clear when I linked up to the Delta Ohm site, and it also clear from the EK test. It would have helped if Rossi had said to Krivit: The meter measures by mass, not volume. Look it up. Instead he got upset that Krivit did not believe Galantini. We should have looked it up. Krivit should have. - Jed
Re: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
The Testo 650 is used for measuring *humidity*, Jed, for, like, food manufacturing and storage, etc. Read that HP literature. The device measures up to 100% humidity, it claims. Wet steam is above 100% humidity. The literature claims that the device measures: CO2, CO, temperature, and relative humidity. Other parameters are calculated from these measurements. I don't see anything there about determining steam quality or the amount of liquid water mixed with steam. It will only measure, on the face of it, the percentage of water vapor in air. It also gives a working range of up to 85% relative humidity without condensation. I.e., no liquid water! The brochure for the HP device says it will calculate enthalpy, but this is basically, as I read it, the heat carrying capacity of air. I don't see any hint that this thing could measure steam quality. As I wrote, someone please 'splain this thing to me! At 05:37 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ah yes. It is right there in the http://testo.comtesto.com brochure, isn't it? I vaguely recall that I checked this months ago for the instrument used in the first test: the Delta Ohm model HD37AB1347 IAQ with a high temperature HP474AC SICRAM sensor. I listed that in the news item with a link to the brochure here: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The first thing that brochure says is that it measures lots of stuff simultaneously including enthalpy. That's what we're looking for! Right? Without knowing as much as this helpful person Leguillon, I figured that would be enough, and I dropped the subject. I should have recalled that's what the brochure says and mentioned it here earlier. To avoid confusion let me just reiterate: in the first test they used the Delta Ohm, and during EK's test they used a Testo 650. Different instruments. My guess is that all of these instruments are designed to measure enthalpy. Why else would people pay all that money for them? What else would someone measuring steam quality want to know? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 06:40 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Maybe I should update the LENR-CANR.org news item to point that out. I should make it explicit, since this wet/dry steam controversy has dragged on. I am sure the reason I linked to the brochure in the first place was to address this. I would have noticed if the brochure said it was not suitable! It said enthalpy and I thought bingo, that settles it, and honestly, it slipped my mind after that. You misunderstood that, I believe. Look at what the thing actually measures, and look at the humidity measurement operating range. 85% (max), no condensation. This thing doesn't work in the presence of liquid water, as I read it. It calculates a number of things, probably given some settings you'd make, such as flow rate and enthalpy. That would be for *air cooling*, Jed. The heat carrying capacity of air at various humidity levels
Re: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The Testo 650 is used for measuring *humidity*, Jed, for, like, food manufacturing and storage, etc. Read that HP literature. The device measures up to 100% humidity, it claims. Wet steam is above 100% humidity. The literature claims that the device measures: CO2, CO, temperature, and relative humidity. Other parameters are calculated from these measurements. http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf It isn't HP; it is testo. The meter also measures absolute humidity g/m^3 (mass) and enthalpy (kcal/kg), which is what we want to measure. I guess enthalpy is derived from absolute humidity and temperature. Elsewhere you wrote: You misunderstood that, I believe. Look at what the thing actually measures, and look at the humidity measurement operating range. 85% (max), no condensation. This thing doesn't work in the presence of liquid water, as I read it. There would be no point to making a meter like this if it did not work in the presence of liquid water, because there is almost always some liquid water in process steam. It is never purely dry. I think people here should concede that Galantini is expert enough to select the right kind of meter after all, and it is likely he also knows how to use the meter to measure by mass instead of volume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 06:46 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Unless liquid water is traveling up the chimney to the hose, the only way for the water to exit the reactor is to first be converted to a gas. There are two ways, dependent on design. The first way is, yes, liquid water travels up the chimney, being forced by steam pressure accumulating behind it. This would generally be avoiding by ensuring that rising steam bubbles cannot be trapped anywhere inside, but will exit the chimney. The second would be that something is producing an aerosol. this would be below the operating temperature, I'd think. The interesting thing is that Rossi has now acknowledged that there is some water in the hose. Some would accumulate there from condensation, and it's possible that Rossi's concern that this, which would be water at the boiling point, generally, might be spit out the hose, was just based on that. Having an openable valve at the top of the chimney would generally handle this, one could see the exiting steam directly, without that long hose for it to consense in. It would be very simple to set up, with a tee and two valves, one in the hose that comes off horizontally, the other in the top of the tee that can be opened to allow steam to escape directly. This should never spit water if it's at the very top. Unless turbulence inside is causing an aerosol or spitting of some kind.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:13 PM 6/20/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: Terry wrote: How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? Terry speak for how the hell do I know for sure that liquid water is not flowing into the hose? If you agree that steam is passing through the hose, then if water is also flowing in the hose, it would tend to back up and make a sputtering noise near where the hose ends in the drain in the wall. Harry I don't think it would make any noise at all. Did you notice in the video that Rossi deliberately raised the hose in a way that would cause any water in the hose to promptly flow into the drain, before pulling the hose out of the wall? The hose goes from the E-Cat to the floor, across into that room with the sink fittings, and up into the drain. Water would accumulate in the hose pipe until it blocks the steam flow, at which point it would be pushed up into the drain. I doubt you'd hear a thing. I don't know the inner diameter of the hose, and there might be some muffled sound if the steam bubbles up through the water. Not much. The water level in the hose would never reach back up to the E-Cat, which is at a higher level.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:33 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.comhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: They need a watch glass or an external water level indicator to prove that liquid water never reaches the level of the hose. Then they have proved their point by simply measuring the amount of water that is pumped into the reactor. I don't understand what you mean. If that were happening, you would see liquid water flowing out of the pipe when Rossi removed the pipe from the drain. I suppose that does happen at first, before the heat turns on. How the hell do they know for sure that liquid water is not flowing out the hose? As I said, you would see it, wouldn't you? Jed, take another look at the video. As I recall, it's at about 10:45. Rossi lifts the hose in a manner that would drain the hose into the pipe, before pulling it out. He acknowledges, in the video, that there is condensation in the pipe. He claims it's only a little. Given that live steam entering that hose at the E-Cat would indeed condense in the length of it, all we can say is that this demonstration is less than satisfying. This, by the way, could explain what seems like low steam output for the claimed energy. The steam, much of it, is condensing on the inside of that long hose. What is left is weak.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:47 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All the arguments about wet steam or dry steam are bullshit. Water cannot leave the reaction vessel without directly flowing out. If no water reaches the hose, it can only escape as steam. Water changing state is always endothermic, even by evaporation (it's what cools humans on a hot day). Water cannot walk up the chimney and out the hose. Only a gas can do that. It's Newton's law. Arrgh. Imagine that a steam bubble is trapped in the reaction chamber, and grows, forcing water up and out of the outlet. Without knowing how the interior chamber is arranged, we can't know that this can't happen. A gas can drive the water up and out. *Probably* the E-Cat is not arranged to do that, or only did it a little, and they've fixed it. It might have been as simple as putting the thing on a bit of an angle, I was trying to see if the E-cat had a tilt to it. Couldn't tell.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
In the Essen paper, they were apparently able to examine steam coming out of an open valve in the top of the chimney, a separate exit from the hose. That would be why they were able to say that it was dry steam, it's easy to tell if you can see it. More accurately, if you can't see it until it's cooled enough to condense as a steam cloud! That long hose complicates the hell out of this. If you want to run a long test, sure, using the hose makes sense. But periodically, an observer should be able to open the relief valve at the top of the chimney so steam will shoot up in the air, and close the valve to the hose, so that no water -- or steam -- will be escaping through that hose From the characteristics of the steam plume, one could, with a given relief valve and some calibration, get a very direct indication of enthalpy. How high above the opening does the steam rise before becoming visible? At 08:49 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Terry Blanton mailto:hohlr...@gmail.comhohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Watch it. AR lifted up the hose to drain the water into the wall before showing the steam. Ah. I see what you mean. At around 10:50 he lifts up the hose. If AR is right, steam condenses inside the hose. That will happen. Yes, with such a long hose it has to be radiating heat, which means the water has to condense. That's why I suggested he test it with a short hose. A window would also be good. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 08:54 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Sure it is, but water droplets can be airborne for a long time. Witness any cloud.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 09:00 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rossi says the hose is short but it seems long to me. Enough to radiate a lot of heat. About as much as a 1 or 2 kW electric heater, which means the steam has lost a lot of its umph by the time it reaches the end, to address Abd's concern. Great minds think alike.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 10:01 PM 6/20/2011, Rich Murray wrote: My guess is that the Rossi team actually don't have a clue about what is happening between the device outlet and the far end of the hose. We do know that the whole length of that hose was hot To me, the video means little except to show how little is being disclosed. Essen and Kullen were apparently able to look at the steam directly from a vent at the top of the chimney. That's where you'd see live steam, if it's live. I.e., you wouldn't see it until it had cooled enough. That little gap would show that it was live steam, and then you'd merely need to watch for flying water drops. I doubt you'd see any if this was really live steam, unless turbulent conditions inside the E-Cat tossed up some water.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 10:02 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Rossi's explanation is not sound, that the steam isn't so visible because it's so hot. It's at normal temperature for steam!!! Measured at between 100 and 102C, in fact, according to what I've read. So, no, it's not superheated steam. Right. The explanation was BS. It will cool and condense, becoming visible, when it hits the ambient air. The only difference that will exist for various flow rates will be an increase in the plume size and an increase in the apparent velocity of any turbulence in it. The margin between the opening of the hose and the point at which the steam becomes visible will become larger (because it probably takes about the same time to cool, but if it's moving faster, it will travel further in that time.) The instability of the viewing of the steam plume is disappointing. I just looked again. I think I can see steam all the way down to the hose, which would imply that this is not dry steam, not completely, not exiting the hose. It might have been dry coming out of the E-Cat. The place to observe the steam would be at the valve, which they have completely covered here. The temperature inside the hose at the end would be of interest. If it's cooler, that would explain the visibility of steam. It's going to be within a degree or so of 100C, which is the reported temperature in the chimney. Certainly no cooler, since there's steam coming out, and certainly not much warmer. So, I don't think you'd see anything interesting with two thermometers. I don't know that there is steam coming out. What's coming out is a cloud, i.e., condensed steam, though it looks like a mixure (because it does seem to become more visible above the hose), so I think some steam is making it to the end of the pipe. Still, there might be a fraction of a degree of temperature difference. It's really moot. The steam should be examined at the other end, at the top of the chimney, with a valve, as was done by Essen and Kullen. Remember, steam with entrained droplets is buffered, and will stay at almost exactly 100C even if it either gives up or absorbs some amount of heat. (This is the internal feedback mechanism I've referred to elsewhere.) Yes, it is.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 10:38 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-20 10:11 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:10 PM 6/20/2011, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Aw, these reports drive me nuts. I'd not read this one, I think. They have a pump for cooling water, it seems. So when they start up, they are pumping an estimated 6.47 kg per hour of water. They assume that this flow rate remains the same. Why? It's a constant displacement pump. That's what it does. Sure. But does it pump the same regardless of back pressure? YES -- That's exactly what it does! That's the whole point -- you can use it for calorimetry because its flow rate is unchanged! You can't do that with pumps that don't have a predictable flow rate. That predictable flow rate assumes back pressure below a certain value, which will be one of the specifications of the pump. What happens if you, say, close a valve on the outlet of the pump? If it is truly constant rate, the pressure would increase without limit until it blows the measly valve off the pipe In fact, the internal valves that are part of the pump will fail, and if it is a good design, they fail gracefully. They simply fail to close all the way, or they blow open, releasing the pressure. With a good design, this doesn't harm the pump at all. It's like the thing found in the basement of East Campus, labeled 1 Amp -- No Matter What. Hey, it's just got a big honkin' inductor. Do not open the switch in this line except with a long pole. And hope that no matter what is still limited by some physical constraints, or else you will have an arc that won't quit the voltage will increase without limit, and at 1 amp you don't want to be anywhere near this thing. Did they record the number of pump cycles per minute more than at initiation? Imagine that the pump has a leak in its internal mechanism, say a leaky flap valve. Oh, for goodness sake. And every time they run the test they happen to use a defective pump, eh? Actually, these pumps are, my guess, designed to leak. All of them. When the pressure exceeds their rating. Otherwise they will break. (another possibility, the actuating mechanism must be limited in the force it can apply. So it simply fails to operate the pump. In this case, the sound of the pump would definitely change. It would probably be stuck. Suppose the reservoir has a leak, too, while you're at it, and nobody noticed the wet floor. No, that was one of the observers who, hearing some sound, thought the thing was about to blow. They also weighed the reservoir before after, as a double check. You can forget about varying flow rates -- there is no evidence to support the idea. Stephen has raised an interesting point about it, about how it comes to be that the pump setting and the steam generation are so perfectly matched. I pointed out that the match doesn't have to be perfect, but, sooner or later, it would create a problem! I don't know how they address the problem.
Re: [Vo]:Why Levi is upset
At 11:06 PM 6/20/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The fact that Rossi has done what he claims is equally self-evident to me. The speculation about wet and dry steam is bunk. The second test proved that beyond any doubt. It is a waste of time even discussing it. Jed might be right. However, in the absence of the kind of information that is needed to rule out steam quality issues, people are going to discuss it. As noted elsewhere, it turns out we can rule out steam quality issues, just as Rossi claimed. I should have made that clear when I linked up to the Delta Ohm site, and it also clear from the EK test. It would have helped if Rossi had said to Krivit: The meter measures by mass, not volume. Look it up. Instead he got upset that Krivit did not believe Galantini. We should have looked it up. Krivit should have. Jed, I'm puzzled. I don't see any sign that the meter measures anything other than relative humidity (and temperature). relative humidity is a ratio, neither mass nor volume. It's a ratio between the water vapor content of air compared to the content of saturated air, which varies with temperature. The meter isn't rated to measure humidity above 85%! I have no idea what these meters do with steam, it doesn't seem to be what they were designed to do. The probe will withstand 150 C., but all that means is that this temperature won't damage it, and, my guess, it will correctly measure temperature above 100 C. But what's it going to do with mist? Or a mixture of mist and live steam at the same temperature? My guess is that both would show maximum humidity of 100% Anyone an expert on these? What's Galantini's expertise? Does it cover this kind of measurement? Someone might know a great deal, but make a mistake about an instrument where they don't have extensive experience with it. Galantini's certification cited by Rossi was irrelevant, it gave no data at all, no measurement technique, it simply described the instrument he used. I really sympathize with the skeptics here, there is so much bogosity presented as being unchallengeable truth. I don't know that Galantini was wrong, I simply don't know what he did! And apparently asking about it is verboten.
