Be careful about high electric power inputs into a resistor in water in a small metal cell -- complex thermal corrosion, for example, cracks in resistor at high temperatures, may lead to electric shorting and arcing and explosion of the resistor, leading to disruption, chemical reaction, and explosion of the Ni powder in its stainless steel cell.
How much is heat transfer reduced when the cell is almost completely filled with hot steam? Do careful preliminary studies with a very small cell to test what input electric power levels lead to resister damage and catastrophic failure. Most CF experiments are black boxes -- the reaction zones are hidden from view. Consider 2D cells with strong glass walls, maybe the superstrong glass used now for cell phone displays. To be safe, the network of experimenters must focus on the complex details of what actually happens in a standard very small cell. Can the runs be shared real-time to everyone via video on the Net? Also recorded, and conversations automatically transcribed. In mutual service, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388 thermal corrosion effects in the Rossi reactor -- recent posts: Rich Murray 2011.07.18 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/13129463f4f98e07 Vortex-L@eskimo.com discussion thread [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration Rich Murray to vortex-l show details Jul 14 (3 days ago) The 15 seconds when Rossi waved the misty end of the black hose against the black sweater were the Waterloo of this mistaken claim... Any signs that his associates are starting to face this unwelcome reality? Rich Murray to michael, Rich, vortex-l show details Jul 14 (3 days ago) I examined the video frame by frame for the 15 frames that were part of the 15 seconds that showed the end of the black hose -- several frames clearly show the water mist expanding as a cone directly from the end of the hose -- thus no proof that invisible steam made it to the end of the 3 m hose. Examine the posts by Joshua Cude for clarifications by one far more capable than me... Every day so far is another day without clear-cut proof of actual excess heat output... from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com, michael barron <mhbar...@gmail.com>, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>, svj.orionwo...@gmail.com, stev...@newenergytimes.com, Rich Murray <rmfor...@gmail.com>, Rich Murray <rmfor...@comcast.net>, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com>, jpbiber...@yahoo.fr, b...@bobpark.org, danieldi...@gmail.com bcc h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com date Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:10 AM subject Re: [Vo]:Estimated range of possible power shown by 2 ml/second water flow in a Rossi-type demonstration mailed-by gmail.com 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 Jul 15 (2 days ago) Reply Rich Murray to LCD, michael, Abd, svj.orionworks, steven1, Rich, Joshua, jpbiberian, bob, danieldiniz, bcc: H-Ni_Fusion show details Jul 15 (2 days ago) "... At a low temperature value, 60-70 deg C, the system triggers a nuclear reaction with generation of power and the temperature of the whole system rises and the water is heated rapidly to 100 deg C and from here enter into forward boil...." http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervista-di-focardi-energylab.html Saturday, July 16, 2011 Interview Focardi to Energy Lab Today I received a new interview on the E-Cat released by Prof. Sergio Focardi. It has just been published on the website of Energy Lab (the pdf is downloadable here ) and the public happy too, thanks to the availability of the authors. "Energy Lab and a non-profit foundation that aims to promote research, development and diffusion in energy and the environment. They are founding partners of the Lombardy Region, RSE , the five University of Milan ( Catholic University of Sacred Heart , Polytechnic Milan , Bocconi University, Universita degli Studi di Milano and Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca ), the AEM Foundation, the Edison Foundation and the Municipality of Milan ..." Rich Murray: Here are my quick visions after reading this interview: When water is heated in a pan on a stove, at a certain temperature, bubbles form on the pan at the bottom of the water. These bubbles must impede the heat transfer from the pan to the much greater volume of water in the pan above the bubble layer. The bubble layer must be much hotter than the water just above the bubble layer. The bubbles, attached to the metal, must be dry steam at least 100 deg C and more. Water at the boundary of a bubble must be continually evaporated as more dry steam, causing the bubble to constantly grow. When bubbles grow large enough, and perhaps start to merge, finally their buoyancy exceeds their molecular attraction to the pan metal, and they detach and float up, expanding and cooling as they go, distributing heat to more of the water volume, but also steadily creating an increasingly complex turbulent mixture of dry steam, wet steam, mist, many sizes of bubbles, a froth that continues to retard heat flow right at the bottom of the froth on the metal pan, so that the layer there actually can become much hotter than 100 deg C, with extremely complex, turbulent, chaotic, frothy turbulence, which eventually characterizes the whole volume. The volume will have a temperature distribution highly chaotic in space and time, including, say, microregions hotter than 200 deg C. Surely, this has already been shown in experiments. So, in the Rossi device, the point at which the measured temperature starts to rise much faster must depend sensitively on the exact location and size and response speed of the thermister, which will be sampling only a few cubic cc's of the whole volume of, perhaps, 200 cc, within which the stainless steel container of a certain volume holds the 50 cc of Ni micropowder, while another volume holds the electric power resister nearby. Since the rate of input water flow is 2 cc/sec, then that is 120 cc/minute -- but only careful measurement can determine how much of the possibly 200 cc total volume of liquid stays longer within some of the hottest regions of the increasingly hot reaction vessel, and how much overall cooler water exits as the output flow. The electric power resister handles about 700 W -- say, it can heat a 100 cc boundary region of water at a maximum rate of 7 deg C hotter per second, 420 deg hotter in a minute. As the overall turbulent, chaotic froth evolves, heat transfer through this 100 cc boundary region adjacent to the electric power resistor will be impaired -- it will constantly be heating faster and faster, appoaching the highest possible rate of 420 deg C per minute. At some point the resistor will experience tiny regions of such high temperatures that the ceramic melts, cracks, or chemically reacts. This will lead to rapid explosive deterioration of the resistor, including electrical shorting and arcing. Likewise, the stainless steel will succumb to similar explosive deterioration, with release of the highly reactive Ni micropowder and its absorbed H. Another factor will be accumulation of minerals from vaporized city water at the hotter microspots, impeding heat transfer, and enabling even more complex chemical reactions. This kind of thermal runaway corrosion, leading to explosions, must have been encountered many times in steam boilers and engines in recent centuries. Electric heaters can concentrate heat input within very small volumes. Experiments can study the chaotic thermal froth of boiling in detail, using infrared imaging of 2D systems, or, better, use high temperature imaging chips that are capable of very rapid measurements of temperatures, pressures, and sounds of a boiling liquid within two 2D sheets of the multifunction sensor chips -- which, if not yet invented, would be bound to be a potent and lucrative research technology. A small cell volume of a few cubic centimeters could be studied by a 3D array of such sensors on a 3D microwire lattice. So, the Rossi debacle can result in extremely productive advances in science and technology. [ End of Reply] no excess heat in June 14 Rossi demo, as no invisible dry steam at end of hose, just feeble mist, perhaps liquid water -- many unbiased critical comments on Vortex-L: Rich Murray 2011.06.25 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm Saturday, June 25, 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 ] ______________________________________________ I've suggested Rossi, searching blindly the last 2-3 years for a way to prevent thermal runaway, has stumbled into using an input electric power that vaporizes some of the water flow, without initiating any nuclear reactions, while managing to believe that the output mist is "visible steam", as he clearly stated at the end of the 13:24 minute video demo by Steven Krivit June 14, 2011... After 11:00 minutes, Rossi lifts up the last 1 m of the 3 m black water outlet hose, then drains water from the end of the hose into the blue bucket, then shows the end of the hose against a black sweater -- clearly the white mist slowly coming directly from the end of the hose is not steam, which is invisible, but water mist. This proves that very little steam must be coming out of the reactor at the start of the 3 m hose. Both water and water mist are flowing at 7 liters per hour, 1.94 cubic centimeter per second [ 7/3600 = .001.94 liters per second ]. If all the water was turned into steam, that would be 1.94X1700 = 3300 cc per second of steam, 3.3 liters per second from a hose with an inside diameter of about 2 cm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E 13:24 minutes June 14, 2011 2011 - Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer Uploaded by StevenKrivit on Jun 20, 2011 Link to New Energy Times reports: http://tinyurl.com/4362kl9 "Steam": 11:30 [ mist emerging feebly directly from 3 m black hose after 11:00 minutes... ] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#inbox/130c0c7a4f3af693 10:45 minutes June 14, 2011 2011 - Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer Uploaded by StevenKrivit on Jun 23, 2011 Link to New Energy Times reports: http://tinyurl.com/4362kl9 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#sent/130af02b8ad0f43e from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com date Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:01 PM subject Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) Jun 20 (5 days ago) I agree the gas flow out the end of the black hose seems to be visible right at the end -- whereas steam would be invisible for a short distance. Trained as a dishwasher since age 10, 80 miles E of Houston, Texas, I am sure that hot water gives off mist in low altitude, warm, humid climates. Rossi seems to be saying that "cool" steam is slightly visible as a mist, while "hot" steam is invisible! All steam is invisible, by definition. Rossi seems to me to be natural, relaxed, matter of fact, genuine. Isn't it possible for the pump to fill the reactor up totally with water, which would then overflow and exit as water just below boiling, or water exactly at boiling, mixed with variable amounts of steam? Would any bubbling at the outlet of the reactor be audible? How noisy is the background? Since about 1 m of the hose lies on the floor, before rising about1.5 m to pass through a hole in the wall, wouldn't that part of the hose on the floor fill up completely with water, with a flow of 7 kg/hour? How much pressure results from the 1.5 m rise in the hole? Also the hose on the floor, if full to 1.5 m, would be equally full on both arms of its "U" bend... If so, then would that ensure that all steam is condensed while passing through a full "U" bend? How much output heat is there if very little of the water is boiled within the reactor? My guess is that the Rossi team actually don't have a clue about what is happening between the device outlet and the far end of the hose. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#sent/130b2661426493fb from Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com date Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM subject Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? Jun 22 (3 days ago) Well, maybe Rossi has spent 2 or 3 years with a setup that really generates gross excess heat energy from LENR, but is explosively unstable -- as the temperature is raised to the level that initiates LENR, the resulting gross nuclear energy release, naturally, immediately rises so steeply as to overwhelm such control parameters as H2 pressure, H2O flow, heat input from electric heater -- finally, he finds a setup that generates 6 to 12 times more energy than input heat, BUT -- 1. he started assuming complete boiling of the water flow into dry steam, whereas actually only a small fraction of the water is ever boiled in his stable runs, so that, 2. the claimed output heat is exaggerated by 6 to 12 times input electric heater power, 3. and, highly motivated to finally have a complete success as an inventor who contributes hugely to humanity and gains praise and wealth and opportunity to continue inventing on a grand scale, he very humanly falls into unconscious habitual resistance about actually double checking the reality of completely dry steam output flow, 4. so that close associates fall into this unconscious blindness, evolving a resiliant group think dynamic that presents a series of confusing demos that finally draw enough scrutiny for the possibility of the error to be discussed by many, 5. whereupon Rossi, a good, honest and forthright man, will quickly do a simple check, verify the error, and share the discovery immediately and openly, 6. and, since he lacks the expertise and resources to engineer how to stabilize the reaction (even if he understands it correctly...), he also immediately discloses every detail of the setup, so that the world as a whole can properly explore this crucial breakthrough for the benefit of all. from Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com date Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:27 AM subject Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc. Jun 24 (1 day ago) On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: *Just to be sure of my position. I am completely convinced that the data that has been provided is coherent with a power generation of 2.5KW. But the presented data is also consistent with power equal to the input electrical power of 800W. That's Rossi's con. If he restricts the data to temperatures, and input flow rate, and brings the flowing water to a boil, the same data can represent output power over a 7-fold range. He of course claims the high end of that. And until Krivit, he was not directly challenged. Even Krivit's challenge (so far) is pretty mild. Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com date Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:11 PM subject Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat 7:11 PM (1 hour ago) You might be thinking of another scenario -- but if I'm guessing what you are saying then the best anyone could do is about 1.86 to 1 ratio. But this assumes that any liquid hot water needed to cool water vapor in a heat exchanger is included in the calculation (otherwise the ratio would be worse, less than 1.86 to 1). I did this calculation, shown below, weeks ago. Basically in this fraudulent set up, the Ecat would do the following: 1. Create 1 kg of 99.9 C water from 10 C water which requires (99.9 - 10) x 4.18 kJ/kg/C = 376 kJ 2. Using same water from step 1, make 1 kg of water *vapor* requiring 2257 kJ. Total input to Ecat required at this point is 376 + 2257 = 2633 kJ 3. Condense water vapor into micro droplets (i.e. fog) deep *inside* the Ecat using a heat exchanger and use this heat to heat 6.00 kg of cold liquid water from 10 C to 99.9 C. This is because 2257 kJ /376 kJ/kg = 6.00 kg (note that the units are correct). Also, note that at this point the total input energy is still 2633 kJ. The actual/real end result is 6.00 kg of 99.9 C water and 1 kg of micro liquid water *droplets* (fog or steam with 0% quality). A gullible observer would think that the Ecat just produced 6 kg of hot water and 1 kg of water *vapor* when it really made 6 kg of hot water and 1 kg of hot *liquid* water droplets. The gullible observer would think that the energy normally needed to create this is 4890 kJ because: (6 kg + 1 kg) x (99.9 - 10) x 4.18 kJ/kg + (1 kg) x 2257 kJ/kg = 4890 kJ While in *reality* it took the following amount of electrical energy: (6 kg + 1 kg) x (99.9 -10) x 4.18 kJ/kg = 2633 kJ So, the gullible observer would see 2633 kJ of electrical energy go into the Ecat and 4890 kJ of thermal energy leave the Ecat. This is a ratio of 4890/2633 = 1.86 I can't think of any way of increasing this ratio using any other similar method. Jeff from mix...@bigpond.com reply-to vortex-l@eskimo.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com date Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:58 PM subject Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat 5:58 PM (2 hours ago) In reply to Joshua Cude's message of Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:20:48 -0500: Hi, [snip] >I was talking about running it above boiling, but way below the level needed >to boil it all. Different thing. And it's easy. The power can range within a >factor of 7. In this case, anywhere between 600W and about 5 kW. BTW (the latent heat of steam) / (the heat energy required to bring water to the boil) is a factor of about 6.7 (depending on starting temperature of water), and curiously close to the COP Rossi claims to be aiming for. In short, if virtually none of the water were converted to steam, and he was assuming that it all was, then it would neatly explain the conversion factor he is claiming. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html from Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com to vortex-l@eskimo.com date Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:36 PM subject Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat Stephen A. Lawrence YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID !!!! On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: *So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output It would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous heat that he can push the temperature up to 99°C and have mostly liquid water go through plus a little steam. If he can do that, he has truly mastered cold fusion! Jed, man, think about that -- don't just jerk your knee at me in an automatic defense of Rossi, really think about it. Rossi has a factor of SEVEN in output level in the range he has to hit in order to produce SOME steam and SOME hot water, and you have just said it would be hard for him to control the anomalous heat well enough to do that. But Rossi's claiming to have produced exactly enough heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, and NOT HEAT THE STEAM beyond boiling --- that target is orders of magnitude smaller than the target he'd need to hit to produce some steam and some hot water! If he overshoots his "dry steam" power level by even a little, the steam temperature will go up by a lot; the specific heat of steam is very small compared to the heat of vaporization of water. But the temperature never rises more than about a degree over boiling! Jed, the point you just made is the point that's been bugging me all along -- it would take a miracle of fine control to generate EXACTLY enough anomalous heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, without superheating the steam, and without leaving wet steam or having the device spit water! There's no evidence of that degree of control, no evidence of a feedback loop which could be providing it, no reason except wishful thinking to believe such control exists ... so the conclusion is that he's actually got the power level set somewhere within the "factor of 7" window, and he's producing very wet steam or a mix of steam and liquid water; he does *NOT* have it "right on the edge", producing dry steam just over the boiling point. It's absurd to think he could exercise the level of precise control needed to produce "exactly dry steam". (And that about uses up my Friday night send-some-useless-email time...) [ Here's a credulous slant... ] http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497 15 mins 51 secs, 65.83 MB, Flash Video 480x360, 25.0 fps, 44100 Hz, 567.05 kbits/sec Brian Josephson June 24th, 2011 at 7:02 AM Our ‘video FAQ’ on the Rossi reactor is now available on our media server at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1150242 , as well as at the original youtube location http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAJnZZi41YA (where the video has already had more than two thousand views in less than 3 days). The version at sms.cam.ac.uk is recommended as it has been improved somewhat (videos cannot be updated on youtube, unfortunately), and also includes a transcript (embedding code is also available, included at the end of the transcript). Rich Murray, MA Boston University Graduate School 1967 psychology, BS MIT 1964, history and physics, 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 505-819-7388 rmfor...@gmail.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/messages http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 118 members, 1,625 posts in a public archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages group with 1226 members, 24,342 posts in a public archive http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/messages -- Posted By Blogger to RoomForAll at 6/25/2011 10:55:00 PM
