Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Does your psychoanalyst know what you are doing on the internet? Are you currently institutionalized? Do you still see you analyst? I hope so. If you are not seeing your analyst I think you should. Because you should tell him how it makes you feel to mimic him when he whispers into his littlte recorder. You should tell him how it makes you feel more powerful. This is an antisocial behavior you need to correct. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Try to keep up. Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless statements plus what's been copied from before. However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis: 2 * 2 = 4
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Keep going Lomax. You are in over your head, and far out classed. When I arrived at Vortex-L you were stumbling around in the dark stuck on a humidity meter. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Try to keep up. Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless statements plus what's been copied from before. However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis: 2 * 2 = 4
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy. In each case a volume is examined and by mass and by volume are both unitless values. by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3. In no manner will there ever be 97% by mass steam in Rossi's device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets. On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.com de**cra...@gmail.com decra...@gmail.com wrote: The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? I'll answer that, I've never seen anything floating in any kind of steam, except for water droplets, which I see as mist. I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with lower density than that. Joshua is very correct, here, high percentage steam, by mass, is still far lower percentage by volume, and therefore remains low-density. Arrggh. I just realized that I've seen *very* high percentage steam, and, yes, things float in it. It's called boiling water, and it contains bubbles of water vapor. With continuous agitation, one could make any percentage steam one wants. When it becomes dense enough, it will merely fall quickly to the bottom of any vessel, leaving dryer steam at the top and less foamy water at the bottom As to plausibility for the e-cat, extremely high percentage liquid by mass seems implausible to me except as a fraud mode. Could be, and probably isn't.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Corrections: by mass units: int(m dX^3) / int(MdX^3) = unitless by volume units: int(dx^3)/int(dX^3) = unitless We can't just drop the integral out of the units equations and examine the characteristic vectors. This would be a little pretensious dividing a tensor by a tensor to get a scalar. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy. Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing steam quality has its value. In each case a volume is examined and by mass and by volume are both unitless values. by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3. That's right. It's expressed as a percentage. If we want to know vaporization rate, how much water was vaporized to make the steam, we presumably want to know that in mass units. Strictly speaking, we want to know how much was *unvaporized. That's what steam quality percentages tell us, if it's mass percent. However, suppose we want to know how the steam will look. Suppose we have a measure of volume in some way. Then we'll be interested in mass by volume. Steve Krivit went off on a tangent with this. Everyone had been talking mass. But there were some assumptions being made, that high wetness steam would somehow look very different from low wetness. That doesn't happen until *very high mass percentage* In no manner will there ever be 97% by mass steam in Rossi's device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets. That's not to be established by mere assertion. And it's not established by giving us a google search that gives over 8 million hits. And just how large are the droplets? Nothing says they are teenie weenie. In practice, there is no sharp boundary between wet steam and any other biphase mixture, i.e, some level of wet steam above some level of liquid. Consider the liquid at the bottom a really big droplet. Wet steam does usually refer to steam where the droplets are suspended, but that's a generally unstable situation, I think, those droplets will eventually grow and condense unless flow conditions keep breaking them up. Look, Damon, you screwed up. Don't keep compounding it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Try to keep up. On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The by mass and the by volume jargon that has evolved here--or where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy. Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing steam quality has its value. In each case a volume is examined and by mass and by volume are both unitless values. by mass units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3 by volume units: dx^3/dX^3. That's right. It's expressed as a percentage. If we want to know vaporization rate, how much water was vaporized to make the steam, we presumably want to know that in mass units. Strictly speaking, we want to know how much was *unvaporized. That's what steam quality percentages tell us, if it's mass percent. However, suppose we want to know how the steam will look. Suppose we have a measure of volume in some way. Then we'll be interested in mass by volume. Steve Krivit went off on a tangent with this. Everyone had been talking mass. But there were some assumptions being made, that high wetness steam would somehow look very different from low wetness. That doesn't happen until *very high mass percentage* In no manner will there ever be 97% by mass steam in Rossi's device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets. That's not to be established by mere assertion. And it's not established by giving us a google search that gives over 8 million hits. And just how large are the droplets? Nothing says they are teenie weenie. In practice, there is no sharp boundary between wet steam and any other biphase mixture, i.e, some level of wet steam above some level of liquid. Consider the liquid at the bottom a really big droplet. Wet steam does usually refer to steam where the droplets are suspended, but that's a generally unstable situation, I think, those droplets will eventually grow and condense unless flow conditions keep breaking them up. Look, Damon, you screwed up. Don't keep compounding it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Try to keep up. Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless statements plus what's been copied from before. However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis: 2 * 2 = 4
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 04:11 PM 7/22/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of the reactor. No? Probably not true. The reaction, on the face, depends on the temperature of the reactants. Only if heat flow is causing the effect would this idea be true. For example, suppose that 400 C is necessary to operate the reactor with 100 C cooling water, i.e., boiling water. If we use water that is just over freezing, i.e, 0 C -- say we use ice slurry! -- does this mean that we'd see the same effect at 300 C? I don't think so. well, that hypothesis that could be tested. Anyway I think what I am saying is not incompatible with a perfered temperature inside the reactor. In practice you can't aim for the prefered temperature without regulating the heat flow. Without any heat flow the reactants will over heat. With too much heat flow the reaction will cease. With just the right amount of heat flow the reaction will be self maintaining. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yeah, your right. What was I thinking?? My boyancy argument is just wrong. Thank's for straightening that out to me. (And, darn it, don't I look stupid.) As such, I can't see any way to solidly determine if the bulk of the liquid water exits the device suspended in vapor, or simply pours out the spout. Any ideas? On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. *Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.*
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Joshua Cude, and other astute observerse:
We could model an exothermic reactions with unlimited (over the course of
the experiment) heat generation as a simple bump function.
A simple bump function for this is p = p_o / {1+[(T-T_o)/T_w]^2 }.
At T=T_o the power, p is maximal.
T_w is the half-width of the bump function. When T-T_o=T_w the power
evolution is halved.
On the rising side of the bump an increase in temperature will result in an
increased evolution of energy. This part of the curve could have
real-time-control problems due to positive feedback such as to make control
nonexistent. More heat evolution results in a higher temperature, and a
higher temperature evolves more heat increasing the temperature, etc, etc.
On the falling side of the bump function, increasing the temperature
decreases the evolved energy and the process is essentially self regulating
and the control problem vanish. It is self regulating.
If there is evidence from the reports that indicate that the alleged
reaction would be operating on the divergent, rising side of the curve, a
disproof of the assertion of thermal energy gains in the order of 5:1, 6:1,
8:1, or better might be made.
There seems to be a maximum dE/dT slope after which there is no possibility
of reducing the reaction rate, but where it will continue to increase when
the control input goes to zero. E is the evolved energy, and T is the
temperature for any given reactant volume.
However there may be an interesting problem with this sort of disproof upon
spatial dimensional rescaling:-
Control heat energy is introduced over an area. Total heat evolution is a
function of volume.
In other words, there may be a disproof for a reactor of typical dimension
X, that is not a disproof for a reactor of typical dimension 10X (or 1/10th
X.)
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
[Snip...Stuff said about a sustained exothermic reaction]
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Very well said. There is no obvective measuring stick to measure burden. I was attempting to reveil the hidden hypocracy in the burden of proof argument. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Essentially, burden is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from human conventions. There is no burden meter.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? I'll answer that, I've never seen anything floating in any kind of steam, except for water droplets, which I see as mist. I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with lower density than that. Joshua is very correct, here, high percentage steam, by mass, is still far lower percentage by volume, and therefore remains low-density. Arrggh. I just realized that I've seen *very* high percentage steam, and, yes, things float in it. It's called boiling water, and it contains bubbles of water vapor. With continuous agitation, one could make any percentage steam one wants. When it becomes dense enough, it will merely fall quickly to the bottom of any vessel, leaving dryer steam at the top and less foamy water at the bottom As to plausibility for the e-cat, extremely high percentage liquid by mass seems implausible to me except as a fraud mode. Could be, and probably isn't.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yeah, maybe i'm confused. When I get my brain back I'll be capable of thinking about it--maybe. the fucks im working for are working me to death. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Josh: I don't think you read what I wrote. Maybe I didn't get it, Josh. I'll try to get back. My poor brain is too fried at this time. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding about 6. Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically reasonable to either of you? It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response of the active material. The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc. I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.com de**cra...@gmail.com decra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. Okay, who is making the claim that we are examining here? Rossi? Rossi has zero responsibility to us Well, Rossi is making claims and providing evidence. We are examining the evidence and some of us find that it doesn't support his claims. I don't see how we can use his evidence to prove his claims are wrong, and if his evidence doesn't support his claims, I don't see why anyone should prove his claims wrong. If someone claims he can fly by flapping his arms, but can't demonstrate it, who would bother to try to prove that it's not possible?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime having this anywhere near this liquid water content. Keep the eyes open to what everyday experience teaches us about the physical world we live in. As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness, but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way. The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher along in the device toward the exit. For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. I don't either. Do have a sound argument that says it can't happen? I don't. I'm looking for it. A good of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction is the ignition of gun powder. Taking away the match will not stop the reaction. A counter example is the evolution of tunsten vapor from a heated light bulb fiaiment. If, somewhere in the filament is a length that is two or three percent smaller in diameter than the rest, the filament will eventually burn through at this spot. The narrow section runs a little hotter. Because it runs a little hotter, the tungsten in this section vaporizes a little faster than the rest of the filament. This causes it's resistance to decrease faster than the rest of the wire. This in turn causes it to vaporize faster, so there is positive feedback. Eventually the tiny difference in diameter will cause the filament to fail at this point. And this is how most light bulbs eventually fail. But it's easy to control. We just turn off the light switch and we've turned off the run-away reaction. In the same way a heat source that stimulates an small exothermic reaction can be controlled if it requires a large source of heat. SoHow is this quantified, and does it disclude the claims made of Rossi's gadget as non physical? To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. Yes, another good example of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does not contribute to the pressure at all, because water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but is spilled due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container. Only thing that contributes for the pressure is steam flow pressure out of the E-Cat and in the hose. Steam flow resistance is roughly the same in all E-Cat setups, therefore steam temperature is depended directly and comparably on total water heating power. It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of 1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is lots of spilling and water droplet density is high. —Jouni Ps. Craig, although Joshua's ultrawet steam is crack pot theory, he is right, because 90% steam is not dense at all, but you measured it volumetrically, i.e. you kept the volume constant. But do not play Joshua's own game, because as discusser, he is a perpetual motion machine, whose purpose is to flood as much as possible so that any meaningful discussion is overflown. Volumetric measurement is completely irrelevant, because it depends heavily on pressure. On Jul 22, 2011 2:00 PM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher along in the device toward the exit. For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I don't know how to visually estimate the wetness of steam. Why do you think it's less than 5%? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Damon, This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Do you have an online reference or text reference to the 1-2% value for typical wetness of steam? I would like to have a reference source. On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of 1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is lots of spilling and water droplet density is high. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link: http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. Therefore wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. I think that wetness depens slightly on temperature difference between heating element and water, but if this is the case, difference is rather small. —Jouni On Jul 22, 2011 2:36 PM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
the burden of proof lies with the claimant it does? 1) prove it. 2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to me to prove it? 3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me? On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You can't swim in that. Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume. Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the increased pressure. - Original Message - From: Damon Craig To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher along in the device toward the exit. For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
A major error in my previous post. It should be ~4J/gK x 70K= ~300J/g whereas heat of vaporization is ~2200J/g so obviously the inlet cold water will not be able to provide 100% of the cooling to condense the steam but only about 10%. But perhaps the large bulk of water in the E-Cat could provide the rest of it. I fail to see the purpose of the inlet temp sensor. Perhaps there was a sensor more toward the middle of the E-cat that Rossi decided to eliminate because it showed less than 100C and would have raised flags amongst the critical public. - Original Message - From: Joe Catania To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the increased pressure. - Original Message - From: Damon Craig To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher along in the device toward the exit. For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates. On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime having this anywhere near this liquid water content. It depends on your life experience. It is certainly part of Mitra et al's experience as documented in IEEE Sensors Journal 11 (2011) 1214, where they not only produce steam more than 95% wet by mass, but find a way to measure it. Keep the eyes open to what everyday experience teaches us about the physical world we live in. The sort of wet steam that I'm talking about is produced in confined conduits with rapidly moving steam; just the sort of thing that could exist inside the ecat, and not the sort of thing that is part of most people's life experience; at least not that they would be aware. As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness, but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way. Why exactly would you expect your experience with buoyancy in a static, unconfined fluid inform your idea of what happens with a rapidly moving 2-phase fluid in a confined volume? The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua? I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with lower density than that.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response of the active material. The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc. I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's assume that. To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. No, it doesn't generate even more heat. Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior. (We actually can't see the final adjustment, no data has been provided for that. It can't be seen in the chimney temperature profiles, because they are already nailed to boiling. Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point. This would be an equilibrium temperature, but it would be unstable, because, if any condition varies, the reaction would either quench as it cools or run away as it heats, assuming that runaway is possible. There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining temperature. Running closer to the equilibrium temperature, the device becomes more potentially unstable. The 6X ratio, apparently, represents a compromise temperature, below self-sustaining, requiring external heat to be maintained. Much higher ratios have been reported, along with some fear (real or pretended) of runaway. I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then? I'd been thinking of a reversed design, with the reaction chamber being on the outside, so that the band heater heated it, with cooling being on the inside. The insulated wires? Temperature sensor in the reaction chamber, necessary for control. This idea about the band heater, though, would require the band heater itself to go to probably over 400 degrees. Is that sensible? Any sign that this thing was getting that hot? It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the pasta is actually worms. Gee, it looked like pasta to me! Easy test for temperatures like that: touching it with some water, those who witnessed open demos. That water should instantly sizzle and vaporize. Spit will do. I can't resist this: A certain Italian engineer/inventor/entrepreneur: What you doing? You spit on my invention? You snake, you clown, you spy! Leave and never come back, you and everyone like you!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote: I think I'll have to take this one step at a time. Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam containing 90% by mass water? Absolutly not. You are thinking, Damon, of 90% by volume.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:59 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote: The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher along in the device toward the exit. For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates. Adhering to a hypothesis, I call believing. We don't really know where the thermometer level is, though it is well below the outlet to the hose. It could be at the level of the steam generation. Maybe.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 07:24 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does not contribute to the pressure at all, because water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but is spilled due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container. No, that's an error. The E-Cat operation, in the demos, begins with water flowing through, due to the pumping. That would be gentle flow. What happens later is unclear, and that depends on internal conditions that we cannot observe directly. Only thing that contributes for the pressure is steam flow pressure out of the E-Cat and in the hose. Steam flow resistance is roughly the same in all E-Cat setups, therefore steam temperature is depended directly and comparably on total water heating power. An analysis of temperature and pressure, I just wrote for the CMNS list. I'll add it below. It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of 1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is lots of spilling and water droplet density is high. It is very much not well-established. However, there are two problems, both somewhat semantic in nature. The real question is how much water is vaporized. Failure to vaporise a known flow can come from two sources: literal overflow of liquid water and wetness of steam. Both would be expected to some degree. What degree is actually found? We don't know, we have inadequate data, and that inadequacy has been maintained by Rossi unwillingness to allow definitive demonstrations. from my post to CMNS: Assume Temperature of chimney: 100.5 degrees. Assume Boiling at ambient pressure of 99.6 degrees. Interpolate pressure in chimney from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html pressure: 1 bar, temperature 99.63 C. pressure: 1.1 bar, temperature, 102.32 C. Interpolated pressure at 100.5 C.: 1.036 bar Interpolated steam density: 0.610 kg/m^3 Raw steam flow if no hose. Assume orifice from chamber, 1/2 inch. Estimate from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html Overpressure, 0.036 bar, 1 psig = 68.948×10^3 bar, 0.522 psig This is off the chart. However, assuming linearity, I come up with 40 lb./hour, which is 18 kilograms, and the claimed flow rate is 5 g/sec, oir 18.5 kg/hr. That is an amazing coincidence, and is not a confirmation of that exact value, considering how rough the chart is. However, there is a hose attached. If we assume 18.5 kg/hr flow, 3 meters of 15 mm ID hose, steam density of 0.590 kg/m^3, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html gives a drop of 10978 Pa. 1 Pa = 10^-5 bar. That would be a drop of about 0.1 bar, as has been stated. However, we don't, in this marginal calculation, have any pressure left, the flow through the orifice was estimated based on the pressure difference with atmospheric. In fact, the steam flow will be reduced because of back pressure from the hose, so that the figures match, with the sum of pressures equalling the total elevation of chimney pressure over ambient. The expansion of the steam into the hose is a factor of 1.40 by area ratio. Steam cannot cool until the wetness approaches 100%, but the steam will become wetter, reducing the steam volume, so that steam flow is reduced. If I take the Mats Lewan report as indicating that half the steam condenses in the hose, this will reduce the steam flow to 9.25 kg/hr, reducing back pressure to 2744 Pa. I'm not going further with this. If I take the data straight, as it is, and assume accuracy (which is unreasonable, but it does allow us to see what ball-park estimates could be), I come up with an indication that 75% vaporization, very roughly and without doing more exact math than is found above, seems quite reasonable. Given the roughness of the data, it is not impossible that there is full vaporization, and it is possible that vaporization is below 50%, I have not done an exact analysis. And the reason for that is not only lack of time, but that this is not going to nail anything down, there is so little data. I return to my basic conclusion, we don't have enough data to be sure about the Rossi E-Cat either way. However, claims that the data is contradictory, on the basis of steam pressure calculations, seem to fail.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link: http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.htmlhttp://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. Therefore wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. I think that wetness depens slightly on temperature difference between heating element and water, but if this is the case, difference is rather small. As a Wikipedia editor, I became very sensitive to synthesis, where someone asserts that a source says something that it doesn't. That source actually says this: All boiling chambers usually produce steam that is 98% saturated vapour and 2% water droplets, i.e. it is wet and saturated. This is important to remember. The % dry is called the steam quality. Notice that the source says usually. That's because commercial boilers, what is being described, are designed to produce good-quality steam! Jouni, quoting the source, left out the word usually, strongly changing the meaning. Further, the context is completely lost, that this isn't really all boiling chambers, i.e., every possible boiling chamber, but rather normal ones. He's talking, later, about using a pressure cooker, i.e., a large, open chamber, with a single escape opening at the top. Design a different boiling chamber where steam must heavily mix with water under more turbulent conditions, you can and will get higher wetness. The wetness measurement would refer to certain measurements using unknown and unstated procedures, based on readings from a relative humidity meter. Nobody has been able to explain how to use an RH meter for steam quality, and it appears impossible, the RH meter will give the same readings for any saturated steam, i.e., any level of wetness. In other places, a small elevation in temperature was used to claim that the steam was dry, whereas the chamber was clearly nailed at boiling, for the likely pressure, but dry steam would not be self-regulating at that temperature. The steam, from the temperature records, appears to be wet, wetness being unmeasured. In some demos, temperature varies slightly, which is easily attributed to variations in pressure produced by how the hose was handled. It's slight.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote: the burden of proof lies with the claimant it does? 1) prove it. 2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to me to prove it? 3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me? Arguments like this assume absolutes that aren't, they are interpretations, sometimes widely supported, which doesn't change that they are intepretations. Essentially, burden is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from human conventions. There is no burden meter. So, when there are arguments over this, they can easily boil down to My imagined absolute standards are better than your imagined absolute standards. You are wrong, I'm right. Q.E.D. This can then take various forms: My imagined absolute standards are shared by all right-thinking people. People who do not share these standards are, by definition, not right-thinking.' Sometimes, the claimant asserts that The majority support my position. Sometimes this could be established -- this can be made into an objective assessment under some conditions -- but often it's just an assertion, based on the belief of the claimant that his or her own position is obviously the only reasonable one, and we assume that the majority are reasonable, right? Wrong. Not necessarily! Majority opinion is certainly of interest, but anyone who makes it into an authority has lost the possibility of moving out of established ideas. The majority, even, may be *usually* right, but about what? About usual questions, those they have experience with
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: However, claims that the data is contradictory, on the basis of steam pressure calculations, seem to fail. Thanks for these calculations – they sound reasonable. For me it seems that E-Cat worked properly only in Mats Lewan's hands where power output was comparable to that what was claimed. In other demonstrations there are, I think, significant discrepancies, but at least in all demonstrations, expect perhaps in June, there is clear excess heat present. For memory refreshment, here are the temperature anomalies and my estimations for corresponding total power output in all 6 demonstrations of E-Cat: in December (101.6°C / 9kW), January (101.2°C / 6kW), March (100.2°C / 1.2 kW), April (100.6°C / 2kW) and June (100.1°C / 1kW) Estimations for December and January demonstrations are very rough, but I think that they are over 5kW in any case, as inflow rate of water was 13kg/h. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's assume that. They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the ratio. To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. No, it doesn't generate even more heat. I agree, but they certainly claim it does. Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior. It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its own. Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point. The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What am I missing? There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining temperature. If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature. I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then? The KE report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures of the leads for it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: Essentially, burden is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from human conventions. There is no burden meter. Again you are on a roll! This burden of proof argument is silly and widely spread pseudoargument. Usually it works, because if Alice tells something to Bob, Alice usually wants Bob to believe her. Therefore burden of proof is here in Alice's hands. But in this case Rossi has made a bold claim, but does not benefit a single bit whether we believe him or not, but instead our endless curiosity does not rest until we get some, even partial clarification. Therefore in this case, burden of proof is in our hands and we need to find discrepancies or evidences whether E-Cat claim is trustworthy or not. Although, excess heat claims are exaggerated, I think that considering how many persons are involved to this magic performance, I still trust 100% to Rossi. With a hoax in hand, it is impossible to make money, not least because in order to sell anything that contains nuclear reactions, you need to have licence from the authorities, to ensure it's safety. Oddities on how E-Cat was brought into discussion makes some sense, because Rossi has very clear cut personal philosophy, although his choice was not the most sensible one. But I am accusing ridiculous patent legislation! –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of the reactor. No? Harry From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's assume that. They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the ratio. To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. No, it doesn't generate even more heat. I agree, but they certainly claim it does. Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior. It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its own. Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point. The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What am I missing? There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining temperature. If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature. I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then? The KE report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures of the leads for it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
To be more precise, the temperature difference between the inside of the reaction vessel and the water cannot be greater than a certain value or the generation of heat will cease and the difference cannot be less than a certain value or the reactor temperature will then begin to rise autonomously until the vessel melts. These curcial temperature differences are calculated by subtracting the water temperature from the optimal operating temperature of the vessel's interior. Harry From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 4:11:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of the reactor. No? Harry From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition. First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's assume that. They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the ratio. To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them. No, it doesn't generate even more heat. I agree, but they certainly claim it does. Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior. It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its own. Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point. The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What am I missing? There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining temperature. If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature. I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then? The KE report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures of the leads for it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the pasta is actually worms. Gee, it looked like pasta to me! Hey, that's an insult to us pastafarians! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster T
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
OK. Excuse my caution. I am simply not comfortable helping witch hunters hunt witches. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it. Then you turn up using the same phrase. I've been using it for some time. I'm not looking back, though. What I see is that the issue of steam quality successfully distracted a lot of people. Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story wide open. Are you helping him? If he reads my stuff, he might get some ideas that will help him, but historically, he's been pretty upset by what I write, since I've criticised his journalism. Long story. Krivit does what he does, he's good at certain things, not so good at others. Most of us are like that, right?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding about 6. Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically reasonable to either of you?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Damon, This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Wherever the input power resistor is, its gradual surface deterioration and fractal cracking will accelerate the flow of electric current along the outside of the resistor, increasing the direct transfer of heat energy into the input cooling water, 2 cc/sec into a perhaps 200 cc interior volume, so 1 % mass of the contained H2O is forced in as liquid by the input pump every second, while 1 % of the contained H2O mass exits every second as a complex chaotic mixture of hot water, froth, bubbles, mist, invisible dry steam, H2 and O2 from water electrolyzed by the electric currents on the surface of the heating resistor -- the thermometer happens to be in a hot spot that measures a location within the chaos that is, well, hotter... always possible for there to be a stable hot spot in a complex fractal chaos witch's pot. For too high input electric power, the resistor corrosion results eventually in direct shorting, arcing, and explosion, as Rossi admits happened 17 times, if my feeble wits be trusted... Be careful, O ye would rush to run your very own witch's pot! In mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Damon, This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of the steam is a moot point. The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The mass of liquid in any of those video is visually less 5%, if that much. You should get a job working for turbine manufacturers. They go to a lot of trouble to evaluate steam quality, when all they need is for you to look at it. But forget about it, people won't listen to this. That's because it is whacky. It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power sources. No need to invoke hidden heat sources if there is no evidence for hidden heat.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate! Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam. I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at the E-Cat fires up! Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a stationary steam. Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up. There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding about 6. Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically reasonable to either of you? It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response of the active material. The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc. This is far simpler than other possibilities, my opinion, this is why Rossi is doing it. Controlling the reaction in other ways, though, could allow the reactor to operate in a self-sustaining region, so that continuous heating isn't needed. That requires having other means to rapidly quench the reaction. Reportedly, nitrogen has been used, flushing the reaction chamber with nitrogen to rapidly shut down the heat. Setting up a means for rapidly increasing cooling should do the trick, too.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 11:55 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Yeah, I *sort of* understand this stuff and still I forget. Joshua is right. Completely. That does not mean that 97% steam is likely, but it is certainly possible.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: Cude, Lomax: To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet. Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim. Okay, who is making the claim that we are examining here? Rossi? Rossi has zero responsibility to us What we have been trying to do is to analyze available evidence, from all the sources, to try to get a handle on what is happening. It's necessarily a hazardous business, because we can't just run down to the lab and make some measurements, and very little has been actually confirmed.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to condense the steam. SAlso the temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g of cooling is needed to remove the heat of vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate! Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam. I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at the E-Cat fires up! Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a stationary steam. Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up. There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to condense the steam. SAlso the temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g of cooling is needed to remove the heat of vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter. - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. I have to say that really wet steam is not implausible, Joshua has made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate! Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam. I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at the E-Cat fires up! Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a stationary steam. Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up. There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
I was under the presumption that there a few here that understood elementry physics. Good Grief! On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the really wet steam theory anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that. What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as fine droplets (mist). Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid. Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained. Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat itself. What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface tension is made. It is negligible. The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork. That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to calculate fairly accurately, if we know the diameter of opening for the hose. As boiling point of water inside E-Cat is what is measured with the probe, then we can deduce the pressure inside E-Cat, because steam pressure contributes mostly for total pressure, because backpressure in the hose is essentially zero due to gravitational downhill (at least with Lewan's E-Cat where water went to the blue bucket at the floor.) If the chimney is filled and overflowing, which you now think is the correct analysis, then the water depth in the chimney can explain the elevated boiling point. We need some 600 wats for heating water inflow to boiling point. Then we can calculate how much power we need to increase pressure inside E-Cat to explain elevated boiling point. My gut feeling says that we need extra power some kilowatts, so there is clearly extra heat present. This clearly falsifies Krivit's criticism by one order of magnitude as he assumes that there is just few hundred wats for generating steam and elevating the pressure. First, your gut feeling, especially if it is completely unsupported, falsifies nothing. Second Krivit was not quantitative about the power he thought the output steam represented. He was merely questioning the conclusions because no evidence of steam dryness was provided, and claimed that the liquid content of the steam could change the claimed excess heat by *as much as* 2 orders of magnitude. To confirm this hypothesis on E-Cat, we should have strong correlation between alleged power output and measured boiling point (we have the same hose in all demonstrations). That is, because pressure is directly proportional to amount of generated steam. I don't think that's true. With the chimney filled with water, the height will produce an increase in the bp by a fraction of a degree. With pure steam, the pressure required to get through the various fittings, expanders, reducers, and elbows could cause a similar fraction of a degree increase in the bp. What happens in between is pretty hard to predict, but the fact that the temperature is very flat shows that from the very onset of boiling (at 600W) the pressure is pretty constant. Overall, I think that Rossi has adjusted the water inflow such a way that more than 60% of water goes through phase change. This represents a major change in your thinking. Until yesterday, you insisted that the output had to be at least 95% dry steam. Nothing else was possible.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get? I don't know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of these will be fround in terms of droplet size at a level above the surface is a duanting theoretical task. I think it's best to find emperical answers with a bit of suspended material such as the styrofoam I suggested, and you-all seem to reject as meaningless. A little imagination could be in order. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You've [Lomax] said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Your idea of a filled chimney with water overflowing makes no sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
If all you had were small bits of various density styrofoam and various means to boil water, I think some of you could eventially come up with the answer to: how wet does steam get under conditions X? On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get? I don't know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of these will be fround in terms of droplet size at a level above the surface is a duanting theoretical task. I think it's best to find emperical answers with a bit of suspended material such as the styrofoam I suggested, and you-all seem to reject as meaningless. A little imagination could be in order. On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote: You've [Lomax] said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Your idea of a filled chimney with water overflowing makes no sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 10:50 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: I wouldn't call it an overflow issue, but a lot of people were wise to only a small fraction of the water being vaporized a long time ago. I certainly didn't invent that idea. You could be correct with your idea that there would be a lot of froth. What I saw being ignored was direct water flow, that some level of this would be expected. The overall question is How much of the water is actually vaporized? And there isn't an answer. No steps were taken to demonstrate this critical aspect of the demonstrations. The demonstrations were such as to create an appearance of very substantial heat. The reality is ...
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The overall question is How much of the water is actually vaporized? And there isn't an answer. No steps were taken to demonstrate this critical aspect of the demonstrations. On this, we are in complete agreement.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax. Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water vapor? Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look stupid, doesn't it? Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it will float over a boiling pot of water. Rossi's steam is very dry by the wet-steam-argument standards. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax. Arrggh. Classified with Krivit! Ah, well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. This is once for me, I still get to be right once more Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water vapor? Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look stupid, doesn't it? Depends on the steam quality. On dry steam, of course not, the density is too low. But 100% wet steam is, in fact, pure liquid water, so a cork would float on it. Very wet steam, though, probably isn't stable, the water droplets will coalesce and fall. There is a semantic issue here Next stupid question? Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it will float over a boiling pot of water. Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of boiling water will probably be well under 5% wet. Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I don't. I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet, by mass percentage, it's a huge red herring, Krivit fell for this. The elephant in the living room is overflow water, which will be at the boiling point, but which will not have vaporized, leading to a miscalculation of power on the idea that this water was vaporized, when it wasn't. Rossi's steam is very dry by the wet-steam-argument standards. On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases. Did Craig's questions relate somehow to the response he quoted?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it. Then you turn up using the same phrase. Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story wide open. Are you helping him? On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around pretty quickly. There are gradients in pure water, sure. Always below or at the bp. There are also gradients in pure dry steam. Always at or above the bp. But there are no temperature gradients in a mixture of steam and liquid water, as long as there are no pressure gradients. A homogenous mixture (smallish drops) will be at the boiling point, and such a mixture is to be expected when you produce a gas orders of magnitude more voluminous than the liquid in a confined volume. I meant only that when it is fulling up, the cold water cools it somewhat, but when it is full, not only does the cold water cool it, but a nearly equal volume of hot water leaves. And when it is boiling an equal mass of steam leaves. If flow rate is 5 ml/s, it is as if you add 5 ml of cold water and then remove another 5 ml of hot. Perhaps this does not make much difference, depending on the total volume. It's the power balance. It's how Rossi and you and everyone else calculates the power. The rate of cold coming in, hot water and/or steam going out. At the bp, a slight change in power is simply accommodated by a change in the ratio of steam and water. Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. Pretty sure he is dishonest then. Because he certainly claims not to in all but the January demo. If we both agree he's dishonest, then there is no reason to believe he has invented a cold fusion device.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it will float over a boiling pot of water. Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of boiling water will probably be well under 5% wet. But the steam has upward momentum. Enough power in the pot with the steam going through a small enough hole, and you could float styrofoam. You can float a ping pong ball with a hair drier, and it is more dense than air. (It doesn't even have to be vertical, thanks to Bernoulli.) [And no, I'm not saying the principle only existed after he identified it.] Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I don't. I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet, by mass percentage, it's a huge red herring, You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Your idea of a filled chimney with water overflowing makes no sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote: In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was a red herring, and the water was simply flowing through it. Then you turn up using the same phrase. I've been using it for some time. I'm not looking back, though. What I see is that the issue of steam quality successfully distracted a lot of people. Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story wide open. Are you helping him? If he reads my stuff, he might get some ideas that will help him, but historically, he's been pretty upset by what I write, since I've criticised his journalism. Long story. Krivit does what he does, he's good at certain things, not so good at others. Most of us are like that, right?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 05:42 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it will float over a boiling pot of water. Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of boiling water will probably be well under 5% wet. But the steam has upward momentum. Enough power in the pot with the steam going through a small enough hole, and you could float styrofoam. You can float a ping pong ball with a hair drier, and it is more dense than air. (It doesn't even have to be vertical, thanks to Bernoulli.) [And no, I'm not saying the principle only existed after he identified it.] Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. And the question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support a whole person with air flow, all you have to do is get the air flow running at roughly 90 mph, i.e., terminal velocity. So? Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I don't. I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet, by mass percentage, it's a huge red herring, You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; The steam is wet. that's why the question is a red herring! It's wet, but *probably* not very wet, i.e., enough to have a major impact on energy calculations. i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Wet steam is the norm, unless special measures are employed to stop that. It's not necessarily easy, and Rossi had no motive to even try. Your idea of a filled chimney with water overflowing makes no sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it. Okay, Joshua, apparently I need to explain this to you, too. The E-cat starts with water running through, the entire pumped flow is running out the hose. It's turned on and the water starts to heat. What happens? First of all, what's happening before boiling starts? Here is my thinking: water is at the level of the opening to the outlet hose, so it is spilling into the hose. There is air above the water, initially. The opening to the hose never fills entirely with water. Rather water runs out in a trickle matching the pump rate, runs down into the hose, and accumulates there until it reaches the drain level, and then it runs out the drain. If siphoning doesn't occur, this will be, steady state, water running down into the hose, and the same rate of water flowing out the drain. There is air space remaining, all the way down into the hose to the level of the drain. Below that there is water. When steam generation starts, pressure will develop in the E-cat and the hose, steam will start to flow out above the water. This pressure will force the water in the hose out. Steam will be cooled in the hose, though, and the water accumulated in the hose may be a bit cooler than boiling. Some amount of steam, however, will bubble up through water in the end of the hose at the drain. The exact balance is very difficult to predict, the exact behavior. However, what we will have at the E-Cat end is quite simple, as long as the flow rate isn't so low that the E-Cat boils away more than is coming in. Water will continue to flow out the drain as before, reduced in volume by whatever water has boiled. The water vapor from boiling will be ordinary steam. If it's frothy, that's from turbulence inside. I rather doubt it's frothy, as such. Rather, this is steam bubbling up from the cooling chamber through water to the level of the outlet hose opening. It then escapes above the flowing liquid water. The water level will drop below the outlet opening only if the input flow is below the steam generation rate. The steam is wet because steam generated from boiling like this is practically always wet unless special devices are used to separate the water from the vapor. So there are three outflows: liquid water, as a mass of water, flowing as water, water vapor, and entrained liquid water as mist. All of these are at the same temperature as they leave the E-Cat. That's the characteristic temperature of boiling water, at the pressure present inside. At any point here, once boiling is established, open the steam valve at the top of the chimney, and what do you see? You see steam, quite possibly live as to what it looks like. (That is, very low mist content, so it's quite invisible until it cools from air contact.) If you drain the hose and look at the end, held up, you will see mist and maybe some live steam coming out, depending on the cooling that's taking place in the host itself. It will be
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. And the question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support a whole person with air flow, all you have to do is get the air flow running at roughly 90 mph, i.e., terminal velocity. So? Well, he did say float it over a pot of boiling water, in which case the steam flows upward. He didn't mention buoyancy, and floating can be used to describe a person supported with air flow. In fact, the ping pong ball demo is usually called the floating ping pong ball. Floating is routinely used to describe astronauts floating weightless, which has nothing to do with buoyancy. But I have no idea of the relevance of any of this to the ecat. You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the steam be wet; The steam is wet. that's why the question is a red herring! It's wet, but *probably* not very wet, i.e., enough to have a major impact on energy calculations. What I meant was, why shouldn't it be very wet? The E-cat starts with water running through, the entire pumped flow is running out the hose. It's turned on and the water starts to heat. What happens? First of all, what's happening before boiling starts? Here is my thinking: water is at the level of the opening to the outlet hose, so it is spilling into the hose. There is air above the water, initially. The opening to the hose never fills entirely with water. Rather water runs out in a trickle matching the pump rate, runs down into the hose, and accumulates there until it reaches the drain level, and then it runs out the drain. If siphoning doesn't occur, this will be, steady state, water running down into the hose, and the same rate of water flowing out the drain. There is air space remaining, all the way down into the hose to the level of the drain. Below that there is water. When steam generation starts, pressure will develop in the E-cat and the hose, steam will start to flow out above the water. Stop there. The steam is formed in the ecat. It has to get through a small diameter pipe and then the chimney which is (initially) filled with water. The steam takes up much more volume than the water. As it passes through the water, there will be violent churning. If the steam occupies more volume than the water, you no longer have a chimney filled with water. If the steam occupies 10 or 100 times the volume, then the picture of a chimney filled with water and the water trickling into the hose just doesn't fit. Water will continue to flow out the drain as before, reduced in volume by whatever water has boiled. The water vapor from boiling will be ordinary steam. If it's frothy, that's from turbulence inside. I rather doubt it's frothy, as such. Rather, this is steam bubbling up from the cooling chamber through water to the level of the outlet hose opening. It then escapes above the flowing liquid water. The water level will drop below the outlet opening only if the input flow is below the steam generation rate. It's this bubbling that bothers me. Bubbling somehow refers to the gas rising, governed by buoyancy. But that simply isn't fast enough to get the steam out in time. The volume of steam is probably more than 10 times that of the water. Depending on how much faster it moves than the water, it will in fact occupy a much larger fraction of the chimney volume than the water. When the gas volume exceeds the liquid volume by an appreciable amount, I don't think you can call that bubbling any more. The bubbles will merge leaving liquid bubbles (droplets) within the mainly gaseous flow, as well as some liquid along the walls. I think this sort of volume of steam will basically push everything in front of it through as a mist or aside against the walls, and the turbulence will form some kind of very wet steam. The literature on 2-phase flow is pretty clear on what you get when you force two phases through a conduit of known diameter. The problem is we don't know the conduit diameter, or if the chimney has a nozzle, or a coil of small diameter tube, which will produce a mist. There is a real benefit to Rossi in producing entrained mist in the ecat, because it will be easily mistaken for steam, and it will not be collected as a liquid if anyone happens to examine the output. The steam is wet because steam generated from boiling like this is practically always wet unless special devices are used to separate the water from the vapor. So there are three outflows: liquid water, as a mass of water, flowing as water, water vapor, and entrained liquid water as mist. Right, but in ordinary boiling, the entrained mist comes from what really is bubbles formed near the element rising due to buoyancy and breaking at the surface in a volume of water much larger than the volume of
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman wrote: My conclusion is that there is very likely *some* overflow water, but it might be small. I have no way of telling how much there is, the demonstrations were not set up to make it possible to tell. This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to calculate fairly accurately, if we know the diameter of opening for the hose. As boiling point of water inside E-Cat is what is measured with the probe, then we can deduce the pressure inside E-Cat, because steam pressure contributes mostly for total pressure, because backpressure in the hose is essentially zero due to gravitational downhill (at least with Lewan's E-Cat where water went to the blue bucket at the floor.) We need some 600 wats for heating water inflow to boiling point. Then we can calculate how much power we need to increase pressure inside E-Cat to explain elevated boiling point. My gut feeling says that we need extra power some kilowatts, so there is clearly extra heat present. This clearly falsifies Krivit's criticism by one order of magnitude as he assumes that there is just few hundred wats for generating steam and elevating the pressure. To confirm this hypothesis on E-Cat, we should have strong correlation between alleged power output and measured boiling point (we have the same hose in all demonstrations). That is, because pressure is directly proportional to amount of generated steam. Overall, I think that Rossi has adjusted the water inflow such a way that more than 60% of water goes through phase change. Here I again refer to Lewan's famous blue bucket and estimation that condensation is quite significant, because steam keeps water in the bucket at 99.9°C for a 3 hours, so lots of cooling will occur there during the test. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
thermal electrochemical corrosion of the electric input power heating resistor in the Rossi device: Rich Murray 2011.07.19 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.htm Tuesday, July 19, 2011 [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/90 [ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=enshva=1#drafts/1311fbb2b67e473f [Vo]: Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement Vortex-L@eskimo.com discussion group Thanks, Joshua Cude, for your clear, earnest interpretations. What is known about the heating resistor -- manufacturer, shape, mass, construction, electric conductors, insulating ceramics, exact dimensions, location within the device, exact descriptions of the electric power cables to it, exposure to water flow or H2 gas? What are the exact dimensions, shapes, and composition of the device, insulation, inlet, outlet, Pb shielding, Cu walls, stainless steel walls, Ni micropowder, etc.? I imagine that the catalyst is a real red herring, with no actual effects. I imagine that the resistor ceramic is susceptible to cracking from thermal stress due to uneven heating and cooling in space and time, expansion of the conductors with increasing electric power and resulting temperatures, and cooling at the resistor leads along the thick electrical conductors. These cracks open the devil's door within the witch's cauldron. The city water becomes rapidly more electrically conducting, as evaporation at hot spots concentrates ordinary minerals as dissolved ions, which readily plate out as ordinary boiler scale. The network of cracks evolves quickly, tending to grow as trees from each input electrode end to the other, as the 230 volt AC becomes applied across a smaller and smaller separation -- all of this, most likely, along the surface of the resistor, where layers of print and enamel will facilitate the initial cracking, where mineral ions from the input water flow will keep increasing in concentration and thus increase the electrical conductivity in complex positive feedback chaotic processes. The complex network of surface cracks causes the electrolysis of water into H2 and O2 as nano to micro bubbles, free to recombine or to combine with other chemicals anywhere in the water volume of the device. Recombination of H2 and O2 on the metal thermister or thermometer could release local heat that would give misleading readings. Meanwhile as temperature rises within the resistor, its metallic conductors will respond with increasing resistance, while at the same time the tree-like networks of conducting surface cracks are growing in overall fractal volume and closer to each other, increasing the effective available electric potential for their nano to micro scale growing tips -- so more and more of the applied electric power will be flowing into this network of rapidly growing, rapidly heating surface nano to micro cracks -- thus heating the frothing water and leading to complex hot flows of H2O gas, along with H2 and O2, which could result in higher temperature readings for a thermometer that happens to be in a hot spot in the device. This surface electrochemical corrosion scenario could explain the start of overall rise in measured water temperature with constant input electric power at the 60-70 deg C level -- the input heating resistor being O ring weak point in the Rossi device. Once conducting cracks directly link the two electrodes, shorting and arcing will explode the resistor, perhaps subverting the ability of the constant power electric supply to limit extreme transient flows, while also releasing chemical energy from complex chemical reactions, and also promply melting and disrupting the stainless steel container and its 50 gm Ni micropowder, catalyst, and absorbed H gas, creating explosive reactions among many chemicals. This scenario may also apply as a conventional explanation for many types of CF or LENR devices. However, claims of transmutations, isotopic shifts, and radiations have been made for similar processes in high voltage power cables. So, it is possible that electrochemical corrosion can perhaps create nano to micro scale reaction regions that sustain CF or LENR anomalies. self-organizing networks can develop simple test kits for metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree' corrosion of thin polyethylene films, re T Kumazawa 2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.03 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm Friday, June 3, 2011 [ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/86 [ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ] reactive gas micro and nano bubbles complicate Widom-Larsen theory re electrolytic cells -- metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree' corrosion of power cable polyethylene insulation, T Kumazawa et al 2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.02
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I do not argue with ghosts. I don't blame you, after the pathetic wet steam is not possible salvo. Ah yes, those ghosts which grab splashy droplets and lift them out of the reactor. Indeed, what spiritual thermodynamics!
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down the duration. It is hard to estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and the temperature should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I say this because the specific heat of iron and copper is about 10 times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass, and an immense amount of energy is removed by boiling. Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove. If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would be proof of anomalous heat. I did a test boiling 2 L of water the other day in a pot with a glass cover and a K-type thermocouple. Less than a minute after cutting off the heat the boiling stopped, and 5 min. later the water temperature was down several degrees and the headspace down ~5 deg C. That was the case even though the metal pot was pretty heavy and of course much hotter than boiling temperature. It is a shame Brown did not observe heat after death for 5 or 10 minutes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. I don't even think you believe the nonsense you write. You just spew words that sound sorta right so that you can make a pretence of continuing to support the unsupportable. Then you put your fingers in your ears when people (on your side) try to set you straight. Anything between 600W and 5 kW (for Krivit's ecat) produces a mixture of steam and boiling water at the boiling point. That's not a knife edge. What you (pretend to) claim -- that it is all boiled all the time giving a completely stable power output -- *that's* a knife edge. This is really so basic and simple, that I don't believe an accomplished person such as yourself, doesn't understand it. It must be a pretence. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Unfortunately all the better tests are hidden from the public. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. That's not heat after death; that's thermal mass. Say it takes 300C in the ecat to just boil the water, and 1500C to boil all the water. At any temperature in between the output is gonna be at the boiling point. Then if you goose it for a while to bring the temp up to 400C or so, it will take a little while to cool off to 300. And in that time the temperature will stay at the boiling point. Simple. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down the duration. It is hard to estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and the temperature should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I say this because the specific heat of iron and copper is about 10 times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass, and an immense amount of energy is removed by boiling. Look at how slow it heats up in the early stage, and how slow it cools off (below boiling) in the January demo to get an idea of the thermal mass. The temperature range while the temperature is at boiling point is much larger than the 80C or so in the heating up and cooling off phases. So, the time to cool off could easily be longer (up to 7 times longer) depending on how close to complete vaporization you start at. So this heat after death proves nothing. Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove. Not so quickly with an electric stove though. If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would be proof of anomalous heat. Not a chance. That's a fraction of the time it takes to cool from boiling to ambient. So the power would have to start from much less than double the boiling onset power, and still far away from complete vaporization to explain it with thermal mass. I did a test boiling 2 L of water the other day
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 10:46 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point. That's an error, I'm sure. Raise water to the boiling point. It does not vaporize. To vaporize it requires additional energy. Okay, okay, some water will vaporize below boiling, but it carries away heat as if it were boiling. Two issues are being mixed here. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it wouldn't be. So, I have boiling water in the E-Cat, under some level of back pressure because the steam must escape through the hose. You are saying that the water in the E-Cat is cooler than the steam? How does that happen? Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling water which flows out. Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet. Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool flowing water as you claim? As you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you talking about? Further, we have no evidence that power is increased or decreased in the later demos. It was changed in the January demo, it seems. There is no way of observing the water level in the E-Cat, to determine how much to increase it or decrease it. In the Kullander and Essen demo, the temperature increases until it hits boiling and it's nailed there. No feedback is possible on that temperature. If it happened later, great. But we weren't provided with that data. This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing. Is the temperature constant there? Overflowing can cover a range of conditions, there would be overflow with boiling and overflow without boiling. If an experiment is controlled to keep the temperature just below boiling, that could easily be done, with feedback from the coolant temperature. That's not done here, but that only means that the experiment has been taking into the boiling range. Not that it has gone to dry steam. With dry steam, no overflow, the temperature would again start to increase unless somehow the chamber is kept full to the same level. By mysterious means. Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said. We agree that increased flow rate, no boiling, is clearer. In that case, we don't have much of an issue with vapor/liquid ratio. Given that a huge issue with Rossi is the *level* of the results, the deficiencies in the demonstrations are quite important. I've pointed out that, in the extreme, the deficiencies could erase the apparent excess heat. I'm not claiming that this is likely, but that it's possible; it might take more than one artifact. Or more than one fraud. At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in many ways. Seems better to me. Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for a while. I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video camera or write down
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet. Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool flowing water as you claim? I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around pretty quickly. That is one of the things I observed calibrating the thermocouples the other day. There are larger gradients in ice slurry, unless you vigorously stir it. When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that. Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you talking about? I meant only that when it is fulling up, the cold water cools it somewhat, but when it is full, not only does the cold water cool it, but a nearly equal volume of hot water leaves. If flow rate is 5 ml/s, it is as if you add 5 ml of cold water and then remove another 5 ml of hot. Perhaps this does not make much difference, depending on the total volume. Further, we have no evidence that power is increased or decreased in the later demos. Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he turns up the power. How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases.
RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
From Joshua: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson; My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume of water entering the reactor core could vary. Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially. Again, I suspect my original premise would indeed be mistaken if the inflow of water always remained fixed throughout the January demo. So far, no one on this list seems to have felt motivated enough to either verify or falsify if this really was the case. The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring uncharted territory. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. He might have performed adjustments based on an intuitive feel as to how the reactor core is currently behaving . He's probably very familiar with how the contraption behaves under a number of circumstances. Well... let me put it this way. If I were Rossi, that's what I might have done. The point being *IF* one accepts the possibility that Rossi's eCats do indeed generate a lot of excess heat one would realize that it would be very bad for the engine to run out of radiator fluid in the middle of a demonstration. You would then end up with a seized up totally destroyed engine... or in Rossi's case a potential melt down, and irrevocable permanent damage to the reactor core. Regardless of whether one wants to believe such accounts are true or not, we have been told by Rossi that there have been meltdowns in the past as he was trying to figure out the right recipe. It would indeed be useful if someone could clarify if the water intake had always been fixed throughout the entire demonstration... or not as the case may be. In any case, I have no need to make excuses for Rossi's work habits - good or bad. If Rossi's claims turn out to be true, then they are true. If not, they aren't. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Joshua apparently wrote: Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially. This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore, the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, during most of the test. The displacement pump was used in the steam tests but not the Feb. 10 liquid water test. I believe you set that pump to whatever speed you want, up to some limit. OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring uncharted territory. That is what I have heard about him. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. No, he adjusts the power. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump is at the same rate the whole time. You can tell they measured the flow correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable method. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua apparently wrote: Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially. This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore, the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, during most of the test. I get all of that. But you said: The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. And yet, in January it produced less than 12 kW. That is inconsistent. But it's worse than that, because of course, you will argue that the device does not have to be consistent, and the 18 hour test shows it can give 17 kW, so it should be able to produce less. It's worse, because the 18-hour claim was that the power varied between 15 and 20 kW, and in 18 hours, never went below 15 kW, and even went as high as 120 kW. Yet in the January demo, Rossi claims it produces 12 kW (or 12.4 or whatever) without variation for 40 minutes (actually it was stable for only 18 min). Can this be the same device. It looks implausible to me; perfectly stable one day and wildly erratic the next. In fact the claims of the 18-hour test suggest he was using something else entirely; maybe a coal-fired blast furnace for all we know No, he adjusts the power. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump is at the same rate the whole time. This appears to be consistent with all reports, although, it is possible to change the flow rate without changing the pulse frequency, by adjusting the stroke volume. You can tell they measured the flow correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable method. But we have to believe their measurements, and these would be the simplest to misrepresent. And in the Krivit demo, he reports the flow rate on the video in the middle of the run, before it is weighed at the end. There seems to be pretty compelling evidence that the reported flow rates are exaggerated in several of the tests. The most compelling is when the flow rates exceed the maximum delivered by the pump they use, even when the frequency is *less* than the maximum the pump can use. Esowatch gives chapter and verse. In short, I accept that the flow rates are constant, but I am skeptical of the reported values. Large misrepresentations would be difficult, but if you take out the factor of 7 Rossi gets by claiming dry steam, it only leaves small, plausible misrepresentations in flow and power, and/or small chemical energy in the ecat to explain everything observed.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. This is getting comical. Skeptics have proposed that some of the measurements may have been misrepresented to help explain the observations without invoking any exotic reactions. Now supporters (including Rothwell) seem to be admitting that maybe the reported measurements are not consistent with Rossi's claims of anomalous energy, but suggest that maybe Rossi is misrepresenting the measurements. Sure, maybe if Rossi secretly turns the power off, then the boiling water would suggest anomalous heat. But why would he do that? Anyway, if we both agree that Rossi is flaky, and we can't trust his reported power or flow rate, then there seems little point to try to understand what he observes, or to pay any attention to what he claims.
RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 02:10 PM 7/17/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: From Joshua: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson; My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume of water entering the reactor core could vary. Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially. Again, I suspect my original premise would indeed be mistaken if the inflow of water always remained fixed throughout the January demo. So far, no one on this list seems to have felt motivated enough to either verify or falsify if this really was the case. Rossi has frequently made calculations that assume constant water flow. If he knows that the flow is not constant, that would be deceptive. But he has not stated how the flow he selects is chosen. The observers who checked water flow likewise seem to assume constant flow, they seem to have checked it once. If the sound of the pump is constant, a certain noise being made every pump cycle, it could be reasily assumed that flow is constant, but the problem with possible valving in the E-Cat, or possible partial obstruction that wouldn't be blown away by the pump pressure (limited to 3 atm?), reducing flow, isn't addressed. It would be easy to do, but would require modifying the way the water/steam leaves the E-Cat. Long hose good calorimetry. Verification of steam quality and lack of liquid water overflow, close to the chimney, far better. Or other measures, as suggested by Jed. The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring uncharted territory. Those habits exist for a reason. Patent issues, for example. To each his own, though. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. He might have performed adjustments based on an intuitive feel as to how the reactor core is currently behaving . He's probably very familiar with how the contraption behaves under a number of circumstances. Well... let me put it this way. If I were Rossi, that's what I might have done. The point being *IF* one accepts the possibility that Rossi's eCats do indeed generate a lot of excess heat one would realize that it would be very bad for the engine to run out of radiator fluid in the middle of a demonstration. You would then end up with a seized up totally destroyed engine... or in Rossi's case a potential melt down, and irrevocable permanent damage to the reactor core. Regardless of whether one wants to believe such accounts are true or not, we have been told by Rossi that there have been meltdowns in the past as he was trying to figure out the right recipe. Sure. However, if he's adjusting the water flow, he's either being deliberately deceptive or allowing blatant errors to pass by. Remember, he's got no obligation, at all, to not be deceptive, until and unless he's selling something where he's decieved the buyer. We are accustomed to, in the field of cold fusion, with scientists, who, we assume, adhere to standards of scientific ethics. Rossi isn't a scientist and he has no such obligation, no matter how much some of us might rant and rave about it. If he wants us to believe him, he'd behave differently, I suggest; therefore I conclude that he doesn't care if we believe him, and he may even be pleased that he's being so broadly rejected. If he were a simple scammer, by the way, he'd not behave this way, most likely. My very tentative conclusion from all the evidence and considerations is that there is excess heat, all right, but the amount is not determinable from the demonstrations, the Levi test in February being the most convincing and, of course, there weren't very many independent observers there, if any. And even the Levi test has possible problems But I'm depending for that overall judgment on circumstantial evidence, much like Jed and Ed Storms. I absolutely don't blame anyone for being skeptical about this, I simply urge caution on all sides. It would indeed be useful if someone could clarify if the water intake had always been fixed throughout the entire demonstration... or not as the case may be. It is obviously
RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
From Jed: No, he adjusts the power. Same thing then. The key point being Rossi was constantly monitoring and manually adjusting the power according to current conditions. (Seat-of-the-pants adjusting, that is.) 100.1 C steam output could then still be possible without violating the laws of thermodynamics. From Abd: If he wants us to believe him, he'd behave differently, I suggest; therefore I conclude that he doesn't care if we believe him, and he may even be pleased that he's being so broadly rejected. If he were a simple scammer, by the way, he'd not behave this way, most likely. Yup. Keep'em guessin. Meanwhile, keep smoozing with all your financial backers behind closed doors. Get all your ducks lined up. * * * FWIW: My current speculation on Rossi is that, yes, he probably has stumbled across a breakthrough. (Well... I hope so.) However, it would not surprise me if we eventually discover the fact that as history writes the book on this account we learn that the predictability of generating the Rossi Effect was still uncomfortably iffy at times. Granted, Rossi may still be light years ahead of all the competition, including BLP. But the speculated unpredictability for which I am proposing here may still have been just enough to cause problems in the design, engineering, and ultimate commercialization of his eCat modules. It still would not surprise me unduly if Defkalion misses their highly anticipated October dog and pony show. I'm willing to wait a reasonable amount of time - to let the fix the bugs. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 03:13 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua apparently wrote: Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially. This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore, the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, during most of the test. The displacement pump was used in the steam tests but not the Feb. 10 liquid water test. I believe you set that pump to whatever speed you want, up to some limit. Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test apply to another. Even if device characteristics were not different, to make the device operate with high flow rate would take presumably higher reactor power input, otherwise the reactor temperature would lower, underr reasonable assumptions. Cude is correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed. On the other hand, Cude's statement is true, as stated. if 12 kW was equilibrium, such that water was being neither boiled away nor running over, 17 kW would have rapidly boiled away all the water, if the flow rate remained the same, so that any new water coming in would be flash vaporized, because the whole cooling chamber would increase in temperature above boiling, and the steam would increase above boiling as well. Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very carefully. You can be trapped into rejecting what's true, and it will make you look foolish. I make mistakes like that from time to time, and the only remedy I know is prompt admission, yes, I screwed up. OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson mailto:orionwo...@charter.netorionwo...@charter.net wrote: The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring uncharted territory. That is what I have heard about him. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. No, he adjusts the power. See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an out. Basically, in the January demo, #2, in what has been published, I see adjustment of the power, turn-on and turn-off of the heater, as I recall. My sense is that the controller is designed to respond to a temperature sensor that reports reactor chamber temperature to the controller, and that it then turns the heater on and off, and it might adjust the current to a temperature to create steady state conditions, i.e., just right. However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective, unless there is also feedback reporting to the controller from the cooling chamber, such as a level sensor, or perhaps temperature. If temperature of the cooling chamber were being used, though, we would probably see the operation of the feedback loop, with cycling of the chamber temperature. What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum power. Rossi may think it unimportant that the maximum power figure is being used, rather than true input. Or, remember, maybe he's blowing smoke instead of steam. Jed, I have no fixed opinion on that. All I've noted is that the demonstrations don't show what they purported to show, because of incomplete observation and/or reporting. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump is at the same rate the whole time. You can tell they measured the flow correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable method. Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't change, because there could be valving or obstruction within the E-Cat. These pumps are designed for constant flow, but they cannot maintain it if
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test apply to another. He is. Partly my fault, since I quoted 17 kW without specifying which test I meant. People should look here for the numbers: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm Cude is correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed. No, he is wrong. It was not assumed, it was measured by several methods, such as keeping an eye on the weight scale. I do not know about the Krivit demonstration but in other tests people made sure the flow rate was constant. Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very carefully. No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. No, he adjusts the power. See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an out. Anything is conceivable but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother worrying about it. Levi et al. spent a month working with this device. I think the only way it could be fraudulent would be if they are in cahoots with him, and they are hiding the fact that he adjusts the flow rate or there is a hidden wire, or something like that. I do not think they could overlook this, because if it were me there instead of them, I would *instantly* notice if Rossi changed the flow rate. Perhaps they are monumentally stupid and he has fooled them. I have no means of detecting fraud if Levi et al. are taking part in it. In that scenario, they might have invented the Feb. 10 test out of whole cloth -- it might be a complete lie. The assertion that this might be fraud is not easily falsifiable at present. But it will soon be resolved one way or the other. If this is fraud, Defkalion is also committing fraud; their factory will never open; and a year from now we will know they are liars. Also, if it is fraud, people such as Brian Ahern who think they have seen anomalous heat from Rossi-type cells must be wrong, and eventually they will report their mistake. I do not think it is possible that Rossi is committing fraud yet by some fantastic coincidence people who replicate him get real results. So fraud will be revealed soon, and there is no point to speculating about it or worrying about it. So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct: This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics. However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . . Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming through, and the temperature drops several degrees. It would not be close to boiling if the flow is too fast for it to boil. What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum power. Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water. Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't change, because there could be valving or obstruction within the E-Cat. These pumps are designed for constant flow, but they cannot maintain it if flow is obstructed. Actually, this particular type of pump is pretty good at maintaining a steady flow against different pressures. Better than peristaltic pump. Anyway, they used a weight scale as flowmeter in the steam tests, and a flowmeter-flowmeter in the liquid flow tests, so there is no question about the flow rate and the fact that it was steady. No need to consider that. i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's report that guarantees that all that water was vaporized. Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure is negligible with this device. As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. People who do not understand
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very carefully. No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. ROFL! Same here. Blithering idiocracy from someone who is too chickenship to post with his true identity. WTF scares him? The truth? I do not argue with ghosts. T
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 08:54 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . . Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming through, and the temperature drops several degrees. It would not be close to boiling if the flow is too fast for it to boil. Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will rise. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will occur. Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same. Jed, this is about the umpteenth time I've repeated this, and others have repeated it as well. Boiling water regulates temperature, very well. The temperature of boiling water doesn't change no matter how fast I boil, it, as long as there is still water! i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's report that guarantees that all that water was vaporized. Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure is negligible with this device. If this were true, Jed, then we'd not see exact regulation of the temperature. Oddly, in one of the tests we do see temperature rise above 100 a bit erratically. In that test, the outlet hose was immersed in water, this could have created more back pressure As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. People who do not understand elementary physics will not agree, but they are wrong. I have already said far too much on this subject. That's correct. Jed, you shown enough to demonstrate that, for some very odd reason, difficult for me to understand except that I know this can happen to people when they are distracted, you don't understand elementary physics, because you are making statement after statement that appears to contradict elementary physics, such as this idea that if there is overflow water, the temperature of the E-cat will drop. Why would it drop? After all, water at boiling will carry away less heat than steam at boiling. In fact, the temperature will remain constant, until and unless there is so much water flowing through that the heating can't raise it all to boiling temperature. In the overflow scenarious I've described, all the water is heating to the boiling point, but beause the heat isn't quite enough to boil it all, some (eventually) overflows. That's minimum overflow. It could actually be almost full overflow, the entire water flow pouring out the hose, and as long as the temperature were raised to the boiling point with just a smidgen more heat, the temperature in the chimney would still be boiling, for the pressure inside. (Notice that if there is overflow, the temperature probe would be immersed in liquid water. You can't tell from temperature if you are in water or in steam at equilibrium with water. If there is any boiling at all, the water and the steam will be at the same temperature. The idea that the steam was hotter than boiling and was therefore dry is based on an idea that the water is all being boiled as soon as it enters the E-Cat cooling chamber, i.e., the chamber is at higher than boiling temperature. Such a temperature would be very difficult to control, it would rise substantially above boiling, not just a fraction of a degree The very stable temperature seen in most of the plots is a sure sign that this is wet steam or steam and water in equilibrium.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test apply to another. No. I'm objecting to Rothwell making exactly that assumption. I have no problem with Rothwell arguing that the 18-hour test proves the ecat works. If the numbers are true, it does seem like compelling evidence. But he has used the 18-hour test to claim it proves the January demo worked. That's my objection. It proves no such thing. Even if device characteristics were not different, to make the device operate with high flow rate would take presumably higher reactor power input, otherwise the reactor temperature would lower, underr reasonable assumptions. Exactly. So, if the conditions are different, the power is different. So, it doesn't prove anything about the January test. But by the way, if it is the same ecat, and being cooled more effectively, and having lower input power, how exactly would it run with higher power?
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very carefully. No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense. I prefer it that way. I certainly don't write for your benefit, and it allows me to counter your nonsense with my blather without getting into long drawn-out blather contests. From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. No, he adjusts the power. See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an out. Anything is conceivable but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother worrying about it. You just suggested he adjusts the power, and in all but the January demo, he claims it's constant. He's clearly being dishonest if he is doing as you claim he is. So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct: This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not produce wet steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is very simple and very basic physics. Ah yes, the forbidden power region theory. You should submit that to the Nobel committee. The ecat cannot possibly produce 2 kW of power, even in passing, because then the output would have to be a mixture of steam and water, and that's impossible, because cooking pasta produces dry steam. However, just right in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . . Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming through, and the temperature drops several degrees. So, it goes from 5 kW (complete vaporization) to 600 W (below boiling) in a heartbeat. Some trick, that! What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum power. Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water. Once the ecat outer walls reach constant temperature (during the power up phase), the power only goes in to keeping them hot, which is to counter whatever is lost through the insulation; not much by the way he is touching it. Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure is negligible with this device. Some pressure is necessary to produce flow, and for the vertical part of the ecat. That's enough to explain the higher bp. The perfectly flat temperature is far better evidence that it is at the bp, than the absolute measurements of temperature and pressure. As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. You're taking your physics from someone who learned it cooking pasta? I have already said far too much on this subject. And so much of it is completely wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I do not argue with ghosts. I don't blame you, after the pathetic wet steam is not possible salvo.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume of water entering the reactor core could vary. Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
You're right. Someone of the group of seven attendees had placed an ammeter on the line. The line voltage is either assumed or measured to be 220 VAC. (Levan reports ~236 VAC.) At least once, the ammeter was read. The quoted phrase referring to start up: The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. However:- 1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported. 2) No mention is made of an internal heater that would draw additional power. 3) On all photographs of the device when made visible, I recall two fiber glass insulated wires protruding from the butt end of the thing (one often white and one backwhite stripped.) These could lead to two likely devices: a thermocouple or a heating element. The blue control box has two manually settable control channels visible on the operator side. From this data is likely implied that the edition of the device in question had an internal heater in addition to the external band heater. 4) The calculated energy_output vs. energy_input of Essen and Kullander is about double that reported by either Levan and Levi at around eight to one. On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig wrote: Check out their report. They report the power input as 500 Watts in their energy calculations. Why? That is incorrect. The report says: The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was 1.5 amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including the power for the instrumentation, about 30 watts. The electric heater thus provides a power of 300 watts to the nickel-hydrogen mixture. This corresponds also to the nominal power of the resistor. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/**EssenHexperiment.pdfhttp://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf Please get your facts straight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
2011/7/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com: I don't know what it is about this, but Jed seems to have lost his ability to read and understand Of course, it could be me, I suppose. Aren't we always the last to know? I think that it is both, because you speak different language. You both think that there is insufficient evidence to make definitive conclusion. But I think that Jed is optimist and you are pessimist. That means in practice that Jed thinks that demonstrations does not justify conclusion that E-Cat is debunked, therefore we should trust Rossi (and Focardi, Levi, Stremmenos, etc). You on the other hand think that since demonstrations are insufficient to make the conclusion that we should not trust Rossi. This is the difference of optimist and pessimist. They are making different conclusions from same insufficient evidence! (disclaimer: this is of course pseudopsychology and should not be taken too seriously, however optimism and pessimism are very useful concepts for metadiscussion, because they often can explain why it is sometimes so hard to agree – it is just a language barrier!) – Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating that this is nonsense. It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells are producing lots of steam. The precise amount of steam does not matter because if there was not excess heat, there would be water at 60°C and no steam at all. If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you have no reason to believe any of the other data, so you might as well drop the subject. If you don't like the steam tests, and you actually believe this garbage about people boiling away water with 7 times less energy than it normally takes, or 20 times, or 1000 times (the numbers keep changing) then I suggest you forget about the boiling tests and look at liquid water flow tests of these machines only. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Damon Craig wrote: 1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported. People have done any number of cold fusion experiments, including Ni-H ones, in which input power was recorded on computer. If you don't wish to believe this particular experiment then I suggest you look at some of these others. It seems unlikely to me that this one is fake and the others are real. It also seems unlikely to me that the professors would only look at the ammeter once. But you should believe whatever nonsense pops into your head if it makes you feel good. 2) No mention is made of an internal heater that would draw additional power. The ammeter is attached to the only wire going into the cell. It measures all of the heater power and all of the power to the electronics (which was about 30 W). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course it doesn't prove anything other than that Rossi and Levi are capable of making unproven claims. The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells are producing lots of steam. A little steam. The precise amount of steam does not matter because if there was not excess heat, there would be water at 60°C and no steam at all. No. In the Lewan demo, the flow rate was lower, and the input power was enough to bring the water to the boiling point. So that means only a small deception, and not a nuclear reaction, is needed to explain the little puff of steam. If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you have no reason to believe any of the other data, so you might as well drop the subject. If you *do* believe the 18-hour test data, there is no reason to pay any attention at all to the steam demos, and *you* might as well drop the subject. The attention that you do pay to the public demos shows you have less confidence in the 18-hour test than you claim. If you don't like the steam tests, and you actually believe this garbage about people boiling away water with 7 times less energy than it normally takes, No. The claim is the water is boiling with exactly as much energy as it normally takes, which is 7 times less energy than is needed to boil it away. It's a tricky concept, I know, but I hold out hope that if I say it often enough, you might stop pretending you don't understand it; that you'll take your fingers out of your ears and stop jabbering incoherently to keep you from hearing what you really don't like to hear.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
From Jed and Josh: It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course it doesn't prove anything other than that Rossi and Levi are capable of making unproven claims. Pardon my brief intrusion. This is where I differ with Joshua's conclusion. I tried to explain, unsuccessfully I might add, why in my perception of the events that the steam exiting the eCat reactor is not likely to be much above 100 C no matter how hot the internal eCat temperature core might be...within reason that is. (If memory serves me, I believe the exiting steam temp was recorded to be around 100.1C - 100.2C.) If there is always liquid water present in the reactor core, water which can never reach above 100C at sea level, the nearby gaseous H2O won't have much of a chance to hang around long enough within the reactor core in order to absorb additional temperatures above 100C. Keep in mind that I am assuming that the H2O in its gaseous state is NOT being trapped within the eCat reactor core for any period of time. This ASSUMES the gas has free rein to exit immediately, which I am to understand is precisely what happens. Ironically, the higher the eCat reactor core temperature gets, the more water is converted into steam. This means any converted gas will simply exit the reactor core even faster than before. This means the converted gas doesn't have any more of a chance to absorb additional heat even if the core is hotter, precisely because it leaves faster than before. I would agree with Joshua's conclusion if the converted steam was deliberately being trapped within confines of the reactor core for longer periods of time. Then most certainly the steam WILL absorb additional heat that would be significantly above 100C. However, it is my understanding that this doesn't happen. Therefore, I'm still not inclined to agree with Joshua's conclusion. It is my understanding, however, that Joshua claims my reasoning on this matter apparently violates conservation of energy laws. To be honest, at present I'm not sophisticated enough in my science-speak lingo to challenge Joshua on the matter. So I'll just leave it at that. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:44 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Jed and Josh: It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. If it did, then the steam should have been a few hundred degrees C in the January test, and not 100C. But of course it doesn't prove anything other than that Rossi and Levi are capable of making unproven claims. Pardon my brief intrusion. This is where I differ with Joshua's conclusion. I tried to explain, unsuccessfully I might add, why in my perception of the events that the steam exiting the eCat reactor is not likely to be much above 100 C no matter how hot the internal eCat temperature core might be...within reason that is. (If memory serves me, I believe the exiting steam temp was recorded to be around 100.1C - 100.2C.) If there is always liquid water present in the reactor core, water which can never reach above 100C at sea level, the nearby gaseous H2O won't have much of a chance to hang around long enough within the reactor core in order to absorb additional temperatures above 100C. But this is a pure seat-of-the-pants guess as to how long the steam has to hang around to absorb heat from the walls of the reactor. We know that air passing a hot element in a small space heater, for example, doesn't hang around very long, but still the air heats up. It has to, because the heat from the heater has to go somewhere, and the air is the only option (apart from direct radiation, which eventually goes into the air too). This ASSUMES the gas has free rein to exit immediately, which I am to understand is precisely what happens. The air in a furnace also has free rein to exit immediately, and still it gets hotter. Ironically, the higher the eCat reactor core temperature gets, the more water is converted into steam. After all the water is converted to steam, you can't convert any more water into steam. This means any converted gas will simply exit the reactor core even faster than before. What it means is that the water is converted to steam earlier in the ecat. Since all the water is already converted to steam, it will not move any faster (except to the extent that it gets hot and expands, which you argue doesn't happen), but the created steam has to pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get hotter. This means the converted gas doesn't have any more of a chance to absorb additional heat even if the core is hotter, precisely because it leaves faster than before. Wrong. It does have more chance to absorb heat, because it has to pass more hot surface after it is produced, and because the surface is hotter. It doesn't leave any faster unless it gets hotter. It is my understanding, however, that Joshua claims my reasoning on this matter apparently violates conservation of energy laws. Yes. Using their figures for flow rate and temperature, if the steam is dry, then about 12 kW is being removed from the ecat in the steam enthalpy. If the ecat is producing 17 kW as Rothwell claims was proved by the 18-hr test, then there is about 5 kW extra. Where does it go? There is no way that the insulation on the ecat could have dissipated 5 kW of power without anyone commenting on it, nor for that matter could any temperature and surface area estimate be consistent with that amount of power. No, if there were 17 kW going in, the water would flash to steam as soon as it entered the ecat, and then the steam would have to remove the heat by getting hotter. If it didn't have the time to heat up to remove the heat, the ecat would get hotter until it got hot enough so that there would be time to heat up. Or the thing would melt down. Or, it doesn't actually produce 17 kW, which is of course the simplest and most likely explanation.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
[ duplicate from parallel discussion } Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat. I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario that Rossi found that increasing the electric power input to the heating resistor, deep inside the active core of his reactor, still outside the 50 cc stainless steel chamber, full of nanopowder Ni and a catalyst, at some high level of power produced dozens of explosions, which he attributed to runaway LENR, converting N 62 and Ni 64 to Cu 63 and Cu65, with, if I recall his most recent interview correctly, 0.1 to 0.5 Mev gammas, easily shielded by a few cm of Pb, from intermediate radioactive isotopes with half-life up to a maximum of 20 minutes. I visualized with increasing input electric power with time of operation, increasing thermal conductivity resistance from the stainless steel chamber and the heating resistor (probably something like NiCr wire inside a high temperature insulating ceramic), due to decreasing heat flow transfer rates. 1. In the chamber, even 1 % mass of the 2 gm/sec input water flow being boiled into steam would produce 34 cc/sec steam, enough to bubble and froth the water in the chamber, steeply decreasing its ability to conduct heat by radiation, conduction, or complex convection -- so at some point of increasing input energy, the complex situation will reach and pass a trigger point of instability, leading to steeply increasing heat retention, temperature rise, melting of the metals, explosion of the resistor, complex chemical reactions from O2 dissolved in the city input water, H2 in the Ni nanopowder, Fe, Cu, Cr, Ni, the catalyst, and the resistor ceramic components, the Pd shielding, and finally the exterior insulation and Al, and atmospheric O2 and N2 -- do we know the actual volume inside the reactor, the witch's cauldron for the witch's brew? 2. The failure of the heating resistor would allow sudden transient added electrical arcing and shorting of the power supply, feeding the reactions and sustaining very high temperature chemistry -- which thus is a promising target for precise measurements. 3. The preliminary buildup of water, froth, mist, and steam within the 3 m of black opaque output pipe will increasingly impede the exit flow, facilitating a transient standstill in the device and setting the stage for thermal explosion. 4. Gradually over time, and more quickly just prior to explosion, mineral scale from city water will build up on the interior surfaces of the reactor, especially the hotter resistor and stainless steel reaction chamber, decreasing heat transfer. 5. Over years of solitary, tenacious, blind effort, Rossi would have evolved a setup that allowed a stable demo with hours of operation, fixed water flow, constant electric input, stable 100 deg C output flow temperature, and an output at the end of the hose that could be attributed to nearly complete vaporization of the water flow in the device, thus justifying a claim of 7 fold excess heat. In lieu of so far unconvincing evidence for nuclear reaction radiations, transmutations, or isotopic shifts, or of control runs without the catalyst, or videos of the flow in a transparent output pipe, it is for me reasonable to assert this scenario as both plausible and commonsense enough to justify asserting that the Rossi device will be famous as a case of contagious scientific delusion. It is important, for the safety of intrepid experimenters, to publicize this possible thermal explosion scenario. In mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** JC stated: ...and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get hotter. What makes you think that the walls of the vertical section (i.e., the 'chimney') are at a higher temperature than the walls of the horizontal section that has water at a much lower temperature entering, and the liquid water has a MUCH larger specific heat than the vapor in the chimney? I was not talking about the walls of the chimney. I was talking about the walls of the ecat, which is presumably the only source of heat inside the contraption. If the ecat is vaporizing all the water, then before it leaves the ecat, the water is in the gas phase. If the ecat power significantly exceeds the power needed to vaporize all the water (17 kW vs 12 kW), then the steam will have to pass by the hot walls of the ecat in the gas phase, and it will therefore get hotter. If it doesn't get hot enough to remove the additional 5 kW, then the ecat will have to get hotter causing the water vaporize earlier, giving the steam more time and hotter walls to take the heat from. This process continues until either the steam *does* remove the 5 kW, or the ecat melts. The majority of the heat from the exterior heater around the reactor section willl be flowing back towards the cooler section where the cold water is entering... that is where the largest delta-T is. The hypothetical 17 kW comes from inside the ecat. And anyway, once there is enough heat to vaporize all the water, the heat will have to flow into the steam or get hotter itself.
Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
At 09:53 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating that this is nonsense. It is all nonsense and bullshit. Sure, with proper specification of the it. Nice to be able to agree. The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. tests. That's one non-public test, done by Levi and Rossi. A single demonstration (or even a series of personal experiments) might ordinarily be considered a certain kind of conclusive, i.e. the method appears straightforward, the conclusions sound. An example would be the Pam Boss neutron findings. But that is not normally considered proof. We reserve that term for what is reported by multiple independent observers, in controlled experiments. Nothing like that has been permitted. You know that, Jed. What I and others have been examining is not the 18-hour test, but the public tests based on assumptions of complete boiling. The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells are producing lots of steam. The precise amount of steam does not matter because if there was not excess heat, there would be water at 60°C and no steam at all. Jed, you seem to be conflating a series of demonstrations, mixing characteristics. Maybe not. I had not recently read the Mats Lewan report of the April demo. I will examine it and the video separately. Jed, something you don't seem to understand. My position has rapidly become that certain publicized demonstrations failed to show, conclusively, the amount of excess heat -- if any -- being generated by the device. You are crying bullshit, but then, as proof, you cite yet another demonstration. The other demonstration might totally show that the claimed excess heat was real, suppose for a moment it does. This is *irrelevant* on the issue of whether or not the first demonstrations showed that. You are confusing truth with what a particular demonstration shows. No wonder you had so much trouble on Wikipedia! (Wikipedia's theoretical standard for inclusion is not truth, but what is found in reliable sources, and, note: what you think a reliable source proves is not what can be included. Rather, for science articles, especially, to present conclusions requires reliable secondary sources, which examine claims and judge them. Wikipedia's *actual* standards are far more socially complex If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you have no reason to believe any of the other data, so you might as well drop the subject. So, Jed, you believe that data. That's fine, you are a believer, right? I do not *reject* the data, but neither do I believe it. A pseudoskeptic, here, would reject it. My position is, I hope, normal scientific skepticism. I give the data the benefit of the doubt, i.e., I operate on an assumption that the researcher is presenting what he observed. I may or may not agree with the researcher's conclusions. Jed, if you don't understand this, you need to finish your lunch, or you won't understand the legitimate skepticism that exists in some areas, you will confuse it with pseudoskepticism. If you don't like the steam tests, and you actually believe this garbage about people boiling away water with 7 times less energy than it normally takes, or 20 times, or 1000 times (the numbers keep changing) then I suggest you forget about the boiling tests and look at liquid water flow tests of these machines only. Your comment assumes the very assumptions that are being questioned, the amount of water boiled away. I'd love to look at liquid water flow tests of these machines, but the data is not available. Look, it's very simple: do you believe that the *public demonstrations* should be adequate to silence skepticism on this? That is a very different question from the question you seem to be answering: Do you believe that real excess heat existed in the public demonstrations. Can you see why people might rationally remain skeptical, based on the public demonstration data, and, further, why they then would not deeply trust the private data? (Data? What data? That's what Krivit asked for and did not get, right?) - Jed
