Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods. Must be true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother spending time and money on that? With such bad calorimetry methods applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big systematic mistake. That would be so inconvenient to discover. Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15 years discussing things just like this. I'm not sure why I posted at all on this. I suppose it present some fun problems and an opportunity to learn. Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the gestalt of the list. On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental controls. Uh. No way it is important! What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even more important to understand in what context methods from scientists' guide book should be applied. Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity heats the system. I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment, because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment, because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would be necessary. Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for control experiments as it would be same thing as testing well known internal combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get the picture.) In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass and is highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of being a means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and emergency procedures. I am sure that for the last 24 months and last 4 months with the new version, Rossi has done nothing but test runs! –Jouni Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Shipping Rossi container
Is the 1MW container on its way to US? Sending something like that can take weeks. They must have packed everything and sent. The end of october is near. mic
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you have never seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on that, because it might fail you. I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea yourself? Why do you demand ultra high accuracy for calorimetry for short tests, although short tests cannot exclude hidden power sources. Also your suggestions for method does not even provide great accuracy without extensive efforts, but calorimetry from steam pressure is here more accurate, because there is not involved unknown rate of escaping heat due to insufficient insulation. We can estimate the heat loss just by measuring the surface temperature of E-Cat. Very simple and accurate. Is it not easier to demand that MW power plant would run continuously producing it's own electricity 24 hours per day, and seven days per week and 52 weeks per year? See how utterly out of context your pondring is here, because indeed, electricity production rate depends on only one thing and that is the pressure of steam MW E-Cat can provide. Calibration of instruments is of course necessary, but even more necessary is to use common sense. Also, instead of more insults, i am still expecting you to apologize your public insults what you have made. I am especially offended by your insults that did end up into Krivit's Blog. And also, I consider your experience with zero value. Only thing that matters is what you are now. In the history we have just too much examples where experience has guided people into wrong direction, so it is not relevant to trust into experience, but do the thinking always on the basis of fresh arguments and clear thinking without prejudices. —Jouni On Sep 20, 2011 9:51 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods. Must be true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother spending time and money on that? With such bad calorimetry methods applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big systematic mistake. That would be so inconvenient to discover. Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15 years discussing things just like this. I'm not sure why I posted at all on this. I suppose it present some fun problems and an opportunity to learn. Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the gestalt of the list. On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental controls. Uh. No way it is important! What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even more important to understand in what context methods from scientists' guide book should be applied. Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity heats the system. I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment, because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment, because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would be necessary. Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for control experiments as it would be same thing as testing well known internal combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get the picture.) In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass and is highly
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Peter, thanks for this idea. This superheating process to eliminate corrosive agents might be plausible with Rossi. Therefore we might not be able to trust thermometer as a reliable pressure sensor, if it is not placed under the liquid water level. But we need to find other means to measure pressure inside, if we are to do accurate calorimetry. And also special thank you for understanding why steam quality is important factor in the industry. Indeed, water droplets in the suspension may cause corrosion in the long run. This tells something how misplaced steam quality discussion has been. —Jouni On Sep 19, 2011 8:30 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 16.09.2011 21:26, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 11:57 AM 9/16/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: The important information is: There is no superheated steam because inside the ecat is everything almost at boiling temperature. For superheated steam you need an extra heater that heats the steam and there is none. Because the temperature inside the e-cat is above 100 degrees the boiling temperature inside must be above 100 degrees and therefore the pressure inside the ecat must be above 1 bar. I still think that the 2-chamber design explains more than the 1-chamber 3-bar design. The core could easily be engineered with a water-efficient heat exchanger in one chamber, and a steam-efficient heat exchanger in the other. Someone had the idea Rossi might have multiple small e-cats in this big box. Possibly he uses one for superheating and possibly this did not work as intended. This would explain his claims superheated steam, water comes from condensation. He told us what he believed, but he was in error he didnt understand what was going on. Apparently he doesnt know that the purpose of superheated steam is to avoid condensation. If there is superheated steam and the hose is isolated then it is always hotter than 100 centigrade inside and there is no condensation and no water erosion. This is the reason why they superheat steam in industrial machines. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
About multiple e-kittens in a box, question 2) from the exchange below on JONP: Andrea Rossi September 16th, 2011 at 4:23 AM Dear Alessandro Casali: 1- I prefer not to give this info, for security reasons 2- multiple 3- see 1 4- yes 5- longer 6- will need drive time to time 7- everything upgrades in time 8- I ddid NOT say that we are already working, I said the first steps have been made: signed the contract and some other thing. The proper RD with the University of Bologna did not start yet. Warm Regards, A.R. Alessandro Casali September 16th, 2011 at 3:39 AM Dear Dr. Rossi, glad to see your Plant in the flash, many congratulations! I didn’t know you were assembling the plant in Bologna, i thought it was in US? did you manufacture also the cores in Italy or have you shipped them trom US? The 27MW e-cats are single core or do they have multiple cores? Did you already ship the plant to US? I was surprised by the weight (80kg) of the latest e-cats, did you increase the thickness of the lead shield? Mats Lewan says self sustained mode can last up to 30 min and then needs some 10 mins of input power to keep reaction going, is it exactly like that or can it last any longer? Do you think future generations of e-cat will be able to run always in self sustained mode or do you think they will always need input energy from time to time? If non always in self sustained mode, do you think future e-cats will reach a better balance than 1-6? if yes what do you think could be the maximum balance? Since you recently stated UNIBO is already working on e-cat RD, does that mean that you have already provided them with an e-cat? Thanks for your patience in reading my lot of questions. Warm Regards, ac. 2011/9/20 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com: Peter, thanks for this idea. This superheating process to eliminate corrosive agents might be plausible with Rossi. Therefore we might not be able to trust thermometer as a reliable pressure sensor, if it is not placed under the liquid water level. But we need to find other means to measure pressure inside, if we are to do accurate calorimetry. And also special thank you for understanding why steam quality is important factor in the industry. Indeed, water droplets in the suspension may cause corrosion in the long run. This tells something how misplaced steam quality discussion has been. —Jouni On Sep 19, 2011 8:30 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 16.09.2011 21:26, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 11:57 AM 9/16/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: The important information is: There is no superheated steam because inside the ecat is everything almost at boiling temperature. For superheated steam you need an extra heater that heats the steam and there is none. Because the temperature inside the e-cat is above 100 degrees the boiling temperature inside must be above 100 degrees and therefore the pressure inside the ecat must be above 1 bar. I still think that the 2-chamber design explains more than the 1-chamber 3-bar design. The core could easily be engineered with a water-efficient heat exchanger in one chamber, and a steam-efficient heat exchanger in the other. Someone had the idea Rossi might have multiple small e-cats in this big box. Possibly he uses one for superheating and possibly this did not work as intended. This would explain his claims superheated steam, water comes from condensation. He told us what he believed, but he was in error he didnt understand what was going on. Apparently he doesnt know that the purpose of superheated steam is to avoid condensation. If there is superheated steam and the hose is isolated then it is always hotter than 100 centigrade inside and there is no condensation and no water erosion. This is the reason why they superheat steam in industrial machines. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Shipping Rossi container
Hi, On 20-9-2011 9:43, Michele Comitini wrote: Is the 1MW container on its way to US? Sending something like that can take weeks. They must have packed everything and sent. The end of october is near. mic I was wondering about this too. Rossi had to adjust his original plans to ship the container to Greece and hence the associated planning and logistics (incl. shipping it to a container port) and naturally the required paperwork for his not so usual contents of this container. Has Rossi thought about even the slightest possibility of someone breaching the Customs seals of his container to find out what is inside the e-cats? For a stowaway on a container ship it may be sufficient time to find out what the e-cat is made of. Given the above thoughts well I know what precautions I would put in place to prevent anyone finding out about the contents of the e-cat. Or is he possibly traveling together with his container with kittens? Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Shipping Rossi container
And what did he put on the customs declaration form? 1) Water heater? 2) eLion? 3) Nuclear Reactor? Some of these might raise an eyebrow, eh? ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Shipping Rossi container
Accordling this radio interview the answer is YES Matt Lewan says has been told so by Rossi http://radio.rcdc.it/archives/fusione-fredda-rossifocardi-assemblata-a-bologna-la-centrale-da-1mw-86847/ About security I would suggest Rossi to put a chair, some food and drink in the container and travel along :) 2011/9/20 Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com Is the 1MW container on its way to US? Sending something like that can take weeks. They must have packed everything and sent. The end of october is near. mic
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On 11-09-20 02:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods. Must be true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother spending time and money on that? With such bad calorimetry methods applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big systematic mistake. That would be so inconvenient to discover. Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15 years discussing things just like this. I'm not sure why I posted at all on this. I suppose it present some fun problems and an opportunity to learn. Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the gestalt of the list. Dunno about anyone else, but I've certainly read -- and appreciated -- your posts on this, Horace. Thank you! As to Jouni ... well, I plonked him quite a while back and haven't read any of his posts since.
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Pulses cause significant skin effect because their Fourier components consist of high frequency harmonics. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:08 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo [deleted] Thus the original question set: Q1) Does this uneven current flow (skin effect) translate to potentially uneven heating - even at equilibrium**? [deleted] R.L. From everything that I've read and experienced, the skin effect doesn't become significant until you are well into the kilohertz frequencies; certainly above Mhz. At the 50 or 60 Hz that is all modern AC power, I highly doubt that ANY skin effect is happening. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
One does not have to measure that it is open to the atmosphere since that is a valid datum. It is no assumption. Assuming it is under pressure is worthless. You did not observe pressure. What experience would you be talking about? Its incredible to me that there would be any significant pressure in something open to the atmosphere. That should be your experience. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote: The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal. That is an assumption, not a measurement. When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under significant pressure. That is an assumption on my part, but based on observation and experience. It should not be under that much pressure. The other end should be open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying out the hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is present. It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and pressure of the supply water (since we know for sure that is variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the relief valve. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote: Why do you think the device is under pressure? See end of: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: did you have the chance to ask DoE about Rossi's e-cat ? He claimed in his paper that DoE saw a succesfull demostration back in 2009 ! I did not communicate with the DoE. Someone else did, and they sent me a copy of the response. As you see, it is a form letter written by someone who knows nothing. One of the cold fusion researchers read this and commented: Thank you for confirmation that DOE doesn't read its own reports. Opdenaker has probably not heard of Rossi, but as it happens, someone else in the DoE has heard of him, and recently wrote an encouraging and optimistic message saying he hopes Rossi is real. I do not think he observed a test. The DoE is a huge organization and people in one department have no idea what is happening in another. Some of them have heard of cold fusion and Rossi, and others clearly have not. I cannot complain about Uncle Sam. Overall, the US government and especially the military has better knowledge of cold fusion than any other institution in the world. It has done more for cold fusion than any other. US corporations have done nothing for cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Joe, could you please explain why the water is ejected at such a high velocity instead of just dribbling out of the tap? On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Joe Catania wrote: One does not have to measure that it is open to the atmosphere since that is a valid datum. It is no assumption. Assuming it is under pressure is worthless. You did not observe pressure. What experience would you be talking about? Its incredible to me that there would be any significant pressure in something open to the atmosphere. That should be your experience. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote: The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal. That is an assumption, not a measurement. When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under significant pressure. That is an assumption on my part, but based on observation and experience. It should not be under that much pressure. The other end should be open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying out the hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is present. It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and pressure of the supply water (since we know for sure that is variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the relief valve. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote: Why do you think the device is under pressure? See end of: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/ article3264362.ece Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: I was done commenting on your posts, but I see you want me to comment more. Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you have never seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on that, because it might fail you. Uh ... a device is purported to create excess heat. Bad calorimetry (even as admitted by you) is applied to public demonstrations. Public and press pointed this out. Instead of doing the right thing and correcting the calorimetry and re-running tests at nominal cost and effort, the response is to change the device and continue with more bad calorimetry of a different sort? The response is to keep true experts away that have extensive experience and will do calorimetry for free. How can anyone rely on any claims when kind of approach is taken? You think we haven't seen this kind of thing here on vortex before? What do you think the success rate is for creating useful products using this kind of approach? We have even seen people who have struggled to prove themselves wrong, who continually strived to get to the scientific truth, and still failed to make a product designed to produce the expected excess heat. However, such efforts are highly laudable. They exhibit the best qualities of mankind and the scientific method. The seekers avoided at great cost going down the road of fantasy and self delusion that such a large majority of free energy seekers have gone before. This is not an uncommon occurrence, now or in the past. A more self-willed, self-satisfied, or self-deluded class of the community, making at the same time pretension to superior knowledge, it would be impossible to imagine. They hope against hope, scorning all opposition with ridiculous vehemence, although centuries have not advanced them one step in the way of progress. Henry Dircks, Perpetuam Mobile, or A History of Search for Self- Motive Power from the 13th to the 19th Century, 1870, P.354. A comment on perpetual motion seekers. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51474.html I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea yourself? There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how much gas it uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage the vehicle gets. The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles per gallon (21 km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per mile (0.142 km/liter). The problem is insufficient known variables. Why do you demand ultra high accuracy for calorimetry for short tests, although short tests cannot exclude hidden power sources. Also your suggestions for method does not even provide great accuracy without extensive efforts, but calorimetry from steam pressure is here more accurate, because there is not involved unknown rate of escaping heat due to insufficient insulation. We can estimate the heat loss just by measuring the surface temperature of E-Cat. Very simple and accurate. This statement I take to be out of touch with reality. What should I call it? Fantasy seems like a nice word. What word would you recommend I use? Is it not easier to demand that MW power plant would run continuously producing it's own electricity 24 hours per day, and seven days per week and 52 weeks per year? No. It is reasonable to expect someone making claims which can cost investors thousands or millions of dollars to apply some effort to correct bad work before moving on to something so big that it is dangerous, very expensive, and very difficult to prove out with a test. Testing the small components (E-cats) makes much more sense. If the small components do not create free or nuclear energy then an aggregate of them can not produce free or nuclear energy. If the small units perform as expected as scientifically verified then the large unit can be expected to perform, except perhaps with operational and safety difficulties due to increased complexity and size. See how utterly out of context your pondring is here, because indeed, electricity production rate depends on only one thing and that is the pressure of steam MW E-Cat can provide. Sigh. Water can be sealed into an insulated box and massive temperatures and pressure built up with nominal energy. Using this approach with an E-cat is supposed to prove free energy?? This appears to be an assertion that is without any basis in fact. What would you like me to call that? The nicest word that comes to mind is fantasy. Calibration of instruments is of course necessary, but even more necessary is to use common sense. Also, instead of more insults, Could you be very specific as to what I said
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 20.09.2011 00:21, schrieb Joe Catania: Ok, Peter. What I'm saying is I've run into this kind of thing before. There was an electrical engineering professor on TheEEStory.com blog who thought a patent was invalid and falsified because it showed a fuse blowing at a current that (if it were DC) would be insufficient to melt the fuse. I still haven't convinced him that skin effect is the reason it blew. The most common problem is that people dont know much abou their measuring instruments and about the effects of crestfactor. If the amperemeter doesnt measure tue effective value, then the measurement is invalid. If the fuse has a resistance of R then the momentanoeous power consumed in the fuse is i^2*R If there is a crest factor of 10, that means 1ms current and 9 ms no current then the average power is P = R*i^2 /10. However, the average current is i_avg= i/10. Therefore the average power is not i_avg*U when we have a crest factor of 10 but it is much higher. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_factor Now the pitfalls are: Most cheap instrument measure the average and not the root mean square average. They display only for DC and for sinusoidal curves correctly because they are specially calibrated for it. The better instruments have so-called true RMS measurement. Most people dont know that in DC mode the average is measured and not the RMS. Often the AC RMS is measured wrong if there is an DC component. Most instruments are not made to measure unusual curveforms correctly. Any instrument has a limitation for the crestfactor and frequency. If these limits are exceeded they can display abstrusely wrong results. So with unusual non-sinoidal waveforms, high crestfactor or rectified DC, you get wrong results. You have to use a 2 channel oscilloscope or a very expensive precision meter and this must be made exactly for the purpose. (It is not sufficient to use expensive instruments, even these will display wrong if they are not made for the specific purpose. If you use the wrong instrument, you get wrong results) I dont believe the skin effect has much influence at frequencies below 100 kHz. If the frequency is higher, the inductivity and capacitance of the cables and resulting resonance transformation effects should have much more influence to the measurement than the skin effect) A good method to avoid errors in precision measurements is: Use two different measuring methods and two instruments that are from different vendors. If the results dont match, then you can be sure, there is an unknown error. Best, Peter He says that skin effect in the case of this fuse would be negligible but he does not calculate it correctly, One must take into account all the Fourier components in the pulse to get the proper effect. He only traets the fundamental and is thus mislead. But a sawtooth wave has harmonics that stretch theoretically to infinity. Although the amplitudes of these harmonics decrease as their frequency increases there is always the same net contribution to skin effect for each frequency decade. In theory the upper limit of frequency should only be limited by the electron plasma frequency. In other words, if there were no such limitation the series would diverge. This is a known property of the harmonic series (1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4...) which also diverges and is related tothe sawtooth Fourier components. Where is the paper mentioned? - Original Message - *From:* Peter Heckert mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2011 5:21 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:33, schrieb Joe Catania: Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less convincing than Steorn. Let me explain. All known rules about electricity and magnetism are compatible with energy conservation. It is therefore impossible to derive an extra energy mathematically, basing on /known/ electromagnetic effects like skin effect. There must be an energy source. I dont say that the effect is untrue. If it is true then it is not an electromagnetic effect. Possibly the Nickel core contains spurious Hydrogen atoms. Nickel is magnetostrictive. Possibly the AC induces magnetostrictive vibrations in the core or current in microscopic superconductive spots and triggers hydrogen Nickel fusion. The next locical thing to do would be to measure the frequency depency of the effect. Why didnt they do this? Or might they have done? Should I buy the paper? Tell me the price. Best, Peter - Original Message - *From:* Peter Heckert mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2011 4:29 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:22,
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:56 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. Joe, could you please explain why the water is ejected at such a high velocity instead of just dribbling out of the tap? On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Joe Catania wrote: One does not have to measure that it is open to the atmosphere since that is a valid datum. It is no assumption. Assuming it is under pressure is worthless. You did not observe pressure. What experience would you be talking about? Its incredible to me that there would be any significant pressure in something open to the atmosphere. That should be your experience. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote: The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal. That is an assumption, not a measurement. When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under significant pressure. That is an assumption on my part, but based on observation and experience. It should not be under that much pressure. The other end should be open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying out the hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is present. It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and pressure of the supply water (since we know for sure that is variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the relief valve. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote: Why do you think the device is under pressure? See end of: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/ article3264362.ece Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
At 01:41 AM 9/20/2011, Michele Comitini wrote: About multiple e-kittens in a box, question 2) from the exchange below on JONP: Alessandro Casali The 27MW e-cats are single core or do they have multiple cores? Andrea Rossi 2- multiple I missed that one! Now I really, really don't know how to get 120 to 130C 1 Bar superheated steam AND 50% fluid at the outlet.
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea yourself? There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how much gas it uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage the vehicle gets. The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles per gallon (21 km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per mile (0.142 km/liter). The problem is insufficient known variables. Your analog is perfect and i could come up better analogy myself. Here indeed is the key point of your misunderstanding. Idea is that we should measure the Prius' fuel consumption rate in different velocities. We can measure the fuel consumption rate for the velocities of 200 km/h, 150 km/h, 130 km/h, 100 km/h, 55 mph, 10 m/s, etc. Then we have enough data points to find best fitted function that expresses the relationship between fuel consumption and the speed. Then afterwards we can just measure the speed of Prius and we can find out the fuel consumption rate for any speed e.g. 70 km/h and also we can let Prius running overnight and then later examine from the speed logger how much fuel Prius consumed during the overnight run. You are just utterly mistaken here. Period. Please do not invent silly excuses, because you are just digging yourself even deeper into quick sand. You have mistaken and insulting me indirectly does not gain for you any further respect. It is irrelevant what words do you have for insulting. Only thing that matter is that how Lawrence perceives them. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle. If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip. One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Carbon Hydrogen Storage and Cold Fusion
Greetings Vortex, Not sure if this effect is useful for the new hydrogen cold fusion- LENR. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-method-inexpensive-carbon-materials-hydrogen.html Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea yourself? There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how much gas it uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage the vehicle gets. The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles per gallon (21 km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per mile (0.142 km/liter). The problem is insufficient known variables. Your analog is perfect and i could come up better analogy myself. Here indeed is the key point of your misunderstanding. Idea is that we should measure the Prius' fuel consumption rate in different velocities. We can measure the fuel consumption rate for the velocities of 200 km/h, 150 km/h, 130 km/h, 100 km/h, 55 mph, 10 m/s, etc. Then we have enough data points to find best fitted function that expresses the relationship between fuel consumption and the speed. Then afterwards we can just measure the speed of Prius and we can find out the fuel consumption rate for any speed e.g. 70 km/h and also we can let Prius running overnight and then later examine from the speed logger how much fuel Prius consumed during the overnight run. I am familiar with multivariate regression analysis. It is of comparatively little use when there are missing critical variables. Your approach will tell us nothing about the army tank. Best to simply *directly* measure the fuel consumption for each vehicle don't you think? That is the simple approach. Best to use standard methods to perform calorimetry directly on each E-cat output, and not rely on insufficient data, hidden instruments or guesses as to what is inside a black box. You are just utterly mistaken here. Period. My goodness, how unscientific. Please do not invent silly excuses, because you are just digging yourself even deeper into quick sand. You have mistaken and insulting me indirectly does not gain for you any further respect. It is irrelevant what words do you have for insulting. Only thing that matter is that how Lawrence perceives them. –Jouni Again, what specifically that I wrote do you find insulting? If what you have written appears to me to not be based in reality, am I not allowed to voice that opinion? If I think something is not based in reality is it an error to call it a fantasy? Is it insulting to you when I disagree with you? I think my conclusion was good: None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. Since the public is being kept in the dark, the months of fluffy bluster does, however, tip the scales more strongly toward a negative verdict. What a pity and waste of valuable time this is for Rossi if there really is something extraordinary going on in the E-cat. Hopefully the 1 MW unit test will provide economical steam for a very long period. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
My comment was specifically referring to the input side of the PLCs where power in is standard AC. As far as the frequency components present on the PWM side, it depends on the risetime of the pulse. The PWM signal from the PLC is most likely a squarewave, but at a relatively modest frequency (a few KHz). so depending on its risetime, it may indeed have some reasonable level of power in the harmonics. But ultimately, you cannot have more power in all the frequency components on the PWM side than is coming in on the AC side. -m From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Pulses cause significant skin effect because their Fourier components consist of high frequency harmonics. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint mailto:zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:08 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo [deleted] Thus the original question set: Q1) Does this uneven current flow (skin effect) translate to potentially uneven heating - even at equilibrium**? [deleted] R.L. From everything that I've read and experienced, the skin effect doesn't become significant until you are well into the kilohertz frequencies; certainly above Mhz. At the 50 or 60 Hz that is all modern AC power, I highly doubt that ANY skin effect is happening. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle. If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip. One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner: I think my conclusion was good: None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public discussions: In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo) There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2. This is mass flow calorimetry. There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy. So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick. Peter I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!) Do you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water flow to steam? I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not actually knowing the true flow rate at all times. Mattia Rizzi observed pump rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s. If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/ s, input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow heated to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated. All that is hard to know too because apparently Rossi touched the control panel. Manual adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is changing duty factors. This is one reason why a good kWh meter would be of use. A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much. Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy is meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques. Total energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the meaningful number. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle. If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip. One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo) There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2. This is mass flow calorimetry. There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy. So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick. Peter I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!) Do you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water flow to steam? Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I recalculated it and can confirm. Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because this is too simple to calculate. Look here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf At Page 2 they write: It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations. I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not actually knowing the true flow rate at all times. Mattia Rizzi observed pump rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s. Essen Kullander measured it with a carafe. (See page 1, chapter Calibrations). In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle. They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my life. ( I did electronics and computer servicing there) They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when accurate flow is required. This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible. If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/s, input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow heated to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated. All that is hard to know too because apparently Rossi touched the control panel. Manual adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is changing duty factors. This is one reason why a good kWh meter would be of use. Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The heater should be on some seconds and off some seconds. The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater. A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much. I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they watched carefully what was going on. Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy source and that there are no tricks, but I think in the Kullander and Essen demo we can be sure there was more energy than 300W. 600W would have been required to heat the water flow to 100° and some additional 100 Watts are needed to get reasonable steam and boiling. Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy is meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques. Total energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the meaningful number. Yes of course for a scientific publication test this is necessary, but not for a qualitative plausibility test. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I am familiar with multivariate regression analysis. It is of comparatively little use when there are missing critical variables. Therefore you must MEASURE the critical variables. ALL of them. This much I require common sense. Your approach will tell us nothing about the army tank. We are not interested about the tank, but only for the Prius. If we are going to studying the tank, we must make ALL appropriate measurements for the tank to establish proper correlation. This much I require common sense. Best to simply *directly* measure the fuel consumption for each vehicle don't you think? No it is not the best way, because we have big uncertainties for measuring fuel consumption in the long run. But we can measure the momentary fuel consumption very accurately. Up to two or three significant digits. Therefore we must use these short tests to establish correlation for steam pressure and total enthalpy. This is simplest method for doing long run tests such as 24 hour / 27 kW power output, what is just too high power level for any reasonable sub-boiling water calorimetry. 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner: I think my conclusion was good: None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public discussions: In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo) There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2. This is mass flow calorimetry. There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy. So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick. Peter I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!) Please review reports before you start trolling discussion with your misconceptions, because you are so [*censored*] that you do not need to bother to check MEASURED FACTS out. And to refresh your memory, in Krivit's demonstration first of all, it lasted about 15 minutes and there was not made any measurements expect electric current was measured. But that value was also useless, because voltage was not measured. Any any reasonable scientific discourse we ignore data that is based on non-measured allegations in favor of measured data. I admit that data could be better, but that is all we have. So, please, check at least facts before you are trolling the discussion. It seems that you derive all your opinions from Krivit's demonstration, but you fail to understand that that test is useless because there was not measured any values. Also in that time Rossi had already perfected new self-sustaining E-Cat. Perhaps this was the reason, why he did not show Krivit a working E-Cat, because that model was already obsolete. Rossi has only shown latest development versions of his E-Cat's in demonstrations. === Peter, sorry about that above message content but you are correct. We can calculate from the steam pressure, that KE's E-Cat was producing ca. 2 kW energy. As input was ca. 310 volts the COP was ca. 6.4x or something similar (uncertainties are quite high with that demonstration). This is what Rossi promised. Too bad that KE failed to measure the enthalpy more properly, e.g by doing several water trap and steam sparging tests. December test was most best suited. In that demonstration 1200 W electric heater heated E-Cat only ca. 20°C (I do not remember accurately) in 30 minutes. Later when excess heat production was kicked in, water temperature rose into 60°C just in five minutes or so. That means that total heating power was boosted by six fold more than electric input. And later of course E-Cat was running self-sustaining for 15 minutes. In December demonstration we had clearly the best data available, and from that data we can make calculations with at least one significant number. But I have several times told to Horace if he bothered to look up the report and see the data by himself, but he have refused to even look the data available. This kind of attitude is very sad from him. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: But I have several times told to Horace if he bothered to look up the report and see the data by himself, but he have refused to even look the data available. This kind of attitude is very sad from him. –Jouni Maybe not everybody has the time. I dont really have it, but I have taken it anyway ;-) It is also sad that Kullander Essen did not emphasize this. They tell this like an unimportant remark, but I think this is the most important fact. A proven COP of 2 is more important than a doubtful COP of 6. I also cannot understand why dont Rossi Levi emphasize and explain this. Please stay calm. I can understand him. I had (and have) my serious doubts about this and sometime I fear it is wasted time to go deep into this. Rossis answers in his forum are often unlogical or untrue or misleading and he contributes to this. Best regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
They state there is an auxillary heater. - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo) There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2. This is mass flow calorimetry. There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy. So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick. Peter I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!) Do you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water flow to steam? Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I recalculated it and can confirm. Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because this is too simple to calculate. Look here: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf At Page 2 they write: It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 10:36, I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations. I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not actually knowing the true flow rate at all times. Mattia Rizzi observed pump rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s. Essen Kullander measured it with a carafe. (See page 1, chapter Calibrations). In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle. They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my life. ( I did electronics and computer servicing there) They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when accurate flow is required. This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible. If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/s, input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow heated to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated. All that is hard to know too because apparently Rossi touched the control panel. Manual adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is changing duty factors. This is one reason why a good kWh meter would be of use. Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The heater should be on some seconds and off some seconds. The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater. A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much. I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they watched carefully what was going on. Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy source and that there are no tricks, but I think in the Kullander and Essen demo we can be sure there was more energy than 300W. 600W would have been required to heat the water flow to 100° and some additional 100 Watts are needed to get reasonable steam and boiling. Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy is meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques. Total energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the meaningful number. Yes of course for a scientific publication test this is necessary, but not for a qualitative plausibility test. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
The point is that a gallon empties very quickly even though not vented at the top. The sound it makes is immaterial and is most like caused by the water hitting the barrel. I don't know why you feel the water is under inordinate pressure. The E-CAt is open to the atmosphere unless Lewan seals the other valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting. Why not ask Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle. If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip. One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Really? - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner: I think my conclusion was good: None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public discussions: In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo) There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2. This is mass flow calorimetry. There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy. So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick. Peter
Re: [Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
From Jed-Storms; Jed, just so you are clear in your understanding, the response by the DOE has NO relationship to what the person who wrote the reply letter believes. He wrote the OFFICIAL policy of the organization. The official policy determines how the organization will respond to proposals and to questions. Investors and industry typically ask the DOE what they believe. If they say CF is nonsense, no money will be invested because the career of the person in the company making such a decision can be put in jeopardy. Therefore, official policy has a big influence on decisions throughout the system. The DOE, NASA, and the military have access to the same information yet they arrive at different official conclusions. Why do you think this is the case? The reason has no relationship to the evidence supporting CF claims or to personal beliefs within the organizations. The implication seems to be that person or organization that really wants to know if there is anything of value going on in CF research: DYOHW. (Do Your Own Home Work). It's easy for the cynical part of me to wonder of what value does DOE perform these days. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania: They state there is an auxillary heater. Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they should have reported this.
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly like the September test. Why shouldn't they be? - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania: They state there is an auxillary heater. Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they should have reported this.
[Vo]:'Inexhaustible' Source of Hydrogen
'Inexhaustible' Source of Hydrogen May Be Unlocked by Salt Water, Engineers Say http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110919151317.htm
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 22:19, schrieb Joe Catania: Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly like the September test. Why shouldn't they be? I dont want to convince anybody. I still have doubts myself. Im just pointing to remarkable aspects that was mostly overseen in public discussion. It is not my task to do thios. This is Rossis and Levis task and they failed badly. Let me tell you how a hoax could be done: Inside the chimmney is a solid state metal hydride storage system and a platin catalyzer that catalyzes hydrogen and oxygen. This could have the same thermal characteristic that was observed. Together with the errors of the steam measurement this could give the surplus energy. I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80 kg box my doubts are even increased. We should learn about this when it was tested in Upsala as promised. Best regards, Peter
RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Horace: The first thing I thought of when Joe used the word dribble was that he had not seen the video where they opened the water inlet valve on the bottom and a VERY strong stream of liquid water and steam came out! To refer to that as a dribble, is clearly the wrong adjective... forceful expulsion is much closer to an accurate decription. Joe: Perhaps you should go back and watch that video several times, and then look up the word 'dribble' to see if the definition accurately describes what you saw coming out of that valve... if so, then we're looking at wo different videos. -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle. If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip. One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-) I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania. Look at his question that no one bothered to answer: http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine? Maybe in a UFO! g T
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
2011/9/20 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de: I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80 kg box my doubts are even increased. Least thing what Rossi wants in this phase that people start to believe in his E-Cat. No, he has already gained too much publicity for his needs. The reason why he has refused to make proper demonstrations was that he wanted originally to go into publicity not sooner than October. Also he presented for Levi as good test opportunity as Levi can measure in order to make the research agreement with University of Bologna. I think that the for the conclusive Upsala test, the motivation is the same, that they are preparing for the research contract in similar manner as with Unibo. In all demonstrations, I think that Rossi have had definitive motivation for doing demonstrations. But unfortunately Rossi's motivation has never been seeking public attention with scientifically relevant tests (i.e. they are too short, although observers are also made bad and irrelevant measurements, so that the data is even vorse). Also, before Rossi has signed proper financial agreements (that were failed with Defkalion due to obvious reasons), Rossi does not need publicity into anything. The less people know about him, the more he has time to do what he wants to do. Anyway, I kind of like very much of Rossi's attitude. For me he is making very much of sense. Although some people find him difficult to understand. In my knowledge, only argument that support a fraud, is that E-Cat is far too good to be true. It is just wasting of time to try to rationalize criticism. There is just no evidence that would support E-Cat to be a fraud. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-) I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania. Look at his question that no one bothered to answer: http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine? Maybe in a UFO! g The first 'is' is 'in'. T (with no apologies to President Clinton :)
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
The screaming does not indicate high pressure. It could be a whistle effect as bubbles of steam are forming in the outlet. Why not experiment and see how fast a container drains through an outlet the size of the E-Cat's? - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
To ay the matter to rest I was not the one to use the word dribble. It was HH. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:41 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. Horace: The first thing I thought of when Joe used the word dribble was that he had not seen the video where they opened the water inlet valve on the bottom and a VERY strong stream of liquid water and steam came out! To refer to that as a dribble, is clearly the wrong adjective... forceful expulsion is much closer to an accurate decription. Joe: Perhaps you should go back and watch that video several times, and then look up the word 'dribble' to see if the definition accurately describes what you saw coming out of that valve... if so, then we're looking at wo different videos. -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water does not come dribbling out. Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle. If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip. One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain. Aha. We have a dribble quibble. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
That wasn't me. I've never posted to that site. But so what? Is that the best you can do? - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-) I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania. Look at his question that no one bothered to answer: http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine? Maybe in a UFO! g T
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 12:49 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: The point is that a gallon empties very quickly even though not vented at the top. The sound it makes is immaterial and is most like caused by the water hitting the barrel. I don't know why you feel the water is under inordinate pressure. The E-CAt is open to the atmosphere unless Lewan seals the other valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting. Why not ask Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? I just ran the calculations for draining a 30L eCat through a 0.25 cm radius tap. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php The drain-time says 2 Bars ! 6. Discharge at the EndI can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 118C water? 1 Bar or 2 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. It does appear to come out under pressure, and it does seem to flash to steam at the edge of the stream -- both supporting evidence for an internal pressure of 2 Bars. The video ends before the discharge is complete. Time to drain tank The drain is at a depth of 30 cm and 30 liters is to be drained (based on the dimensions of 60 x 50 x 30 cm). The radius of the outlet tap is about 0.25 cm. For atmospheric pressure (1 Bar) the time to drain is 1260.18 secs ( 21.00 min) For a pressure of 2 Bar we can ADD 33 feet of water to the tank height (draining from 33 feet + 30cm to 33 feet + 0 cm). The time to drain is then 108.02 secs ( 1.80 min) Although the video ended before the eCat was completely drained, the time shown on the video (6:44 to 8:05) -- or 1.83 minutes tends indicate 2 bars pressure, not 1 bar. The time to discharge, the fact that the flow did not diminish, and that the water seemed to flash into steam around the edge, all support the pressurized hypothesis. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 118C water would flash rapidly.
RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
What are the 2 extra wires(22) for ? Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:10:34 +0200 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania: They state there is an auxillary heater. Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they should have reported this. attachment: E-Cat_27-kW_module_300.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: 2011/9/20 Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de: I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80 kg box my doubts are even increased. Least thing what Rossi wants in this phase that people start to believe in his E-Cat. He is creating a community of uncritical believers in his forum, answering questions that have been asking a thousand times with stereotype nonexplaining answers. He wants believers that dont ask, that are not interested in technical understanding, that are somewhat naive and easy to handle and that are potential customers in future. Why else this forum ? Why does he take the time?
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Joe Catania wrote: They state there is an auxillary heater. Yes,the Essen reports states: At the end of the horizontal section there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of control.' Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:stopping
I have just lost about 50% (left side) of my left eye. It may be a retinal detachment. It seems to be coming back. I may not respond for a bit. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: [snip] A proven COP of 2 is more important than a doubtful COP of 6. [snip] Best regards, Peter So very true. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:stopping
At 02:24 PM 9/20/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: I have just lost about 50% (left side) of my left eye. It may be a retinal detachment. It seems to be coming back. I may not respond for a bit. Sorry to hear that good luck!
Re: [Vo]:stopping
+1 good luck 2011/9/20 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: At 02:24 PM 9/20/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: I have just lost about 50% (left side) of my left eye. It may be a retinal detachment. It seems to be coming back. I may not respond for a bit. Sorry to hear that good luck!
Re: [Vo]:stopping
Horace, Needless to say... call your doctor or optometrist right away. Could be a number of serious issues. Migraine, retinal detachment, mini-stroke. Don't wait. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
Clearly your calculations are a bit off. The running time on video is more like 1:20, still greater than drain time for 2 atm, showing there is less than 2atm pressure. But since we don't know for how long the draining continues we dont know how much less. Since the E-Cat is open to atmosphere (by report) we can assume the pressure is 1 atm. Also 1/4 cm seems a bit small for the orifice and drain time would seem to affected by height of water column. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat At 12:49 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: The point is that a gallon empties very quickly even though not vented at the top. The sound it makes is immaterial and is most like caused by the water hitting the barrel. I don't know why you feel the water is under inordinate pressure. The E-CAt is open to the atmosphere unless Lewan seals the other valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting. Why not ask Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank. Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference? I just ran the calculations for draining a 30L eCat through a 0.25 cm radius tap. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php The drain-time says 2 Bars ! 6. Discharge at the End I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 118C water? 1 Bar or 2 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. It does appear to come out under pressure, and it does seem to flash to steam at the edge of the stream -- both supporting evidence for an internal pressure of 2 Bars. The video ends before the discharge is complete. Time to drain tank The drain is at a depth of 30 cm and 30 liters is to be drained (based on the dimensions of 60 x 50 x 30 cm). The radius of the outlet tap is about 0.25 cm. For atmospheric pressure (1 Bar) the time to drain is 1260.18 secs ( 21.00 min) For a pressure of 2 Bar we can ADD 33 feet of water to the tank height (draining from 33 feet + 30cm to 33 feet + 0 cm). The time to drain is then 108.02 secs ( 1.80 min) Although the video ended before the eCat was completely drained, the time shown on the video (6:44 to 8:05) -- or 1.83 minutes tends indicate 2 bars pressure, not 1 bar. The time to discharge, the fact that the flow did not diminish, and that the water seemed to flash into steam around the edge, all support the pressurized hypothesis. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 118C water would flash rapidly.
Re: [Vo]:stopping
Best wishes for you! Am 20.09.2011 23:24, schrieb Horace Heffner: I have just lost about 50% (left side) of my left eye. It may be a retinal detachment. It seems to be coming back. I may not respond for a bit. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:stopping
Take some aspirin and see a doctor. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:stopping Horace, Needless to say... call your doctor or optometrist right away. Could be a number of serious issues. Migraine, retinal detachment, mini-stroke. Don't wait. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
Alan, excellent work again. Considering Akira's temperature graph, we can take that draining took about 5-7 min. In the beginning pressure was 210 kPa or 122°C. But it is needed to take into consideration, that valve was opened slowly. In the end of video, valve was only half open. http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png Therefore I think that we have now rather conclusive proof, that indeed, temperature gives us at least approximately the pressure inside E-Cat. It is not anymore just an assumption, but data supports the idea. –Jouni 2011/9/21 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: I just ran the calculations for draining a 30L eCat through a 0.25 cm radius tap. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php The drain-time says 2 Bars ! 6. Discharge at the End I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 118C water? 1 Bar or 2 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. It does appear to come out under pressure, and it does seem to flash to steam at the edge of the stream -- both supporting evidence for an internal pressure of 2 Bars. The video ends before the discharge is complete. Time to drain tank The drain is at a depth of 30 cm and 30 liters is to be drained (based on the dimensions of 60 x 50 x 30 cm). The radius of the outlet tap is about 0.25 cm. For atmospheric pressure (1 Bar) the time to drain is 1260.18 secs ( 21.00 min) For a pressure of 2 Bar we can ADD 33 feet of water to the tank height (draining from 33 feet + 30cm to 33 feet + 0 cm). The time to drain is then 108.02 secs ( 1.80 min) Although the video ended before the eCat was completely drained, the time shown on the video (6:44 to 8:05) -- or 1.83 minutes tends indicate 2 bars pressure, not 1 bar. The time to discharge, the fact that the flow did not diminish, and that the water seemed to flash into steam around the edge, all support the pressurized hypothesis. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 118C water would flash rapidly.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php I seem to have broken my file ... back soon!
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 02:56 PM 9/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php I seem to have broken my file ... back soon! It's back ... I added a table of draining time vs tap radius, and corrected the video time. I'm still open to revising my conclusion. (!!!)
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
BTW you should run those time-to-drain numbers again. The outlet looks like its about 2cm in diameter. The sound seems to be mostly water impacting on the side of the pail. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat At 02:56 PM 9/20/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php I seem to have broken my file ... back soon! It's back ... I added a table of draining time vs tap radius, and corrected the video time. I'm still open to revising my conclusion. (!!!)
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: Clearly your calculations are a bit off. The running time on video is more like 1:20, still greater than drain time for 2 atm, showing there is less than 2atm pressure. But since we don't know for how long the draining continues we dont know how much less. Since the E-Cat is open to atmosphere (by report) we can assume the pressure is 1 atm. Also 1/4 cm seems a bit small for the orifice and drain time would seem to affected by height of water column. I corrected the run time. The time to drain goes as 1/orifice_area * sqrt(column_height) 1/4 is the radius -- 1/2cm diameter At 02:50 PM 9/20/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Considering Akira's temperature graph, we can take that draining took about 5-7 min. That's about 23:15 to 23:22 Hmmm since the outlet is still open cool air will be sucked past the temperature probe, cooling it. When it's completely drained this flow will stop, and the thermal mass will cause the air to heat up again. Tank height 20 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 25.72 minTime 2 Bar 1.80 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 17.86 minTime 2 Bar 1.25 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 13.12 minTime 2 Bar 0.92 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 10.05 minTime 2 Bar 0.70 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 7.94 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 6.43 minTime 2 Bar 0.45 min Tank height 22.5 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 27.28 minTime 2 Bar 2.03 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 18.95 minTime 2 Bar 1.41 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 13.92 minTime 2 Bar 1.04 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 10.66 minTime 2 Bar 0.79 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 8.42 minTime 2 Bar 0.63 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 6.82 minTime 2 Bar 0.51 min Tank height 25 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 28.76 minTime 2 Bar 2.25 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 19.97 minTime 2 Bar 1.56 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 14.67 minTime 2 Bar 1.15 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.23 minTime 2 Bar 0.88 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 8.88 minTime 2 Bar 0.70 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.19 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min Tank height 27.5 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 30.16 minTime 2 Bar 2.48 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 20.95 minTime 2 Bar 1.72 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 15.39 minTime 2 Bar 1.26 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.78 minTime 2 Bar 0.97 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 9.31 minTime 2 Bar 0.76 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.54 minTime 2 Bar 0.62 min Tank height 30 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 31.50 minTime 2 Bar 2.70 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 21.88 minTime 2 Bar 1.88 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 16.07 minTime 2 Bar 1.38 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 12.31 minTime 2 Bar 1.05 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 9.72 minTime 2 Bar 0.83 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.88 minTime 2 Bar 0.68 min So ... pick a number (or two!) and draw your conclusions.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 03:36 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: BTW you should run those time-to-drain numbers again. The outlet looks like its about 2cm in diameter. The sound seems to be mostly water impacting on the side of the pail. Tank height 25 Radius 0.20Time 1 Bar 44.94 minTime 2 Bar 3.52 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 19.97 minTime 2 Bar 1.56 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.23 minTime 2 Bar 0.88 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.19 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min Radius 0.60Time 1 Bar 4.99 minTime 2 Bar 0.39 min Radius 0.70Time 1 Bar 3.67 minTime 2 Bar 0.29 min Radius 0.80Time 1 Bar 2.81 minTime 2 Bar 0.22 min Radius 0.90Time 1 Bar 2.22 minTime 2 Bar 0.17 min Radius 1.00Time 1 Bar 1.80 minTime 2 Bar 0.14 min 2cm diam is MUCH too quick.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
A 5-7 min draining time is completely consistent with 1 atm (ie no additional pressure). That represents a flow of ~50ml/s or a velocity of ~15cm/s which is ~ 1/66 of the velocity obtained from dropping for 1 sec in a gravity field. Since mgh=1/2mv^2, h= 1/2 (.15m/s)^2 /10ms^-2 or h=0.1125cm so the water only has to drop a 1/10 cm to gain enough KE to drain the tank at 50ml/s. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat Alan, excellent work again. Considering Akira's temperature graph, we can take that draining took about 5-7 min. In the beginning pressure was 210 kPa or 122°C. But it is needed to take into consideration, that valve was opened slowly. In the end of video, valve was only half open. http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png Therefore I think that we have now rather conclusive proof, that indeed, temperature gives us at least approximately the pressure inside E-Cat. It is not anymore just an assumption, but data supports the idea. –Jouni 2011/9/21 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: I just ran the calculations for draining a 30L eCat through a 0.25 cm radius tap. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_f.php The drain-time says 2 Bars ! 6. Discharge at the End I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 118C water? 1 Bar or 2 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. It does appear to come out under pressure, and it does seem to flash to steam at the edge of the stream -- both supporting evidence for an internal pressure of 2 Bars. The video ends before the discharge is complete. Time to drain tank The drain is at a depth of 30 cm and 30 liters is to be drained (based on the dimensions of 60 x 50 x 30 cm). The radius of the outlet tap is about 0.25 cm. For atmospheric pressure (1 Bar) the time to drain is 1260.18 secs ( 21.00 min) For a pressure of 2 Bar we can ADD 33 feet of water to the tank height (draining from 33 feet + 30cm to 33 feet + 0 cm). The time to drain is then 108.02 secs ( 1.80 min) Although the video ended before the eCat was completely drained, the time shown on the video (6:44 to 8:05) -- or 1.83 minutes tends indicate 2 bars pressure, not 1 bar. The time to discharge, the fact that the flow did not diminish, and that the water seemed to flash into steam around the edge, all support the pressurized hypothesis. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 118C water would flash rapidly.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
I can't agree w/ a diameter of 1 cm. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat At 02:33 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: Clearly your calculations are a bit off. The running time on video is more like 1:20, still greater than drain time for 2 atm, showing there is less than 2atm pressure. But since we don't know for how long the draining continues we dont know how much less. Since the E-Cat is open to atmosphere (by report) we can assume the pressure is 1 atm. Also 1/4 cm seems a bit small for the orifice and drain time would seem to affected by height of water column. I corrected the run time. The time to drain goes as 1/orifice_area * sqrt(column_height) 1/4 is the radius -- 1/2cm diameter At 02:50 PM 9/20/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Considering Akira's temperature graph, we can take that draining took about 5-7 min. That's about 23:15 to 23:22 Hmmm since the outlet is still open cool air will be sucked past the temperature probe, cooling it. When it's completely drained this flow will stop, and the thermal mass will cause the air to heat up again. Tank height 20 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 25.72 minTime 2 Bar 1.80 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 17.86 minTime 2 Bar 1.25 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 13.12 minTime 2 Bar 0.92 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 10.05 minTime 2 Bar 0.70 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 7.94 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 6.43 minTime 2 Bar 0.45 min Tank height 22.5 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 27.28 minTime 2 Bar 2.03 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 18.95 minTime 2 Bar 1.41 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 13.92 minTime 2 Bar 1.04 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 10.66 minTime 2 Bar 0.79 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 8.42 minTime 2 Bar 0.63 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 6.82 minTime 2 Bar 0.51 min Tank height 25 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 28.76 minTime 2 Bar 2.25 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 19.97 minTime 2 Bar 1.56 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 14.67 minTime 2 Bar 1.15 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.23 minTime 2 Bar 0.88 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 8.88 minTime 2 Bar 0.70 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.19 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min Tank height 27.5 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 30.16 minTime 2 Bar 2.48 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 20.95 minTime 2 Bar 1.72 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 15.39 minTime 2 Bar 1.26 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.78 minTime 2 Bar 0.97 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 9.31 minTime 2 Bar 0.76 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.54 minTime 2 Bar 0.62 min Tank height 30 Radius 0.25Time 1 Bar 31.50 minTime 2 Bar 2.70 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 21.88 minTime 2 Bar 1.88 min Radius 0.35Time 1 Bar 16.07 minTime 2 Bar 1.38 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 12.31 minTime 2 Bar 1.05 min Radius 0.45Time 1 Bar 9.72 minTime 2 Bar 0.83 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.88 minTime 2 Bar 0.68 min So ... pick a number (or two!) and draw your conclusions.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
But look at the size of the orifice in the video. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat At 03:36 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: BTW you should run those time-to-drain numbers again. The outlet looks like its about 2cm in diameter. The sound seems to be mostly water impacting on the side of the pail. Tank height 25 Radius 0.20Time 1 Bar 44.94 minTime 2 Bar 3.52 min Radius 0.30Time 1 Bar 19.97 minTime 2 Bar 1.56 min Radius 0.40Time 1 Bar 11.23 minTime 2 Bar 0.88 min Radius 0.50Time 1 Bar 7.19 minTime 2 Bar 0.56 min Radius 0.60Time 1 Bar 4.99 minTime 2 Bar 0.39 min Radius 0.70Time 1 Bar 3.67 minTime 2 Bar 0.29 min Radius 0.80Time 1 Bar 2.81 minTime 2 Bar 0.22 min Radius 0.90Time 1 Bar 2.22 minTime 2 Bar 0.17 min Radius 1.00Time 1 Bar 1.80 minTime 2 Bar 0.14 min 2cm diam is MUCH too quick.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
Have it your way. Still there is little pressure necessary. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat At 04:00 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: But look at the size of the orifice in the video. http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110920_sept_0007.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110920_sept_0009.jpg 1cm diameter, maximum.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
Standard pipes use inches as unit of measure. Should be one in the table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_Pipe_Size mic 2011/9/21 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com: Have it your way. Still there is little pressure necessary. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat At 04:00 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: But look at the size of the orifice in the video. http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110920_sept_0007.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110920_sept_0009.jpg 1cm diameter, maximum.
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
Hi, On 21-9-2011 1:25, Michele Comitini wrote: Standard pipes use inches as unit of measure. Should be one in the table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_Pipe_Size Not always according the following page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nennweite It says: Bei Kupferrohren wird der Außendurchmesser in mm (10; 12; 15; 18; 22; 28; 35; 42; 54; 64 usw.) angegeben. Die reale Nennweite beträgt dann bei 10-22 2 mm; bei 22-42 3 mm und bei 54+64 4 mm weniger Or in English: With Copper pipes is the Outer Diameter in mm (10; 12; 15; 18; 22; 28; 35; 42; 54; 64 etc.) listed. The actual Inner Diameter is then in case of OD 10-22 mm 2 mm less; in case of OD 22-42 mm 3 mm less and in case of OD 54 or 64 mm 4 mm less. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 04:19 PM 9/20/2011, Joe Catania wrote: Have it your way. We can't see inside the tap (or know what type it is), or if it's only partly open -- it is probably more constricted than the outlet. Still there is little pressure necessary. I put up the full table at : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_drain_g.php I was using 30 litres ... but the actual water volume was 25L (based on the time to fill the eCat), and it could be even less than that after it's been in operation. A draining time of 7 minutes fits 1 Bar better than 2 Bar.
RE: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
Alan wrote: We can't see inside the tap (or know what type it is), or if it's only partly open. By the looks of the orange handle on the valve, I'd say that this is the type of valve that uses only a 90degree turn of the handle to go from full shut to full open (ball valve). When the handle is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the pipe it is fully closed. When the handle it in-line with the pipe axis it is fully open. From the looks of it in the picture, the handle looks to be about 30 to 35 degs from the perpendicular, which is slightly less than half open. There's an excellent cutaway view of a ball valve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_valve -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Calculations for 1 MW plant. + Time to Drain the eCat
At 05:31 PM 9/20/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Alan wrote: We can't see inside the tap (or know what type it is), or if it's only partly open By the looks of the orange handle on the valve, Id say that this is the type of valve that uses only a 90degree turn of the handle to go from full shut to full open (ball valve). When the handle is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the pipe it is fully closed. When the handle it in-line with the pipe axis it is fully open. From the looks of it in the picture, the handle looks to be about 30 to 35 degs from the perpendicular, which is slightly less than half open You're right ... at 6:41 when the plumber goes to the tap it's perpendicular. But that means he opened it a bit more at 7:36.
Re: [Vo]:stopping
Ouch -- that sounds pretty scary. Best of luck, Horace!! I hope you have a quick and complete recovery! On 11-09-20 05:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: I have just lost about 50% (left side) of my left eye. It may be a retinal detachment. It seems to be coming back. I may not respond for a bit. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
