Hi,
I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking.
A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the eCat,
it's a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal equivalent of
water with cold water entering chamber 1, being heated by the heater and
reactor and
On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/15 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
The claims made for months that all the water was being converted
to steam
has been utterly crushed!
Krivit was clearly right on his seven points.
True, but his seven points had nothing
From the report:The impression was that the loss of heating power was minor.
Consequently the heat produced by the E-cat in self sustained mode should have
been clearly larger than the heat from the power that was lost when the
electric resistance was switched off. What a crock! A minor loss
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to
steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something
practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public
demos, is now shown to be
You're understanding of thermal inertia is incorrect. We don't expect a rapid
decline. With Megajoules in storage a 1000W draw will change the temperature
but little. Its like your telling me you can slow down a Mack tuck by shooting
peas at it. It'll decelerate quickly at first but as it comes
You can lead a mule to a barrel full of hot water from an Ecat,
but you can't make him think...
Well, actually, having just ragged the Pros here, I owe them an
apology, as they offer politely and clearly expressed views in this
forthright, fair debate in dialogue with the convincing comments of
At 08:25 AM 9/15/2011, Joe Catania wrote:
There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored
in the E-Cat.
Rossi said the reactor volume is 30L -- but this includes space for water
and for steam.
Taking the time from when the pump was started to when overflow started
-- 1.77 hrs x The
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the
device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It
likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C.
On 11-09-15 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted
to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking
something practical has been
Colin,
Excellent analysis! Thank you very much for posting this information.
Could you clarify what you mean when you say BUT only if during this power
off period there is not much power being used to make steam?
Are you saying that the result is consistent with the simulation only if all
the
Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post into
sneering.
The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing.
Ever since I put together what I knew about the early results with the
statements made by Rossi, Levi, and Galantini it's been obvious to me
that
WTH?!?!
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/15/collected-comments-on-sept-7-afternoon-rossi-test/
Krivit posted an Horace's post without the context, that is, Jouni's post
and answer to that! It looks like Krivit is trying to smear someone he
disagrees with an aggression! That's unethical!
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
And we know the probe came out dry because Galantini said so. Right?
Yes, of course. It is very easy for a person to observe that a probe is wet
or dry. A small child could do this.
Galantini, the man who claimed to have tested the steam and
Scott,
I agree with the logic of your macro scale argument regarding
the astronaut and would even add the hammers being thrown to the astronaut
could be delivered from the future and the past - growing from point sources to
full size hammers on either side of the astronaut
At 10:45 AM 9/15/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
WTH?!?!
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/15/collected-comments-on-sept-7-afternoon-rossi-test/
Krivit posted an Horace's post without the context, that is, Jouni's post
and answer to that! It looks like Krivit is trying to smear someone he
On 11-09-15 01:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed
him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit...
I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored in the E-Cat.
Rossi said the reactor volume is 30L -- but this includes space for water
and for steam.
I asked Lewan about this. He said: The volume of the cell was at least 22.5
liters, as shown
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
**
Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post into
sneering.
The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing.
Don't fret about it. Forget it.
Ever since I put together what I knew about the early results with the
They did change the measuring method and Im surprised, this are very
clever changes:
1) The output hose has thermal isolation now. Also the hose is shorter.
So the hose cannot loose (much) thermal energy.
Therefore it is possible to measure the /total/ energy at the end of the
hose.
2) The
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed him.
Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit...
I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I haven't read. I was
thinking in particular of a response from
On 11-09-15 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post
into sneering.
The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing.
Don't fret about it. Forget it.
Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote:
Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a
major disappointment.
I tend to agree, because power input was high and they did not measure total
enthalpy. However, the last 35 min. with no input power redeemed the test. I
do
On 11-09-15 02:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have
addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit...
I wasn't talking about the Krivit
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
But my opinion is the only one I've got, so naturally, I believe it.
You have no choice. Belief is not voluntary. A person cannot persuade
himself that 2+2 does not equal 4. That is the problem with some arguments
in favor of religion such as Pascal's
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were in
his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry.
And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini.
You
It would have been nice to see two identical E-Cats, one is chosen at random
and charged with hydrogen, the other not... and power is added to both units
the same way. If the active one is clearly spewing more heat and steam,
anomalous heat would be assured.
Lets imagine that the next test shows
Am 15.09.2011 21:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the
flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry.
On 11-09-15 03:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the
flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry.
Joe Catania wrote:
There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored in the E-Cat.
It takes ~5MJ to heat 17L of water from 30C to 100C. So it would
appear that there are 25MJ stored elsewhere at this point.
Stored somewhere, you say. Where? The metal? There are 80 kg of metal,
mainly
On Sep 15, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted
to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking
something practical has been created, the basis for the
Am 15.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
If as you say the heat does not balance no doubt that is because the
machine radiates a great deal and this is not accounted for. The
machine is insulated but no insulation is perfect.
The insulation is more perfect than this insulation that I have
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes.
It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The
Horace Heffner wrote:
As I showed numerically, it was not reasonable that no water was
ejected in the prior demonstration tests unless the tests were run at
precisely the right input power (from electric plus LENR) at all times
to just boil all the water yet not raise the steam temperature.
Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It
likely is
This is very helpful. See:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3267991.ece/BINARY/Temperature+data+Sept+7+%28xls%29
The data is taken at 2 second intervals.
The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10. assuming
the reaction is fully quenched at that time you can
At 11:19 AM 9/15/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
So we know all input conditions and we know all output condition and
therefore we can calculate the energy.
I've coded up the data --
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_a.php -- displayed both as a
table and as CSV data which you can load into
At 01:21 PM 9/15/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 11:19 AM 9/15/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
So we know all input conditions and we know all output condition
and therefore we can calculate the energy.
I've coded up the data --
http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_a.php -- displayed both as a
On Sep 14, 2011, at 11:26 PM, Colin Hercus wrote:
Hi,
I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking.
Thank you for posting!
A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the
eCat, it's a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal
equivalent of
DeltaOhm instrument is quite sophisticated and it suits very well for
measuring steam quality and thus enthalpy that steam caries. There is
no problem with that, because as Wikipaedia quite clearly defines
steam quality that Low quality steam would contain a high moisture
percentage and therefore
I wrote:
The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10. assuming
the reaction is fully quenched at that time . . .
That may be a rash assumption. It is sometimes hard to quench a cold fusion
reaction.
I don't see the temperature going up anywhere after 23:10, so I guess
It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but starts
raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data collect
is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C.
There is a curious thing between 23:25:19 and 23:26:23 on column D, where
probably water enters the cell 2. The temperature raises fast ,
but continuously within 10s, from 24.5C to 67.6C, and then goes back to
24.9C within 60s. The slow raising output doesn't change its slow raising
pattern
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but starts
raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data collect
is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C.
Oh! You are right. I should have graphed it. I
On Sep 15, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
But my opinion is the only one I've got, so naturally, I believe it.
You have no choice. Belief is not voluntary. A person cannot
persuade himself that 2+2 does not equal 4. That is the problem
It doesn't go down. The temperature falls to ~100.3C at 23:19:00 but
starts raising at 23:22:01 an slowly raises continuously until the data
collect is stooped at 23:29:07, with a temperature of 105C.
At 23:15:53 the temperature is 114. Then it begins dropping rapidly. I
am assuming this is when
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a curious thing between 23:25:19 and 23:26:23 on column D, where
probably water enters the cell 2.
I believe this is discussed in the log graph:
Note: jumps in serie2 to (inlet water temp) are due to the probe being
pulled out of the water
On 2011-09-15 22:13, Jed Rothwell wrote:
This is very helpful. See:
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3267991.ece/BINARY/Temperature+data+Sept+7+%28xls%29
The data is taken at 2 second intervals.
The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10.
assuming the reaction is
On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down
inside the device is still as
Akira Shirakawa wrote:
I tried making a more detailed chart:
http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png
Good job.
The heat-after-death event is marked here in the top graph with the red
cross-hatching, between 22:35 and 23:10.
I do not see why you have the Input Current (A) rising at around 18:35
On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The thing cools down slowly after the pump is turned off at 23:10.
assuming the reaction is fully quenched at that time . . .
That may be a rash assumption. It is sometimes hard to quench a
cold fusion reaction.
I don't see
If that was a practical joke, why was Rossi so angry?
2011/9/15 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the
barrel. Also, better to run the output through a heat exchanger first and
do flow calorimetry on the cooling water, and isoperibolic calorimetry on
the cooling water
On 2011-09-15 23:32, Jed Rothwell wrote:
The heat-after-death event is marked here in the top graph with the red
cross-hatching, between 22:35 and 23:10.
Correct!
I do not see why you have the Input Current (A) rising at around 18:35
from 0 to 11. I thought that happened at 18:59.
This is
Horace Heffner wrote:
A 0.7°C temperature rise is significant with any thermocouple. That
can't be noise. There is no question there must be a heat source in
the cell.
Yes - it is the 80 kg of cell metal which has stored heat.
Stored heat can only be released monotonically declining. The
2011/9/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com:
If that was a practical joke, why was Rossi so angry?
Good question, Daniel. I have some guesses but your guess is as good
as mine. But is he really angry?
–Jouni
He spent weeks calling snakes and making paranoid posts. He said he wouldn't
make any more tests until October. He just calmed down 2 or 3 weeks ago and
even allowed that new Lewan's test.
I thought you and Jed conceded that 3000KW of output could be a reasonable
quantity from the looks of the
That might be very odd, and I cannot answer that. However what else it
could be than a joke? Rossi demonstrated E-Cat 5 times so that we have
some objective data available before June demonstration. And all of
them they worked exactly as Rossi claimed. As we remember Rossi always
claimed more than
That is not a joke, if you follow Focardi's page on facebook, you will see
that he was very angry with that. Also from Levi's comments as far as I
remember.
If that test was a farce, everything is a farce.
On 2011-09-16 01:48, Daniel Rocha wrote:
That is not a joke, if you follow Focardi's page on facebook, you will
see that he was very angry with that. Also from Levi's comments as far
as I remember.
If that test was a farce, everything is a farce.
As far as I know the Focardi facebook page is
Focardi answers questions there.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
As I showed numerically, it was not reasonable that no water was
ejected in the prior demonstration tests unless the tests were run
at precisely the right input power (from electric plus LENR) at
all times to just
I must say that there is significant amount of metallic thermal
inertia, what is perhaps mostly in the thick metal boiler that can
withstand the steam pressures of several megapascals. 25 kg water
contains the most of the thermal mass, but in both respect this type
of E-Cat is different to others
On 2011-09-16 01:54, Daniel Rocha wrote:
Focardi answers questions there.
Do you mean this Facebook page?
http://it-it.facebook.com/pages/Prof-Sergio-Focardi/116761995001742
Informazioni QUESTA PAGINA E' UN OMAGGIO NON UFFICIALE DI AMMIRATORI
DEL PROFESSORE. [...]
Translation: this page
I was checking. It's true, that's a fan page. But only Rossi's emotional
state is enough to conclude that either that test is true of everything is a
fake.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
A 0.7°C temperature rise is significant with any thermocouple.
That can't be noise. There is no question there must be a heat
source in the cell.
Yes - it is the 80 kg of cell metal which has stored heat.
Stored
Horace Heffner wrote:
This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate
the barrel.
On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
That is not necessary. Just use a lot of water and keep the test limited
to around 5 min. As long as the overall water temperature
On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
[snip]
As metal content of the E-Cat is at the same temperature as water
content,
This is an assumption with no (apparent) foundation. All 80 kg of E-
at will not be at the water temperature. If the new E-cat is heated
by a band heater,
2011/9/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com:
But as
I have previously estimated that 60-80% of inlet water was needed to
vaporize in the temperatures above 123 to explain over 100 kPa steam
pressure, therefore proper estimation for required excess energy
during 35 minutes self-sustaining
From : How The West Was Lost by Dambsa Moyo
“We stamp them out Engineering gets stigmatized and we encourage our kinds to
become ‘professionals’ lawyers, accountant, doctors. Engineering is almost a
dirty word. We are told it’is ‘old industry’ and that we are a post
industrial nation…….
Hi Finlay,
I mean if you take temperature of two chambers to be 130C at time power is
turned off, and allow cold water to flow in at 11l/h and hot water to flow
out based on the simulated temp in the chimney then the rate of drop in
temperature is virtually identical to that reported by Mats.
Hi Jed,
But Mats did not measure steam during that 35 mins and if heat loss was just
the cold water in and hot out then the temp would decrease quite slowly.
Note we have at least 23kg of hot water and only 11kg/hr in. so 17% change
of water in 30 minutes. Input temp is 29C and if we allow
Interesting observations. I agree you should publish your findings.
I too am disappointed with the demonstration. All they really need to do is
vent the hydrogen during operation to convince me. If they had vented the
hydrogen at 15mins after power off and observed a change in the cooling
Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a
1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little
steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam
squeezes out that orifice. »
Rossi has said that his megawatt plant will
Mmm.. So you think if they'd used a smaller orifice and changed nothing else
the power would have jumped to 27KW?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a
1MW reactor and if it was
Rich, as E-Cat is not closed system but there is (small) opening into
ambient pressure and water temperature is above ambient boiling point,
therefore water inside E-Cat is always boiling. That is because pressure
inside E-Cat is generated by steam production. If there is no boiling, then
there
75 matches
Mail list logo
