Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Hello. At http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat_collezione_C9.aspx you will find a collection of 120 images and at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL360E4122CB586EB7feature=viewall 20 short videoclips of the E-Cat test (2011, oct. 6). The collection is not for public purpose (despite a misunderstanding with Daniele Passerini): is my entire series of photos of the event. There are few technical images; videos show a bit more. I put it there to use if it can serve to clarify the details, if possible. Photographs and videos are small and in low resolution: if you need a high resolution please send your request to zreickATgmailDOTcom. On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Welcome Raymond! Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable to our discussions! 2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick zre...@gmail.com Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is my first message in this mailing list. @Alan I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) it doesn't show in any of the videos. peristaltic It is also in the Lewan's technical report. I have some pictures of the room where the test was done, I'll put them online (maybe tomorrow, but I'm not sure). === Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it http://www.focus.it
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Hi Robert, If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures. The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has. I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 11kg/hr. I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate for the October test.. Colin On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, What's the floor?: Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the sound, feel and relative temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine how much. This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts or 2.5 kw. Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Am 11.10.2011 16:01, schrieb Colin Hercus: Hi Robert, If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures. The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has. I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 11kg/hr. I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate for the October test.. Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 Colin On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, What's the floor?: Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the sound, feel and relative temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine how much. This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts or 2.5 kw. Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com mailto:a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com mailto:a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Pump capacity and pump stroke contradict 15 kg / hour. The observers twice collected the output, and it was .91 g/s during operation, and still under 2 g/s after it was sped up during quenching. See Robert Lynn's calculations below, with manufacturer and video reference, or just look at the Ny Teknik report for the measurements that were taken at the heat exchanger primary-side output. Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 11.10.2011 16:01, schrieb Colin Hercus: Hi Robert, If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours. So a scam is possible based on primary temperatures. The secondary heat exchanger showed temperature differences up to 8C which requires a power of ~8000W which is more than the 2436W that 0.9g/sec of steam at 124C has. I did note in the July test of the Big Cat they used a flow rate of 11kg/hr. I'd like to see some confirmation of the primary flow rate for the October test.. Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 Colin On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, What's the floor?: Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the sound, feel and relative temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine how much. This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts or 2.5 kw. Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com mailto:a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com mailto:a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down). I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it doesn't show in any of the videos.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Am 11.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down). It could be, the e-cat was throwing out water in chunks. Easy to imagine, if it boils. Then Lewans measurement is not representative. I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it doesn't show in any of the videos. The pump is specified in Lewans report. It has a maximum of 12 kg/h. This similar in an earlier demonstration. Possibly they exchanged the pump peristaltic hose, then it is possible.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 09:37 AM 10/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down). I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it doesn't show in any of the videos. Lewan's September results -- using the same fat-cat box (except Rossi said it contained multiple eCats) --- Flow 13 l/hour -- which isn't far off Rossi's reported 15 l/hour -- but WAY off Lewan's 0.9 g/s 13 or 15 l/hour would allow 9.4 or 10.8 kW of 1 bar 120 C superheated steam to reach the heat exchanger, and is in line with what was measured. Lewan's 0.9 g /s = 3.2 l/hr can only deliver 2.4 kW
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is my first message in this mailing list. @Alan I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) it doesn't show in any of the videos. peristaltic It is also in the Lewan's technical report. I have some pictures of the room where the test was done, I'll put them online (maybe tomorrow, but I'm not sure). === Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it http://www.focus.it
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 09:51 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 11.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down).It could be, the e-cat was throwing out water in chunks. Easy to imagine, if it boils. Then Lewans measurement is not representative. I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it doesn't show in any of the videos. The pump is specified in Lewans report. It has a maximum of 12 kg/h. This similar in an earlier demonstration. Possibly they exchanged the pump peristaltic hose, then it is possible. Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. It could be, the e-cat was throwing out water in chunks. Yes, we still have to explain the variability of the secondary output (Horace Heffner's slug hypothesis), which matches the 50% water 50% steam we had in September. Still ... the numbers just don't add up.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Welcome Raymond! Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable to our discussions! 2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick zre...@gmail.com Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is my first message in this mailing list. @Alan I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) it doesn't show in any of the videos. peristaltic It is also in the Lewan's technical report. I have some pictures of the room where the test was done, I'll put them online (maybe tomorrow, but I'm not sure). === Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it http://www.focus.it
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 10:13 AM 10/11/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: 2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick zre...@gmail.com Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is my first message in this mailing list. Welcome to Vortex ! Some of us are still trying to figure out what happened in the demonstration. It will be good to have first-hand information.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Hy Daniel. @Daniel Rocha Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable to our discussions! @Alan Fletcher Some of us are still trying to figure out what happened in the demonstration. It will be good to have first-hand information. Yes, but mine are only impressions. I have not collected technical data and those of Lewan (which I think has done a good job, painstaking and precise) are already subject to too many discussions. On the E-Cat test I'm working to post video interviews (thursday), videos of some details of the set-up unpackaged in the evening and a number of previously unpublished photo. === Raymond Zreick, Focus/Focus.it http://www.focus.it
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 10:26 AM 10/11/2011, Robert Lynn wrote: Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke. Somebody said 40 strokes a minute (it's audible in Lewan's video) ... which makes 1.33 g /sec (4.8 l/hr) - fairly close to Lewan's 0.9 And there's probably some back-pressure.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it right. They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling, they gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then logged every time water was added, and provided us a final weight. Water flow inlet Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 = 44452 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside the E-cat reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62 hours): 36021 grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03 hours (2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour. Total running time 100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours Total flow 100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to increasing flow at the end, they just turn the pump off. This begs the question if the September test had the pump running at full capacity. If so, the rate seen during Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN LOWER during the October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the pump was not running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that the increased the flow during quenching. Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the September test. Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to push through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then up into the drain, than the September test? If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to throw out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand? Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 10:59 AM 10/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 10:26 AM 10/11/2011, Robert Lynn wrote: Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke. Somebody said 40 strokes a minute (it's audible in Lewan's video) ... which makes 1.33 g /sec (4.8 l/hr) - fairly close to Lewan's 0.9 And there's probably some back-pressure. Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow dataRobert Lynn Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:18:34 -0700 During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
I'd say that this Demo has been totaly Rossied. ;) On 11 October 2011 19:02, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.comwrote: The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it right. They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling, they gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then logged every time water was added, and provided us a final weight. * Water flow inlet *Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 = 44452 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside the E-cat reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62 hours): 36021 grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03 hours (2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour. Total running time 100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours Total flow 100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to increasing flow at the end, they just turn the pump off. This begs the question if the September test had the pump running at full capacity. If so, the rate seen during Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN LOWER during the October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the pump was not running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that the increased the flow during quenching. Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the September test. Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to push through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then up into the drain, than the September test? If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to throw out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand? -- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
I forgot to mention. In the September test, before the pump was hooked up, they measure 15.8 kg/hr (4.38g/s) consumption. Once connected to the E-Cat, it dropped to 13.76 kg/hr (3.8g/s), then at boiling, it dropped to 11.08 kg/hr (3.07g/s). This is just to demonstrate that the pump does not have consistent performance in the presence of any resistance. For calculations, we cannot rely on this flow rate, because the September/October tests may not entirely correlate. In the Mats Lewan report, the output of the primary side of the heat exchanger was measured at onyl .91 g/s and 1.9 g/s (when turned up for quenching). As the heat exchanger was probably receiving a water/steam mix, though, even these measurements may be unreliable. From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0500 The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it right. They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling, they gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then logged every time water was added, and provided us a final weight. Water flow inlet Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 = 44452 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside the E-cat reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62 hours): 36021 grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03 hours (2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour. Total running time 100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours Total flow 100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to increasing flow at the end, they just turn the pump off. This begs the question if the September test had the pump running at full capacity. If so, the rate seen during Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN LOWER during the October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the pump was not running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that the increased the flow during quenching. Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the September test. Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to push through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then up into the drain, than the September test? If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to throw out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand? Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
And you don't know if the water level in the huge reactor reservoir is rising or falling. And you know that there are big problems with the secondary loop calorimetry not remotely matching the primary in the one instance (Mat's walk around video) where we know the primary power. Give up, Rossi has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory yet again. On 11 October 2011 19:16, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.comwrote: I forgot to mention. In the September test, before the pump was hooked up, they measure 15.8 kg/hr (4.38g/s) consumption. Once connected to the E-Cat, it dropped to 13.76 kg/hr (3.8g/s), then at boiling, it dropped to 11.08 kg/hr (3.07g/s). This is just to demonstrate that the pump does not have consistent performance in the presence of any resistance. For calculations, we cannot rely on this flow rate, because the September/October tests may not entirely correlate. In the Mats Lewan report, the output of the primary side of the heat exchanger was measured at onyl .91 g/s and 1.9 g/s (when turned up for quenching). As the heat exchanger was probably receiving a water/steam mix, though, even these measurements may be unreliable. -- From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0500 The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it right. They were filling the E-Cat from a reservoir, and after it was boiling, they gave us the net weight of water in the input reservoir at 21:07, then logged every time water was added, and provided us a final weight. * Water flow inlet *Added water during start up, from 18:30: 15640 + 9380 + 9473 + 9959 = 44452 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir when the temperature inside the E-cat reached 100°C at 21:07: 8431 grams. Consumed in 2:37 hours (2.62 hours): 36021 grams Flow during start-up: 13.76 kg/hour Added water from 21:07: 8431 + 10089 + 10460 + 6591 + 9960 = 45531 grams. Remaining in the inlet reservoir at 23:10: 22823 grams. Consumed in 2:03 hours (2.05 hours): 22708 grams Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour. Total running time 100°C: 2:05 (2.08) hours Total flow 100 degrees (from 21:05): 23.0 kg IMPORTANT: In the September test, there is no reference to increasing flow at the end, they just turn the pump off. This begs the question if the September test had the pump running at full capacity. If so, the rate seen during Septembers operation of 11.08 kg/hr (3.1 g/sec) would be EVEN LOWER during the October test. We know for a fact that the October test, the pump was not running at full capacity, because they specifically stated that the increased the flow during quenching. Obviously, the pump does not put out consistent pressure, as seen in the September test. Was it slowed down for the October test? Was it harder to push through the heat exchanger, across the floor, under the doormat, then up into the drain, than the September test? If the placement of the thermocouples on the heat exchanger cause us to throw out that temperature data, and the E-Cat calorimetry is plagued with phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand? -- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable. 12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6 kW recorded on the secondary. http://www.lmipumps.com/Files/lmi/Global/US-en/products/1713e.pdf If you know what the frequency is (the large thumping noise in all the videos about every second or so) then you can tell what the maximum flow rate is because the pump is only capable of deliverting 2ml per stroke.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher wrote: Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down). This is why you need instruments recording flow rates to a computer. The confusion is permanent. As I said, we shall not get to the bottom of things like this. How annoying! I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it doesn't show in any of the videos. The pump was shown in some of the videos. It is the same old pump piston type pump he has been using all along. It was pumping water from a large garbage can on the floor into the reactor. Whatever the flow rate was 4.17 or 0.9 . . . It seems the primary loop flow rate was about the same throughout the test. People have done spotchecks of the sound of the pump. Assuming this flow rate was stable, it looks to me like it took maybe two hours to fill the reactor when the test began. So that means, an hour after the heat after death began, cold water equal to half the volume of the reservoir would have flowed into it. That is not to say that of volume of exactly half the original hot water would be driven out. The cold water mixes as it comes in. It works like a US domestic water heater, where tap water water flows in as hot water flows out. In this case it would be like a water heater with the power turned off. You cannot replace half the volume of a water tank without the temperature falling. The temperature only falls; it cannot rise. Bear in mind also that the reactor was not that well insulated and the surface of it remained at roughly 80°C the entire four hours. Obviously it was radiating a great deal of heat. If the primary loop flow rate was increased, the secondary loop would get warmer for a while, but the flow of incoming Water would increase and the reservoir would get colder faster. There is absolutely no way you could have boiling continue in a reservoir for four hours while tap water flows in and replaces at least twice the volume of that reservoir. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 9, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: When you zoom in on the end of the sensor lead wire, where the frayed insulation is, you clearly see the bare metal thermocouple wires. And from the length of that section of lead wire (~1.5 to 2 inches), the most likely location for the actual TC was on one of the flat surfaces on the shiny steel nut. They probably laid it on one of the flats, and wrapped black tape around the circumference of that shiny nut, more or less covering the entire shiny surface. Horace, I doubt if they would have just assumed the insulation would hold the TC against the nut; I vaguely remember reading that ...the TCs were held tightly against the outer metal surface by tape. But then, that would be one less thing for us to get frustrated about! Can't have that, now can we... -Mark Well we can always figure out more to worry about! 8^) Putting a metal thermocouple up against a metal surface sounds like a prescription for variable but systematic error, depending on vibrations, touching the wire, humidity, etc. The steel nut can short out at least some some of the potential. This means requiring a high bias. However, if the short is removed or reduced, then the bias is too high. When playing with the bias in my spreadsheet I settled on 0.8°C. However, it looked as if only one bias was not sufficient to fit the numbers. In any case, it seems to me to be just bad technique. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was loaded and then unloaded, the temperature would have to drop! -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what loading or storing heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were stored in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about stored heat that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was loaded and then unloaded, the temperature would have to drop! -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what loading or storing heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were stored in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about stored heat that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises? Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the heck do you think heat storage is, anyway? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I already said there was heat storage. We are not contesting me here Jed and that's what is clear. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises? Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the heck do you think heat storage is, anyway? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises? Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the heck do you think heat storage is, anyway? - Jed If heat is energy, then it follows that heat storage is like any other form of energy storage. This is a false conclusion, but it engenders simple mathematical arguments to prove the eCat is not OU. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I just received a couple of iphone photos from an attendee (but I don't have permission to post them) which clearly shows that the thermocouple was attached to the nut near the center of the manifold. As best as I can tell, this lines up with the center of the connection to the heat exchanger. http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg I don't know whether the hole C penetrates the chamber. In any event, this puts the thermocouple only 2 cm away from the center-line, and the thickness of the top of the manifold looks to be about 1 cm. Of course, rulers haven't been invented yet, so these distances are estimates. (Sorry, Jed ... this problem won't go away.)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan J Fletcher wrote: In any event, this puts the thermocouple only 2 cm away from the center-line, and the thickness of the top of the manifold looks to be about 1 cm. Of course, rulers haven't been invented yet, so these distances are estimates. (Sorry, Jed ... this problem won't go away.) I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. Just throw away the thermocouple values, and look at it strictly as a record of performance. Assume the thermocouples recorded the average temperature between the cooling water and the steam pipe. That is approximation, but it is good enough. Based on the increases and decreases alone you can be sure there was anomalous heat. It might have been less than calculated from the temperature values but there was definitely anomalous heat lasting for hours and it was definitely boiling in the cell, so the details don't matter. At least, they don't matter to someone with Rossi's outlook. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
At 06:50 PM 10/9/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote: This analysis presumes that there is similar coupling of heat from the two streams. On the output (water) side the coupling is from water to brass, which is efficient. On the input (steam) side we have an unknown selection of any/all a) Superheated 120C (1 bar) steam (efficient) b) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) vapour (inefficient) c) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) fluid (efficient) which have a different coupling coefficient to brass (I can't think of the technical term),which limits the heat transfer from one side to the other. In a circuit simulation like Spice I could use a current source (= heat) rather than a voltage source (= temperature). The coupling coefficient term is convection heat transfer coefficient http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficient-d_434.html 1 / U A = 1 / h1 A1 + dxw / k A + 1 / h2 A2 (1)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. Well, mainly qualitative. However, you can make a reasonable minimum or worst-case estimate of the power. You can draw some lines and be sure the heat did not go below them. Look at things such as the surface temperature of the reactor, the fact that the boiling could be heard, in the worst-case scenario about where the temperature probe might be placed. There is no doubt that the reactor was producing kilowatts during the four-hour heat after death event. If that had only been 150 W of excess heat, let's say, there is no way the surface of the reactor would be palpably hot, given all the heat that the flow of water can remove. Also look at the response during the initial phase when there was 2.8 kW of electric power being input. I think it is almost certain there was excess power during this segment. Maybe not as much as shown here, given the low likely recovery rate, but there must have been some. If there was no excess power Rossi would never have turned off the input power, and the reactor would not have taken off like a rocket with heat after death. If there had been a balance of input and output during that segment, that would mean no reaction is taking place. In that case, the moment they turned off the input power the temperature would have dropped straight down monotonically. In the worst case you can assume there was close to a balance during the initial segment, so output was ~2.8 kW * ~70% recovery rate, or roughly 2 kW, instead of ~3 kW. You can see that output went much higher during the first two hours of heat after death. The graph shows it was around 5.5 kW. Adjusting for the no-heat-during-startup scenario fudge factor that would be ~3.3 kW. That is still very substantial. There is no way that is not anomalous. As I said, I'm sure there was excess heat during the startup phase, meaning it had to be over 2.8 kW. You never have H.A.D. without excess beforehand. What I do not know is the recovery rate and the fudge factor that may be needed because the outlet TC may have been too close to the steam pipe. That is a lot of uncertainty, but not unlimited total uncertainty. You can make a reasonable estimate of these things. You know that a recovery rate of 30% would be ridiculous, as would 95%. 70% is a reasonable estimate. If you look carefully you can probably find some data to estimate it with more confidence. You know what the average temperature of the heat exchanger should be given the volume of steam and cold tap water. I do not think the outlet thermocouple could be any higher than the average temperature. I expect it is lower. Even though the TC is close to the steam pipe, mostly it is picking up the water pipe temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
For what it's worth, here are crops of the thermistors, heat exchanger and manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg Diagram : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 12:16 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:08 Hydrogen pressure was eliminated. Flow from peristaltic pump increased. All electric power switched off. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg 18:57 0.91 g/sec correlates with a minimum of the power -- 3500 W 19:22 1.92 g/sec correlates to a peak of power -- nearly 6000 W
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Rossi could give us the answer as to how much the secondary outlet thermocouple was biased in 1/2 hour with a jug of boiling water and a cold water supply. But his ego would never allow him to. On 10 October 2011 20:58, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: For what it's worth, here are crops of the thermistors, heat exchanger and manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_1_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_2_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_3_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_4_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg Diagram : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**manifold_001_h1200.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). Better than that, Lewan reports the cumulative flow, which is easier to read with confidence from this meter. He wrote: *Calibration water flow, secondary circuit:* Water flow was started about 11:00. Water was filled into a one liter measure, time was measured and the water weighed. 1035 g in 6.06 seconds gives 171 g/s. 1007 g in 5.97 seconds gives 169 g/s. Similar measurements during the test confirmed these values Using the flow meter attached to the heat exchanger the time for 10 liters was measured several times during the test and found to be between 58.1 and 54.4 seconds, giving a flow between 183 and 172 g/s. The total flow from 11:57 until 19:03 was 4554.3 liters, giving an average flow of 178 g/s or 641 liters/h. I am confident the flow rate was stable and it was at the reported rates. The inlet temperature is also firmly established, and it was stable. The only open question is the outlet temperature. Was it affected by the steam pipe, and if so how much? When I said you will never get to the bottom of this I meant you cannot answer those two questions with confidence. There is probably not enough information in the report to determine these things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Look closer at this one: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png Let me give you a scenario. There is some back pressure on the E-Cat, so boiling temperature rises as high as 124 degrees. Note: This is in the believer's favor. If atmospheric pressure is lower, then the boiling point is lower, and even less power is required for 124 degree steam (because the specific heat of steam is lower). In 6 hours of operation, 19.656 kg of water flows through the E-Cat. (.91 g/s x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 6 hours) To raise all of the water from 24 degrees to 124 degrees, would take 1,965.6 kcal (19.656 kg x 100C) To vaporize all of the incoming water, 10,614.24 kcal (540 cal/g x 19.656 kg) This is 12,579.84 kcal over 6 hours, or 2,096,640 cal/hr, which is 2,436 Watts 2,436 Watts would completely vaporize the input water, and over that would deplete the water collected in the E-Cat. If we could actually rely on the E-Cat performance data, before this test was over, the E-Cat would have been bone-dry, and the steam should have been climbing to ever-higher temperatures. Please, anyone, tell me where this logic is flawed. Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:58:16 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data At 12:16 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:08 Hydrogen pressure was eliminated. Flow from peristaltic pump increased. All electric power switched off. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg 18:57 0.91 g/sec correlates with a minimum of the power -- 3500 W 19:22 1.92 g/sec correlates to a peak of power -- nearly 6000 W
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 02:15 PM 10/10/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Look closer at this one: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png Let me give you a scenario. There is some back pressure on the E-Cat, so boiling temperature rises as high as 124 degrees. Note: This is in the believer's favor. If atmospheric pressure is lower, then the boiling point is lower, and even less power is required for 124 degree steam (because the specific heat of steam is lower). In 6 hours of operation, 19.656 kg of water flows through the E-Cat. (.91 g/s x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 6 hours) To raise all of the water from 24 degrees to 124 degrees, would take 1,965.6 kcal (19.656 kg x 100C) To vaporize all of the incoming water, 10,614.24 kcal (540 cal/g x 19.656 kg) This is 12,579.84 kcal over 6 hours, or 2,096,640 cal/hr, which is 2,436 Watts 2,436 Watts would completely vaporize the input water, and over that would deplete the water collected in the E-Cat. If we could actually rely on the E-Cat performance data, before this test was over, the E-Cat would have been bone-dry, and the steam should have been climbing to ever-higher temperatures. Please, anyone, tell me where this logic is flawed. I've set this calculation up for 1 hour : http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plotever=cefzx0=0efzy0=0efzx9=9efzy9=9esl=1epbr=1enm=Oct+6++--+Input+Power+onlyedh=1edm=0eds=0eif=3.27eip=2.5ecp=0.06eop=2.5eoxr=1et0=20ep0=1et1=15ep2=1er2=2 For the input-power-only phase, 1 bar, with 0.9 g/sec and 2.5kW -- should get 170 C superheated steam ! (Doesn't make much difference if it's 1 bar or 2) If you double the flow, at 2 bars then you get quality 0.5 120 C steam from input power only. http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plotever=cefzx0=0efzy0=0efzx9=9efzy9=9esl=1epbr=1enm=Oct+6++--+Input+Power+onlyedh=1edm=0eds=0eif=6.5eip=2.5ecp=0.06eop=2.5eoxr=1et0=20ep0=1et1=15et2=120er2=1
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher wrote: The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. Oh yes. You are right. I was confused. Of course the secondary flow is the important one in this case. Although it sure would have been nice to know the primary one. Do you know what would have been nice? If he has recorded all the damn flow rates and temperatures electronically on a single computer, with uniform time stamps. You know what I mean? The way anyone else would have after 1980 for crying out loud. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
The double flow was recorded after they began trying to quench the reaction. Increasing the flow rate was specifically mentioned before that second measurement, and everyone previously lauded the pump for it's accuracy during previous demonstrations. Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
At 12:58 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: For what it's worth, here are crops of the thermistors, heat exchanger and manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg Diagram : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg I just heard back from my source ... NO, the thermistor was NOT attached to that nut. It was where we agreed http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1B_crop.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, What's the floor?: Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the sound, feel and relative temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine how much. This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts or 2.5 kw. Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
The Italian rcde.it video shows that the primary loop water came out of a large plastic garbage can parked next to the pump. It is a shame they did not weigh the garbage can before and after. That would have given the total amount pumped through. It may not all have been vaporized . . . That video may allow you to count the strokes of the pump. It is 14:38 long. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C . . . Lewan already said this in his report. It is not clear that was the max flow rate, or that it did not change. The secondary loop flow rate did not change. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Let's see ... The total length of that section looks to be about 10 cm. Let's apply your resistor calculation. As a first approximation, consider only the shortest path from the thermistor to the fluid. Vin = 100 (Voltage :: Temperature) Steam Vout = 30 : Output of heat exchanger. The resistance is proportional to the length of brass between the thermistor and the heat source. For the steam output .. the closest it gets to the thermistor is about 5 cm (half the total length) For the heat exchanger it's the thickness of the tube .. say 0.2 cm We have a loop of Vin -- Rin -- Rout -- Vout (Kirchoff) and V = IR (good old ohm) Since Vin and Vout oppose, V = Vin - Vout = 100 - 30 = 70 Rin and Rout are in series, and their resistance is proportional to distance ... arbitrarily 1 ohm/cm. (The actual resistivity/thermal conduction would just cancel out). R = Rin + Rout = 5 + 0.2 = 5.2 I = V/R = 70 / (Rin + Rout) = 13.5 (I'm rounding all values off a spreadsheet) Then we can calculate the voltage (temp) drop across Rout -- Vdrop -- which is the error due to heat conduction from the steam input. Vdrop = I * Rout = 70 * Rout / ( Rin + Rout) = 70 * 0.2 / (5 + 0.2 ) = 2.7 Since the measured drop across the heat exchanger was about 6 C, that's a bit close for comfort. I suspect that if you actually did a 2D or 3D FEM calculation would come out a LOT smaller. - Original Message - Attached is a jpg of the fitting for the hot end of the Rossi heat exchanger. The finger points to where the Tout themocouple was located. The other side of this big brass fitting was the entry point for the steam/water from the E-cat. You can see white streak marks on the tape both sides of the fitting. I wonder if those are footprints of the thermocouples used. Best regards, Horace Heffner [image/jpeg:Tout.jpg]
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I think that the sensor is under the black tape near the END of the pipe -- you can see the wire going under it -- which I estimated as 5 cm from the center. I did my calculation before you posted that ... if Mario Masso used HIS sensor position that would increase the calculated error. - Original Message - Two more pictures of the thermocouple (from user agoz on 22passi blog) http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg Another user on 22passi (Mario Massa) computed that the thermocouple in that position could give a reading as higher as 5 deg C more then the water temperature (given the thermal resistance of brass and of the contact surface water-brass )
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan: Thx for doing the calcs... I too saw the TC lead wires going under the black tape which is on the fitting where they push on the flexible hose. However, if you look closely, the lead wires continue for at least another 2 inches after the black tape, so I think the actual TC was mounted closer to the center of the heat exchanger manifold. Jed, can you contact Mats, and include the pic being referred to, and see if he can locate exactly where the Tout TC was mounted??? -m -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting I think that the sensor is under the black tape near the END of the pipe -- you can see the wire going under it -- which I estimated as 5 cm from the center. I did my calculation before you posted that ... if Mario Masso used HIS sensor position that would increase the calculated error. - Original Message - Two more pictures of the thermocouple (from user agoz on 22passi blog) http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg Another user on 22passi (Mario Massa) computed that the thermocouple in that position could give a reading as higher as 5 deg C more then the water temperature (given the thermal resistance of brass and of the contact surface water-brass )
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 8, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Alan: Thx for doing the calcs... I too saw the TC lead wires going under the black tape which is on the fitting where they push on the flexible hose. However, if you look closely, the lead wires continue for at least another 2 inches after the black tape, so I think the actual TC was mounted closer to the center of the heat exchanger manifold. Jed, can you contact Mats, and include the pic being referred to, and see if he can locate exactly where the Tout TC was mounted??? -m Mark, In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it. inline: Tout.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
That's terrible, then. The thermistor is (my eye) 2.5 cm from the closest point of the incoming steam line (the center of the block) through solid brass. My 2-resistor calculation then gives a 5V (5C) offset. (I couldn't find the 22passi link). I tried a triangular resistor mesh with 21 elements (a crude approximation of a tube with a 0.2cm wall thickness) and it gets even worse, not better ... 10V/10C. I'll have to double-check my methodology, but I think I'm doing it right. I might try to simulate a rectangular mesh (Spice or Elmer) -- but I'm short on time for a couple of weeks. - Original Message - In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it. Horace Heffner
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Thx for posting that pic... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 1:33 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Mark, In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:58 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: Let's see ... The total length of that section looks to be about 10 cm. Let's apply your resistor calculation. As a first approximation, consider only the shortest path from the thermistor to the fluid. Vin = 100 (Voltage :: Temperature) Steam Vout = 30 : Output of heat exchanger. The resistance is proportional to the length of brass between the thermistor and the heat source. For the steam output .. the closest it gets to the thermistor is about 5 cm (half the total length) For the heat exchanger it's the thickness of the tube .. say 0.2 cm On this we may disagree significantly. Take a look at the photos kindly provided by Enzo: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg The central brass fitting is very thick. Given the hose ID is about 1.5 cm I would guess over a cm thick. It appears the thermocouple was placed not far from it. The intermediate section looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick From the location of the tape, and the protruding thermocouple, in: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg it looks like the thermocouple may have been taped to the intermediate section and oriented axially toward the large steel nut. We have a loop of Vin -- Rin -- Rout -- Vout (Kirchoff) and V = IR (good old ohm) This is the equivalent of a simple voltage divider. I would have drawn it like so: Tw -- Rin -- Tout - Rout -- Thot where Tw is the *actual* secondary loop (cooling water) exit temperature, Thot is the actual steam/water temperature at the primary circuit entry to the heat exchanger, and Tout is the thermocouple location. Tout is the equivalent of a voltage probe, and Tw and Thot are equivalent to a low and high voltage respectively. Rin and Rout are the equivalent to resistors of course. The temperature Tout is thus given by: Tout = Tw + Rin/(Rin+Rout)*(Thot-Tw) and the error Terr is: Terr = Tout - Tw = Rin/(Rin+Rout)*(Thot-Tw) Which is essentially your formula below. The analog of current need not be calculated. At any rate, we seem to be in good agreement on this part. Now I wonder if it is even that relevant. If you look at: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg You can see the thermocouple wire is still taped at its base. You can see it probably extends to about the location of the steel nut. It appears it rested right on the middle sized fitting, which looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick. However, I wonder how relevant that is. If you look at: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg you can see the piece of tape is back a bit from the tip of the thermocouple. It thus can not direct significant force on the thermocouple. Besides, the thermocouple is round, the brass fitting is round, so the surface contact should not be very good. If this is all true then the temperature the thermocouple is sensing is largely the air temperature at that location under the silicon wool. Since Vin and Vout oppose, V = Vin - Vout = 100 - 30 = 70 Rin and Rout are in series, and their resistance is proportional to distance ... arbitrarily 1 ohm/cm. (The actual resistivity/thermal conduction would just cancel out). R = Rin + Rout = 5 + 0.2 = 5.2 I = V/R = 70 / (Rin + Rout) = 13.5 (I'm rounding all values off a spreadsheet) Then we can calculate the voltage (temp) drop across Rout -- Vdrop -- which is the error due to heat conduction from the steam input. Vdrop = I * Rout = 70 * Rout / ( Rin + Rout) = 70 * 0.2 / (5 + 0.2 ) = 2.7 This is essentially the same method I posted earlier, except I did not calculate an analog to current. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Here it is again: At the heat exchanger side of things, a similar formula applies, but the water does not even have to be 100°C, merely hot enough to obtain a small delta T to the Tout temperature. If we designate Thot to be the temperature of the water arriving at the steam/hot water entry port, then there is some composite thermal resistance R1 from the Tout water to the Tout thermocouple, and a similar thermal resistance R2 to the Thot water/steam, then the thermocouple will be at a temperature of 24°C + (R2/(R1+R2)*100°C. To get an 8°C difference all is needed is for r=(R2/(R1+R2)) to satisfy: r * (100°C-24°C) = 8°C r = 8/76 = 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In your equation above I would use 0.75 instead of 0.2 here, based on the photos. This gives an r of 0.13 and: Vdrop = 70 * 0.75 / (5 + 0.75 ) = 9.1 °C which is in the ball park. However we don't know the effect of the large fitting on the air temperature under the silicon wool blanket there, or the magnitude of the effect of air temperature on the thermocouple there. Since the measured drop across the heat exchanger was about 6 C, that's a bit close for comfort. I suspect that if
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 8, 2011, at 10:39 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Alan: Thx for doing the calcs... I too saw the TC lead wires going under the black tape which is on the fitting where they push on the flexible hose. However, if you look closely, the lead wires continue for at least another 2 inches after the black tape, so I think the actual TC was mounted closer to the center of the heat exchanger manifold. Jed, can you contact Mats, and include the pic being referred to, and see if he can locate exactly where the Tout TC was mounted??? -m Mark, In the video Rossi points to the spot. Attached is a clip showing where he pointed. Not very definitive, but pretty close to the top of nut I would say, right where the wire length puts it. inline: Tout.jpg Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Let's see ... The total length of that section looks to be about 10 cm. Let's apply your resistor calculation. As a first approximation, consider only the shortest path from the thermistor to the fluid. Vin = 100 (Voltage :: Temperature) Steam Vout = 30 : Output of heat exchanger. The resistance is proportional to the length of brass between the thermistor and the heat source. For the steam output .. the closest it gets to the thermistor is about 5 cm (half the total length) For the heat exchanger it's the thickness of the tube .. say 0.2 cm On this we may disagree significantly. Take a look at the photos kindly provided by Enzo: http://www.redmatica.com/**media/Thermo1.jpghttp://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/**media/Thermo2.jpghttp://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg The central brass fitting is very thick. Given the hose ID is about 1.5 cm I would guess over a cm thick. It appears the thermocouple was placed not far from it. The intermediate section looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick From the location of the tape, and the protruding thermocouple, in: . . . Okay TIME OUT. Stop worrying about this. Forget about the damned thermocouples altogether. Pretend they were not there. Stop obsessing over small technical details and Look At The Facts: When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the surface was around 80 deg C. Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The surface was still 80 deg C. Whether the thermocouples were properly placed or in the wrong places altogether, all of them still showed elevated temperatures. This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went through the heat exchanger. Deal with that! Explain it. You know perfectly well that if no heat had been generated inside, every temperature sensor would have equaled ambient air or the tap water temperature soon after the power was turned off. You can see that from the decay curve after the power finally went off. There was a tremendous flow of water going through. What else could happen?!? Forget all about the cooling water outlet thermocouple. Or, if you like, assume that it was placed as badly as it could be, so that it picked up the steam temperature and the air temperature more than the cooling water. Question: what temperature would it be 1 hour after the power is turned off? 25 deg C. What would it be 2 hours later? 25 deg C. Four hours later? 25 deg C. ALL THE OTHER SENSORS WOULD ALSO BE AT 25 deg C. They are not. Lewan would have put his hand on the reactor and find it is stone cold. He would hear no boiling. That is not what happened. Deal with the irrefutable first-principle physical evidence that you have in abundance, and stop fretting about details you do not have and will not get. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Horace Heffner - Original Message - On this we may disagree significantly. Take a look at the photos kindly provided by Enzo: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg The central brass fitting is very thick. Given the hose ID is about 1.5 cm I would guess over a cm thick. It appears the thermocouple was placed not far from it. The intermediate section looks to be at least 0.75 cm thick From the location of the tape, and the protruding thermocouple, in: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg it looks like the thermocouple may have been taped to the intermediate section and oriented axially toward the large steel nut. I'm not vested in the dimensions. Taking the tube as 0.75 cm thick, and the distance from the center-line as 2.5 cm I calculate the temperature error (100C to 30C) as 16 C --- and the 2-resistor and 20-resistor triangular mesh agree to 0.7 This is VERY worrisome. This is essentially the same method I posted earlier, except I did not calculate an analog to current. We're using the same equations, but you were (I think) using the observed temperature difference to calculate R, and I am using the dimensions to calculate R and from that, the temperature difference. This analysis presumes that there is similar coupling of heat from the two streams. On the output (water) side the coupling is from water to brass, which is efficient. On the input (steam) side we have an unknown selection of any/all a) Superheated 120C (1 bar) steam (efficient) b) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) vapour (inefficient) c) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) fluid (efficient) which have a different coupling coefficient to brass (I can't think of the technical term),which limits the heat transfer from one side to the other. In a circuit simulation like Spice I could use a current source (= heat) rather than a voltage source (= temperature). In the absence of any new information (eCat flow) I'm inclined to go with the output from Lewan's Sept experiment -- 50% vapour, 50% fluid -- supported by your slug hypothesis -- which means that the coupling is the same on both sides (water-to-brass) and the resistor-model is valid. The specific heat (if needed) can be modeled with capacitors, but I'm only considering the DC solution. Rossi put the cold thermistor as far from the heat exchanger as it could go, and the hot thermistor very close to the steam inlet. Carelessness (or couldn't-care-less-ness)? Or . ? I have to say that my trust level is decreasing. [ This was posted while doing three things at once ... (Rossi's gum-chewing?) ... so I hope it's what I meant. ]
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
When you zoom in on the end of the sensor lead wire, where the frayed insulation is, you clearly see the bare metal thermocouple wires. And from the length of that section of lead wire (~1.5 to 2 inches), the most likely location for the actual TC was on one of the flat surfaces on the shiny steel nut. They probably laid it on one of the flats, and wrapped black tape around the circumference of that shiny nut, more or less covering the entire shiny surface. Horace, I doubt if they would have just assumed the insulation would hold the TC against the nut; I vaguely remember reading that ...the TCs were held tightly against the outer metal surface by tape. But then, that would be one less thing for us to get frustrated about! Can't have that, now can we... -Mark -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 5:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting On Oct 8, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Alan Fletcher wrote: I think that the sensor is under the black tape near the END of the pipe -- you can see the wire going under it -- which I estimated as 5 cm from the center. That tape is not on the the sensor per se but on a wire leading to the sensor. The wire looks to be long enough to make it to the steel nut. Look again at http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg The red arrow points to the tip of the thermocouple I think. There appears to be some frayed insulation pealed back near there. It looks like a bug. The thermocouple protrudes to the left of that. The sensor appears to have a clear tape on it, like Scotch tape, but back from the tip, and way forward from the black tape. In: http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg you can see that there is enough room for the sensor to extend out over the top of the big steel nut. You might have to blow up the section next to the red arrow to see the sensor tip. I have attached a clip of the sensor tip in which you can see the nut at the bottom and the red arrow tip at the left. The stuff to the bottom of the sensor, bottom left of photo, looks like either Scotch tape or frayed insulation.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
- Jed wrote ... - Original Message - Okay TIME OUT. Stop worrying about this. Forget about the damned thermocouples altogether. Pretend they were not there. Stop obsessing over small technical details and Look At The Facts: When the power went off, the reactor was boiling inside and the surface was around 80 deg C. Nearly 4 hours later, the reactor was still boiling inside. The surface was still 80 deg C. Whether the thermocouples were properly placed or in the wrong places altogether, all of them still showed elevated temperatures. This was after 2.4 tons of cooling water went through the heat exchanger. Deal with that! Explain it. You know perfectly well that if no heat had been generated inside, every temperature sensor would have equaled ambient air or the tap water temperature soon after the power was turned off. You can see that from the decay curve after the power finally went off. There was a tremendous flow of water going through. What else could happen?!? A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. Forget all about the cooling water outlet thermocouple. Or, if you like, assume that it was placed as badly as it could be, so that it picked up the steam temperature and the air temperature more than the cooling water. Question: what temperature would it be 1 hour after the power is turned off? 25 deg C. What would it be 2 hours later? 25 deg C. Four hours later? 25 deg C. ALL THE OTHER SENSORS WOULD ALSO BE AT 25 deg C. They are not. Lewan would have put his hand on the reactor and find it is stone cold. He would hear no boiling. That is not what happened. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. Deal with the irrefutable first-principle physical evidence that you have in abundance, and stop fretting about details you do not have and will not get. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was loaded and then unloaded, *the temperature would have to drop*! -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what loading or storing heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were stored in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about stored heat that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I wrote: You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. Meant: . . . and to make the insulated reactor surface HOT. The whole box, in fact. A 6 surfaces. You can't do that with a tiny amount of boiling water inside. That takes kilowatts of heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
A thermal imaging camera would have made this visually clear to people who were not present and could not feel heat. Maybe bring one or a few such cameras to the next test? Harry On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. Meant: . . . and to make the insulated reactor surface HOT. The whole box, in fact. A 6 surfaces. You can't do that with a tiny amount of boiling water inside. That takes kilowatts of heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I saw it in the video, but this JPEG makes it even more obvious. Thanks for the upload. You've got 120+ degrees (allegedly) on one side, and a couple inches away less than 30 degrees. A few degrees of heat transfer is lauded as conclusive, irrefutable evidence of a multi-kilowatt cold fusion reactor? Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Attached is a jpg of the fitting for the hot end of the Rossi heat exchanger. The finger points to where the Tout themocouple was located. The other side of this big brass fitting was the entry point for the steam/water from the E-cat. You can see white streak marks on the tape both sides of the fitting. I wonder if those are footprints of the thermocouples used. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I saw it in the video, but this JPEG makes it even more obvious. Thanks for the upload. You've got 120+ degrees (allegedly) on one side . . . Why do you say allegedly? It was boiling in the cell. It has be over 100 deg C. Add some backpressure from the heat exchanger and it will reach 120 deg C. That's not an allegation, it is first principle physics. , and a couple inches away less than 30 degrees. A few degrees of heat transfer is lauded as conclusive, irrefutable evidence of a multi-kilowatt cold fusion reactor? It is irrefutable proof of that it was still hot 3 hours after the power was turned off and 1.8 tons of water went through the system. There is no chance it would measurably warm after that if there were no heat generation. Other irrefutable proof is that the reactor was still hot, and the water was still boiling inside it. You can ignore the temperature measurements and prove there was an anomaly by that fact alone. Or, if you can refute that, please do so. Also you are forgetting that the thermal mass of the cooling water is far greater than the hot water. When you combine them together and the cooling water rises 5 deg C while the steam condenses and falls 95 deg C. Obviously the overall system will be closer to the cooling water temperature. Pipes do conduct heat well, but not so much from one pipe to the one next to it. In any case, the pipes will average it out to be a temperature much closer to the cooling water than the steam. You are looking at a mountain of evidence and pretending it does not exist. Boiling. High temperatures hours after the power went off. Increasing temperature when Newton's law says the temperature can only fall in the absence of power. Granted this evidence is poorly presented, but I do not think that you or anyone else can refute it, so it is irrefutable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Hello Jed, I recall that Horace described evidence that slugs of hot water, separated by steam, went directly from the exit of the reactor into the heat exchanger right next to the output thermocouple of the heat exchanger -- it is plausible that hot water could create the excess heating of that thermocouple, that is used to estimate remarkable levels of apparent excess heat production -- hearing and feeling the vibration of boiling within the reactor proves the presence of liquid water -- what evidence is there that the water was completely turned into superheated steam at the exit of the reactor? within shared discussion, Rich On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I saw it in the video, but this JPEG makes it even more obvious. Thanks for the upload. You've got 120+ degrees (allegedly) on one side . . . Why do you say allegedly? It was boiling in the cell. It has be over 100 deg C. Add some backpressure from the heat exchanger and it will reach 120 deg C. That's not an allegation, it is first principle physics. , and a couple inches away less than 30 degrees. A few degrees of heat transfer is lauded as conclusive, irrefutable evidence of a multi-kilowatt cold fusion reactor? It is irrefutable proof of that it was still hot 3 hours after the power was turned off and 1.8 tons of water went through the system. There is no chance it would measurably warm after that if there were no heat generation. Other irrefutable proof is that the reactor was still hot, and the water was still boiling inside it. You can ignore the temperature measurements and prove there was an anomaly by that fact alone. Or, if you can refute that, please do so. Also you are forgetting that the thermal mass of the cooling water is far greater than the hot water. When you combine them together and the cooling water rises 5 deg C while the steam condenses and falls 95 deg C. Obviously the overall system will be closer to the cooling water temperature. Pipes do conduct heat well, but not so much from one pipe to the one next to it. In any case, the pipes will average it out to be a temperature much closer to the cooling water than the steam. You are looking at a mountain of evidence and pretending it does not exist. Boiling. High temperatures hours after the power went off. Increasing temperature when Newton's law says the temperature can only fall in the absence of power. Granted this evidence is poorly presented, but I do not think that you or anyone else can refute it, so it is irrefutable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Two more pictures of the thermocouple (from user agoz on 22passi blog) http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo1.jpg http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg Another user on 22passi (Mario Massa) computed that the thermocouple in that position could give a reading as higher as 5 deg C more then the water temperature (given the thermal resistance of brass and of the contact surface water-brass ) On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Attached is a jpg of the fitting for the hot end of the Rossi heat exchanger. The finger points to where the Tout themocouple was located. The other side of this big brass fitting was the entry point for the steam/water from the E-cat. You can see white streak marks on the tape both sides of the fitting. I wonder if those are footprints of the thermocouples used. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Thanks for posting those pics, Enzo... Like I said yesterday at about this same time... The Tout thermocouple being within an inch or two of the hot steam flow into the heat exchanger does not sit well w/me... Looks like the thermocouple was Less than 2 from the steam-half of the exchanger manifold. After those pics, I'm not liking this even more... But then, there's thermocouple T2 inside the E-Cat which showed a steady 120C to 122C temperature for over 2 hours (14:00-16:13), and then a steady 114C to 116C for another three hours (16:30 - 19:20), during which time the main heater power was off. Did a significant portion of the reactor heat end up going down the drain with the steam condensate??? This missing heat could make up for the effect of the heat of the steam inlet on the Tout thermocouple being higher than the cooling water inside. Is there any way to look at fluctuations in T2, which will hit the heat exchanger, and see if those fluctuations are seen in Tout? That would indicate that the steam heat is contaminating Tout. You couldn't engineer something more confusing that this! If Rossi were here now, I'd probably strangle him... -mark
