RE: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Just to clarify Terry's statement: LIQUID or SOLID water is heavier than air... Moist AIR is LESS DENSE than dry air! So water vapor is LESS DENSE than air... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. T
RE: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
From my time as a grad student at a place that did atmospheric research, and my research advisor being an expert on cloud physics... 1) water vapor is invisible, and when its mixed with air (N and O), it LESS DENSE than dry air, thus it rises. i.e., water evaporating off a lake is invisible and rises as a column of moist air until... 2) it reaches the condensation level, which is determined by the temperature and atmospheric pressure at any point as the vertical column of moist air is rising. 3) when that moist air reaches CL, water begins to condense onto dust particles. I.e., you need a nucleating particle onto which the water can condense, then the water droplet will grow by further condensation. Sodium iodide is commonly used as a nucleating agent in cloud seeding efforts. 4) Clouds can be VERY turbulent structures, with various vertical columns of rising air and columns of less humid falling air, and a significant shear at the boundaries!!! Ask any pilot who is still alive and has flown thru a reasonably large cumulus cloud. Can you say, E-ticket at Disneyland? 5) Whether the liquid water droplets in a cloud fall out (as rain) is simply a matter of how turbulent the cloud is (how strong the updrafts are) and how big the droplet are... As soon as the droplets reach a size that can no longer be supported by the updrafts, they fall out... 6) at the same time, dry air from above the cloud is being entrained (mixed) into the cloud causing dilution of the very humid cloud with drier air... This is for the usual convective cumulus clouds that most are familiar with. -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) At 08:54 PM 6/20/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Sure it is, but water droplets can be airborne for a long time. Witness any cloud.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Hi, On 21-6-2011 9:08, Mark Iverson wrote: Just to clarify Terry's statement: LIQUID or SOLID water is heavier than air... Moist AIR is LESS DENSE than dry air! So water vapor is LESS DENSE than air... -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 5:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011) On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. T mass N_2 28 gr/mol mass O_2 32 gr/mol mass H_2 O 18 gr/mol QED Kind regards, MoB
Re: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Hello, Perhaps this link provides some usefull information about relative humidity RH and temperature above 100 deg C. http://www.macinstruments.com/relatv_c.htm Peter v Noorden - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The Testo 650 is used for measuring *humidity*, Jed, for, like, food manufacturing and storage, etc. Read that HP literature. The device measures up to 100% humidity, it claims. Wet steam is above 100% humidity. The literature claims that the device measures: CO2, CO, temperature, and relative humidity. Other parameters are calculated from these measurements. http://www.testo.com/online/embedded/Sites/INT/SharedDocuments/ProductBrochures/0563_6501_en_01.pdf It isn't HP; it is testo. The meter also measures absolute humidity g/m^3 (mass) and enthalpy (kcal/kg), which is what we want to measure. I guess enthalpy is derived from absolute humidity and temperature. Elsewhere you wrote: You misunderstood that, I believe. Look at what the thing actually measures, and look at the humidity measurement operating range. 85% (max), no condensation. This thing doesn't work in the presence of liquid water, as I read it. There would be no point to making a meter like this if it did not work in the presence of liquid water, because there is almost always some liquid water in process steam. It is never purely dry. I think people here should concede that Galantini is expert enough to select the right kind of meter after all, and it is likely he also knows how to use the meter to measure by mass instead of volume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New private E-Cat test with no input energy
Axil, Good idea, The geometry of the powder to tungsten interface might be a concern because of the high melting point of tungsten but as far as material selection the anomalous behavior of tungsten and atomic hydrogen goes all the way back to Langmuir. My question is regarding the spin melting or alloying method of the powder to reactor surface - how would it work with tungsten? Regards Fran Rossi could use tungsten as a replacement for stainless steel (SS) as the shell of his reaction vessel. The nano-powder has a higher melting temperature then SS.
[Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
I will copy and paste a comment by a user called GoatGuy, who frequently posts on the blog nextbigfuture, and which seems to debunk the e-cats. I would like to add that I do not necessarily endorse his opinion but I would sincererly like to find any counter points to what he wrote there, because I cannot (In fact I also thought of these things, and if a good counter point is given, my last bits of skepticism will be crushed): http://disq.us/2cavmp ** Visualize a watering hose. Pretty obviously, if 5 meters per second of water is entering the hose at one end, no matter how long it is, provided the open end is the same diameter, the same 5 meters per second of water will come flowing out. You might object, but steam is a compressible fluid! — true enough. The pressure of the steam though will rapidly achieve a balance where that emanating from the open end will have just about the same pressure as the atmosphere. Therefore, at 1 atmosphere, whatever the cross-section × the flow rate is, is the quantity, in liters, of steam. You might object again, but the hose will conduct heat away, condensing the steam, and resulting therefore in a lower flow at the open end! — again, true enough. This one is harder. There's a relatively simple equation: Q = KADELTA;T/x where [Q is heat flow in watts], [k is thermal coefficient of (rubber)], [ΔT is temperature diff between hot and cold sides of material] and [x is thickness of material]. So again, looking at the video clip, I estimate the output hose is 2 cm outside diameter. Inside diameter is 1.25 cm. Thickness (x) is ($thickness = (2.0 - 1.25) / 2 / 100) = 0.0037 m. Average area per meter of hose is ($area_per_meter = 3.14 × (2 / 100 + 1.25 / 100) / 2) = 0.051. Remembering that the hose will be hot (i.e. in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding air, a surface temperature of perhaps 60°C), and a k of 0.16 (from wikipedia for black rubber) then: ( $watts_per_meter = 0.16 × $area_per_meter × (100 - 60) / $thickness) = 87.1 watts In lab I've found it derated somewhat further, to about 50 watts per meter for common lab tubing, with steam inside and comfortable lab air on the outside. So, if a length of tubing is 3 or 4 meters long (per that longer video with the blue bucket…) then it should be conducting away about (50 × 3) = 150 W of heat. This will derate the system accordingly. Now, moving along to the “blue bucket” video case, it looked to me that the exhaust was decidedly watery (as expected from the above dissipation phenomenon.) But it also did NOT look like the effluent steam was very strong. Further, when it hit the bucket of water, it merrily bubbled, but not all that significantly. The ammeter on the floor, near the wall socket showed 1.5 to 1.6 amps of draw. Assuming that most of this went to the heater, corresponding to Rossi's earlier statements of 300W to 400W of heat, that gives (300 W — 150 W) watt of steam per second, which in turn corresponds to a flow of about 1 to 1.5 meters per second. this seems to be similar to that effusing from the tube. Rossi is heard to say directly, it seems to be stable, and running at about 2,500 watts of output. (Paraphrased). So, let's do that, yes? ($milliliters = (2500 W - 150 W ) / 4700 W × 3120 ml/s ) = 1,560 ML per second, expected, including the hose losses (which are only 6%). Now, working with that 1.25 inside diameter, area is ( $cross_section = 3.14 × (1.25 cm / 2) ↑ 2 ) = 1.23 cm². So… ( $rate = $milliliters / $cross_section / 100 cm/m ) = 12.7 meters per second. 12.7 is pretty damned fast, you know? 2,500-150 watts is substantially more than most “big elements” of electric stoves (1800 W common, and they only deliver 75% or so of the heat to the pot, or about 1,350 watts. This is roughly 2× that level, so it really ought to be whizzing out of the end something fierce. If you want to keep going with the physics side, then there's the impulse (momentum force). You know, like how when you hold a high pressure garden hose with a “jet” nozzle, the hose actually pushes back. The equation is pretty simple: [F = ma] force is mass times acceleration. If the mass ( $mass = 2350 / 4700 × 2.06 g ) = 1.03 g/s is exiting at 12.7 m/s then it net is experiencing 13.1 newtons per second… which is significant. Rossi should be concerned about the danger of the exhaust pipe. Further, and somewhat suspiciously, the “hose and bucket” video showed the docent pulling the hose out of the bucket, where it was not bubbling at all, then the steam begins to come out, and the rate increases substantially over 15 seconds, meanwhile Rossi is out of the picture. When the hose is returned to the bucket, there is substantial bubbling in the water, something which wasn't present before it was taken out. I know I sound too skeptical, but what about that Ignore the man behind the curtain! business? Seeing as his electronic control(s) are entirely digital, it wouldn't take much to kick up the power
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, these devices measure a number of things directly, and others are calculated. I see no sign that the device is designed to measure steam quality. It's not a described application. Yes, it is. The Delta Ohm meter with an HP474AC probe, the meter is intended to go up to 150°C. That's steam temperature. The meter is intended to measure enthalpy. Why would they make a meter that goes up to steam temperatures, which specifically says it measures calories per gram, but it does not do that? What would be the point? Look, Abd, you need to get real. I honestly have no idea how these meters work. Electronic instruments are often black boxes that work by black magic. But these meters are made by several different companies and it is reasonable to assume they work as advertised. They measure enthalpy. Otherwise, some agency would go after the companies for false advertising. If the gadget did not work with steam, what possible use would it be? Who would buy it? You would not use one of these single-probe instruments to measure the enthalpy of hot water. You use these nifty things: http://www.dynasonics.com/products/tfx-ultra.php If Rossi would incorporate the Testo 650 with the printer option, and have it print enthalpy every minute, he would have a bang-up, irrefutable demonstration. He could measure the reservoir before and after, power input, and then show that the printed record of enthalpy does not vary much, so the flow rate and power level is reasonably stable. That would prove his point. Just multiply the average enthalpy by the total mass of water consumed and Bob's your uncle. That would be nice touch, but the video demo was impressive enough. Rossi is a more impressive in person, in the video, then he is in his blog. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com quoted GoatGuy: So, if a length of tubing is 3 or 4 meters long (per that longer video with the blue bucket…) then it should be conducting away about (50 × 3) = 150 W of heat. This will derate the system accordingly. That is RIDICULOUS. This guy has no common sense. He has no intuitive feeling for how much heat 150 W is! This estimate is off by a factor of 10 at least. The hose is obviously too hot to touch. Anyone who has ever used a hose of this nature (including me) knows that a hose with steam in it gets too hot to touch. If the entire 3 m length of the hose was producing only 150 W it would only be a tiny bit warmer than the surroundings. You could hold it anywhere. I expect that by sense of touch alone you could not tell it is warmer than the surroundings. That hose is radiating kilowatts of heat. Anything that size, that hot, has to be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Seriously.. You guys are posting GoatGuy? .. Seriously? Seriously?!?! Doesn't his handle in any way remind you of the usual handles selected by pseudoskeptics and rampant wikipedia fuckups? Seriously!? What are you, on your first minute of the internet? (Mr. Rocha). On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com quoted GoatGuy: So, if a length of tubing is 3 or 4 meters long (per that longer video with the blue bucket…) then it should be conducting away about (50 × 3) = 150 W of heat. This will derate the system accordingly. That is RIDICULOUS. This guy has no common sense. He has no intuitive feeling for how much heat 150 W is! This estimate is off by a factor of 10 at least. The hose is obviously too hot to touch. Anyone who has ever used a hose of this nature (including me) knows that a hose with steam in it gets too hot to touch. If the entire 3 m length of the hose was producing only 150 W it would only be a tiny bit warmer than the surroundings. You could hold it anywhere. I expect that by sense of touch alone you could not tell it is warmer than the surroundings. That hose is radiating kilowatts of heat. Anything that size, that hot, has to be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
I am someone who sincerely want to understand what is happening. If that were my point of view, I would not come here. It seems you people are knowledge able, so I want your opinion.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
We all wanna know if E-Cat is for real. I even wanna know if Steorn are really gonna come out with an E-Orbo heater. I even wanna know what happens during the Idaho Renaissance Charge Bedini/Free Energy conference in July.. But what does Goatguy want to know? Hasn't he been rampantly sabotaging various FE YouTube videos with his pseudoskeptic blasting? :) On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: I am someone who sincerely want to understand what is happening. If that were my point of view, I would not come here. It seems you people are knowledge able, so I want your opinion.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Daniel Rocha wrote: I am someone who sincerely want to understand what is happening. If that were my point of view, I would not come here. It seems you people are knowledge able, so I want your opinion. That's fine. You are not GoatGuy. It is okay to cross-post that message. I think Esa Ruoho was out of line criticizing you. However, this estimate of only 150 W for 3 m of black hose that is too hot to touch is completely incorrect. I do not know where his equation is wrong, but I am certain it is wrong. The heat from a 150 W incandescent light spread over an area as large as a 3 m black hose is barely sensible. There are no units in his equations. I often accidentally drop one or two orders of magnitude when doing arithmetic. To avoid that I recommend you keep the units in all equations. I see one mistake right here. He says the inner diameter (ID) is 1.25 cm. He estimates the outer diameter (OD) at 0.0037 m. That's 0.37 cm. I think he meant 3.7 cm, an order of magnitude more. He figures 1 m of hose has 0.051 square units of surface, which I guess are supposed to be square meters. Anyway, I get 0.24 m^2. Pretty sure that's right. In equations and scientific papers, always include units! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
I used another method, so, let's see: Considering that the hose is a black body in equilibrium, let's use the Stephan-Boltzman law, we have that the power per unit of area of the hose is 5.67×10-8 * (373k)^4 = 19.2* 10^9*5.67*10^-8= 1088.64 Watt/m^2 . The diameter of the hose seems to be 2cm, so the area of the hose is about 3m*3.14*0.02m= 0.18. So, the irradiated power is about 0.18*1088= 195.8W. The abosrbed by the evironment is 5.67×10-8 * (303k)^4 = 8.4*10^9 *5.67*10^-8 = 476.28W (the temperature of the lab is around 30C by the time of the video). So the abosorbed power is 0.18*476.28= 85.68W. So, the total power power ballance is 110W. Given that this is quite not a black body, the value should be lower. That guy got 87.5 using another method.So perhaps there is a lot of cooling by convection?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Jed sez a 150 watt hose wouldn't be very hot. GoatGuy says it would. Well, let's do a little plausibility calculation, and see whose ballpark we wind up in. A 2 cm hose 3 meters long has surface area of about 2 * pi * 300 = 1900 cm^2. In comparison, consider a 150 watt lightbulb. It's an approximate sphere, and it might be 3 inches in diameter (that's a moderately fat lightbulb). Then its radius is about 3.75 cm, and its surface area is something like 4 * pi * (3.75^2) = 177 cm^2. A 150 watt lightbulb gets hot as heck. On the other hand I've never blown up a lit lightbulb by slobbering wet paint on it with a full roller (which I've done a number of times in a former life) so heck is not totally unbounded. Let's be generous, and say our 150 watt bulb gets up to 200C above room temperature (that's going to be about 220 C, which is stinkin' hot -- but, in fact, Wikipedia says the envelope temp of a general service bulb can reach 200 to 260 C, so it's not outrageous). Now, most of the energy of the bulb gets lost via convection to the air, just as most of the energy of the hose gets lost that way. For simplicity, let's assume the hose and the bulb both lose *all* their energy that way. And let's assume the loss rate is linear in the temperature difference with the air (which may even be true). Then the temperature of the hose should be (*very* roughly) (177 / 1900) * 200 = 19 degrees above room temperature That's about 40 degrees C, or about 104 degrees F. Even if I'm off by a factor of 1.5 in one of the assumptions it's still not going to be especially uncomfortable to touch a rubber hose which is that hot. I'd say Jed wins this one, hands down. Goat Guy must be using strange hoses. On 11-06-21 09:54 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com quoted GoatGuy: So, if a length of tubing is 3 or 4 meters long (per that longer video with the blue bucket...) then it should be conducting away about (50 × 3) = 150 W of heat. This will derate the system accordingly. That is RIDICULOUS. This guy has no common sense. He has no intuitive feeling for how much heat 150 W is! This estimate is off by a factor of 10 at least. The hose is obviously too hot to touch. Anyone who has ever used a hose of this nature (including me) knows that a hose with steam in it gets too hot to touch. If the entire 3 m length of the hose was producing only 150 W it would only be a tiny bit warmer than the surroundings. You could hold it anywhere. I expect that by sense of touch alone you could not tell it is warmer than the surroundings. That hose is radiating kilowatts of heat. Anything that size, that hot, has to be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Dear Esa, I don't want to know if the E-cat is for real. I think it can give lot of heat. The problem is if it is technologically mature enough to be used in practice- and for this it has to fulfill a lot of conditions and to achieve performances as I have shown here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/buying-e-cat-in-sack.html What I want to know is if the E-cat is a RELIABLE, USABLE source of energy. Hopefully we will learn something from the Press Conference of Defkalion after tomorrow- they have to sell the E-cats. There are 4-5 months till the astral 1MW event, an intense activity of research and development can solve a lot of problems. You learn the most on the interface with the customer. On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: We all wanna know if E-Cat is for real. I even wanna know if Steorn are really gonna come out with an E-Orbo heater. I even wanna know what happens during the Idaho Renaissance Charge Bedini/Free Energy conference in July.. But what does Goatguy want to know? Hasn't he been rampantly sabotaging various FE YouTube videos with his pseudoskeptic blasting? :) On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: I am someone who sincerely want to understand what is happening. If that were my point of view, I would not come here. It seems you people are knowledge able, so I want your opinion. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
On 11-06-21 10:44 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I wrote: He figures 1 m of hose has 0.051 square units of surface, which I guess are supposed to be square meters. Anyway, I get 0.24 m^2. Pretty sure that's right. Oops. Sorry, you are supposed to use the radius, not the diameter. Radius is 1.85 cm (assuming GoatGuy is right about the OD) Radius is 1 cm, actually, as he assumed the OD was 2 cm. Specifically, he said: I estimate the output hose is 2 cm outside diameter. Inside diameter is 1.25 cm. So (external) surface area per meter is 2 * pi * R * L = 2 * pi * 1 * 100 = 630 cm^2. 1 m^2 = 10,000 cm^2 so that's 0.063 m^2. So, you're both wrong. so surface area is 0.12 m^ per meter of hose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Radius is 1 cm, actually, as he assumed the OD was 2 cm. Specifically, he said: I estimate the output hose is 2 cm outside diameter. Inside diameter is 1.25 cm. So (external) surface area per meter is 2 * pi * R * L = 2 * pi * 1 * 100 = 630 cm^2. 1 m^2 = 10,000 cm^2 so that's 0.063 m^2. So, you're both wrong. Yup. As I said, he should have used units. Anyway, he is wrong somewhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
On 11-06-21 10:35 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jed sez a 150 watt hose wouldn't be very hot. GoatGuy says it would. Well, let's do a little plausibility calculation, and see whose ballpark we wind up in. Now, let's just slow down here. There's another plausibility check we can do, and it comes out a little differently. Let's try to calculate how much heat the surface of the hose might be dumping into the air, using a lightbulb for a standard, and assuming the hose is really quite hot. Assume a 100 watt bulb is a sphere 2 in diameter, or 5 cm. (That ignores the stem, of course, but it's not too far off, I think. Note that making this value too small will be conservative, which is the direction in which we want to err here.) Assume it dumps ALL of its energy to convection with the air. (That's an overestimate, which is conservative, as you will see.) Assume, further, that its envelope temperature is 200 C above ambient (which is in the ballpark, according to Wiki, and according to what I'd guess based on how they feel). Bulb area is then 4 * pi * 2.5^2 = 79 cm^2. Now, let's assume the hose has a surface temp of 100C. The rubber is an insulator, so it'll really be a bit cooler than that; consequently this is a conservative assumption. So, hose temp is about 80 C above ambient (which I'm assuming is 20 C). Hose radius is 1 cm. The 3 meter hose has area = 2 * radius * pi * length = 2 * 1 * pi * 300 = 1885 cm^2. Convective loss rate of the hose, relative to the bulb, will be (area(hose) / area(bulb)) * (temp above ambient(hose) / temp above ambient(bulb) or (1885/79) * (80/200) = 9.6 The bulb is assumed to be losing 100 watts, so that's a loss rate of 960 watts for the hose. That's a loss of 38% of the output power, which was stated to be 2.5 kW. Furthermore, that's (probably) a liberal estimate: An incandescent bulb actually radiates away something like 20% of its energy (if I recall correctly), while the hose, being a lot cooler, will radiate away quite a bit less. Furthermore, the hose is made of an insulator (rubber) so its outside surface temp will certainly be cooler than its inside temp; consequently, its outside temperature must actually be *less* than 80C above ambient. Furthermore, room temperature is often higher than 20, rarely lower, which would reduce the relative temp of the hose further. These effects combine to reduce the power being dumped by the hose to something less than 38% of the output power of the device. Consequently, it seems to me that the end of the hose should still be putting out a steam plume which carries away on the order of 1.5 kW. That may still be enough energy to carry GoatGuy's main conclusion, which is that the hose should have been a lot livelier than it appeared on the video.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Now, most of the energy of the bulb gets lost via convection to the air, just as most of the energy of the hose gets lost that way. For simplicity, let's assume the hose and the bulb both lose *all* their energy that way. That's fine for this estimate, but in real life a 3 m hose with hot water or steam flowing through it does not lose all of the energy that way. As you see in the video it was still plenty hot at the end. That's about 40 degrees C, or about 104 degrees F. Even if I'm off by a factor of 1.5 in one of the assumptions it's still not going to be especially uncomfortable to touch a rubber hose which is that hot. My seat-of-the-pants estimate is that it would not be sensibly hotter than the surroundings, or barely sensible. That is because a hose is reasonably good insulation and water heated at one end will be nearly as hot at the other end, at these flow rates. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
On 11-06-21 11:04 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Now, most of the energy of the bulb gets lost via convection to the air, just as most of the energy of the hose gets lost that way. For simplicity, let's assume the hose and the bulb both lose *all* their energy that way. That's fine for this estimate, but in real life a 3 m hose with hot water or steam flowing through it does not lose all of the energy that way. As you see in the video it was still plenty hot at the end. Sorry -- I was not clear! I meant, let's assume all losses along the line are conductive, with no loss to radiation. That makes it easy to estimate the surface temp of the hose, relative to the lightbulb. In fact, I was ignoring the energy going into the hose in that calculation, and just assuming it was losing GoatGuy's 150 watts, and I was assuming the entire loss was via conduction through its skin. That's about 40 degrees C, or about 104 degrees F. Even if I'm off by a factor of 1.5 in one of the assumptions it's still not going to be especially uncomfortable to touch a rubber hose which is that hot. My seat-of-the-pants estimate is that it would not be sensibly hotter than the surroundings, or barely sensible. That is because a hose is reasonably good insulation and water heated at one end will be nearly as hot at the other end, at these flow rates. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
I apologize for being explosively out of line, Mr. Rocha. On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I meant NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
The main flaw in this may be that lightbulbs only hit 220 C when confined in fixtures. For a fair comparison with the exposed hose, we'd need to look at an exposed lightbulb. My impression is that they don't go a whole lot above boiling in that case. (Water dripped on a free standing lightbulb doesn't typically fizz, as far as I can recall.) If the bulb envelope were only, say, 100C above ambient in that case, the conclusion here would be very different: I'd get a loss rate for the hose of 1920 watts, or 77% of the device's output power, leaving just 580 watts to be carried off by the plume. And that probably wouldn't be enough heat to support GG's conclusion. So, all in all, this plausibility check may be too squishy to be of much use. On 11-06-21 11:30 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-06-21 10:35 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Jed sez a 150 watt hose wouldn't be very hot. GoatGuy says it would. Well, let's do a little plausibility calculation, and see whose ballpark we wind up in. Now, let's just slow down here. There's another plausibility check we can do, and it comes out a little differently. Let's try to calculate how much heat the surface of the hose might be dumping into the air, using a lightbulb for a standard, and assuming the hose is really quite hot. Assume a 100 watt bulb is a sphere 2 in diameter, or 5 cm. (That ignores the stem, of course, but it's not too far off, I think. Note that making this value too small will be conservative, which is the direction in which we want to err here.) Assume it dumps ALL of its energy to convection with the air. (That's an overestimate, which is conservative, as you will see.) Assume, further, that its envelope temperature is 200 C above ambient (which is in the ballpark, according to Wiki, and according to what I'd guess based on how they feel). Bulb area is then 4 * pi * 2.5^2 = 79 cm^2. Now, let's assume the hose has a surface temp of 100C. The rubber is an insulator, so it'll really be a bit cooler than that; consequently this is a conservative assumption. So, hose temp is about 80 C above ambient (which I'm assuming is 20 C). Hose radius is 1 cm. The 3 meter hose has area = 2 * radius * pi * length = 2 * 1 * pi * 300 = 1885 cm^2. Convective loss rate of the hose, relative to the bulb, will be (area(hose) / area(bulb)) * (temp above ambient(hose) / temp above ambient(bulb) or (1885/79) * (80/200) = 9.6 The bulb is assumed to be losing 100 watts, so that's a loss rate of 960 watts for the hose. That's a loss of 38% of the output power, which was stated to be 2.5 kW. Furthermore, that's (probably) a liberal estimate: An incandescent bulb actually radiates away something like 20% of its energy (if I recall correctly), while the hose, being a lot cooler, will radiate away quite a bit less. Furthermore, the hose is made of an insulator (rubber) so its outside surface temp will certainly be cooler than its inside temp; consequently, its outside temperature must actually be *less* than 80C above ambient. Furthermore, room temperature is often higher than 20, rarely lower, which would reduce the relative temp of the hose further. These effects combine to reduce the power being dumped by the hose to something less than 38% of the output power of the device. Consequently, it seems to me that the end of the hose should still be putting out a steam plume which carries away on the order of 1.5 kW. That may still be enough energy to carry GoatGuy's main conclusion, which is that the hose should have been a lot livelier than it appeared on the video.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
No problem, that's ok :). BTW, I made some more calculations, after GoatGuy told me something: * Without the thermal conductivity worked out, the blackbody approximation is in error. Use 50° C instead. (i.e. a hot-but-can-be-held temperature). Also, don't forget that net-radiative has to come from the temperature differential, not the temperature absolute. A 50°C blackbody in a 50°C room will neither gain, nor lose, heat by SBL. P = AεσT4 where A = area, ε = emissivity, σ = 5.67×10-8 ( 3 m × 3.14 × 0.02 m × 0.8 emissivity × 5.67×10-8 × ((50 + 273)4 - (25 + 273)4 )) = 25.6 W That's more like it. I'd believe that 25 watts would maybe be radiated as the differential. I chose 80% as the greybody emissivity (which is in line with black rubber). I'm not sure what you were doing the extra multiplications by the Stefan-Boltzman constant for, but … the above works out well, directly. And again, I don't think any of this materially is significant compared to Rossi's stated “running at about 2,500 watts, stably”. You know? G O A T G U Y And I answered: ** Sure, I used the temperature differential. The emission of the hose emiting to the evironment at 100C, and the environment heating the hose ar 30C. Well, that's the difference anyway... Well, eventually, there must be conservation of energy, so I guess if I used the internal part of the hose and the environment, that would be more correct so, 110*(1.25/2)=69W. Per meter, it gives 23W. I made several approximations during all the way, but 23W is a bit close to 25.6.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Abd is right, I've been trying to say multiple times that the meter measures humidity of air up to 98% humidity. The probe can go to 150 C without being broken but that does not mean that it can measure accurately up to 150 C. But that's for *air* anyway. We want to know the steam quality. This probe does *not* do this. It takes an expensive complicated system to measure steam quality and even then, the one I found on the market needs an overpressure of some amount so that it can expand it into a chamber and then measure the resulting temperature, It measures *air* humidity. Not steam quality. ! Two months ago I offered to explain this to Jed on the phone and asked for his phone number - because he kept misinterpreting what I was writing on this subject. His reply was no and what's the point?. Well if he keeps promoting Rossi without understanding humidity vs. steam quality then the point is he is helping Cold Fusion take a big black eye without learning the difference between humidity measurements in air and steam quality. Rossi is dumping the evidence down the drain. Why else would he not dump it into a big tank and measure the temperature rise of the water? Abd says he just wants to confuse people and keep competitors away - I say it's because Rossi is a fraud. here are excerpts from my previous emails over the past 3 months all lumped together: Rossi used this electronic device for electronic measurement (as was reported) - model HD37AB1347. Relative Humidity probe model HP474AC was attached to it. Page three of this link (thanks to Horace) shows details of that probe connected to the electronic device. HP474AC has the following specifications: http://tinyurl.com/45rwsvh HP474AC Relative Humidity Probe specifications: 5% to 98% RH -40C to 150 C +/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH) +/-3.5%(95%...99%RH) Temp +/-0.3C = Here is a link to a description of a throttling calorimeter which is a device that measures the quality (wetness) of steam. Basically the throttling calorimeter involves letting the pressurized steam expand into a cavity and measuring the temperature of the resulting gas. It only works with pressurized steam such as 30 psia steam or higher so that it can expand down to 15 psia or atmospheric pressure. http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2003/378.html?page=full == The HD37AB1347 device with the HP474AC probe is designed to measure air with 0% to 100% humidity. It is not designed to measure pure water vapor with tiny liquid droplets (including zero liquid droplets) in it. It isn't even close - there is no way that measuring Relative Humidity will give you the quality (mass fraction of vapor) of the steam. They might have somehow used the device to measure quality of the steam in a non-standard non-typical manner but I can't think of a way they might have done that. The capacitance as measured by the probe would be vastly different when measuring air saturated at 100% compared to pure water vapor (with or without tiny liquid droplets). If someone is able to find out what the vapor looked like when it left the hose then let us know. Was it transparent and high velocity? 12 kW should make a serious sized jet of water vapor that should condense into whitish cloud some distance from the hose. == As far as I can see, they are still making mistakes by using a humidity meter to test for the mass fraction of vapor to liquid water - also known as steam quality from their technical paper: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29. http://tinyurl.com/68wqoyy it says: The system to measure the non-evaporated water was a certified Testo System, Testo 650, with a probe guaranteed to resist up to 550°C. The measurements showed that at 11:15 1.4% of the water was non-vaporized, at 11:30 1.3% and at 11:45 1.2% of the water was non-vaporized. here is the humidity meter http://www.instrumart.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=28689gps=1 http://www.instrumart.com/assets/108/650AW.pdf this does not measure the quality of the steam! So they are again using a crappy temperature probe to figure out steam quality (dry versus wet steam)? This is so bogus. If the boiling water has a back pressure of 0.6 psi, the temperature will be raised by 1 degree C see here: http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html Is this the third time they have done this stupid method of measuring evaporation of steam? Or is more than 3 times. Does anyone have the correct count of times they have done this? Why don't they feed the steam into a 55 gallon water tank and then measure the temperature rise of the water as *everyone* has been suggesting? They probably don't and won't because they are frauds.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 09:44 AM 6/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, these devices measure a number of things directly, and others are calculated. I see no sign that the device is designed to measure steam quality. It's not a described application. Yes, it is. The Delta Ohm meter with an HP474AC probe, the meter is intended to go up to 150°C. That's steam temperature. The meter is intended to measure enthalpy. Look, I don't know the reality here, I could be way out in left field. But I see you making many assumptions, Jed, such as temperature meaning that this thing will function under all conditions as long as the temperature is below 150 C. Temperature of what? If the device is intented to measure relative humidity in air, it will do so in *air* up to 150 C. Why would they make a meter that goes up to steam temperatures, which specifically says it measures calories per gram, but it does not do that? What would be the point? The meter has all kinds of uses. Look, Abd, you need to get real. I honestly have no idea how these meters work. That's right. I can tell you this: the brochure is quite specific as to what is measured, and it ain't enthalpy. Enthalpy is calculated from what *is* measured, with some assumptions. Electronic instruments are often black boxes that work by black magic. But these meters are made by several different companies and it is reasonable to assume they work as advertised. They measure enthalpy. The enthalpy of what? Hot molten salt? (seriously, not that, the temperature is too high. But obviously the meter needs to know what substance is being measured!) Otherwise, some agency would go after the companies for false advertising. If the gadget did not work with steam, what possible use would it be? Who would buy it? You would not use one of these single-probe instruments to measure the enthalpy of hot water. You use these nifty things: http://www.dynasonics.com/products/tfx-ultra.php You are right you would not use it to measure the enthalpy of hot water. Bingo! Wet steam is, partly, hot water! It is not a uniform material, it will separate out into hot water and water vapor. I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If Rossi would incorporate the Testo 650 with the printer option, and have it print enthalpy every minute, he would have a bang-up, irrefutable demonstration. He could measure the reservoir before and after, power input, and then show that the printed record of enthalpy does not vary much, so the flow rate and power level is reasonably stable. That would prove his point. Just multiply the average enthalpy by the total mass of water consumed and Bob's your uncle. That would be nice touch, but the video demo was impressive enough. Rossi is a more impressive in person, in the video, then he is in his blog. Sorry, you just convinced me that you aren't seeing this objectively. The Krivit video has seriously damaged my impression of Rossi, it was his explanation of hot steam. He's explaining away, incorrectly, an obvious problem, the weak steam plume from the hose. You and I know a possible explanation, but, assuming he knows it, he didn't want to say it, perhaps because it would reveal that the demonstration was weak. Or whatever. I don't claim to understand Rossi, I only know that he *might* have a number of different possible motives to be deceptive. Legally deceptive. I've seen nothing in print that allows me to believe that these RH meters can be used to measure steam quality. They do not claim it as an application. Your sputtering that nobody would buy them if they didn't work to measure steam quality is very strange. If they were being sold to measure steam quality, don't you think they would mention it? These are *relative humidity meters.* From the MAC humidity/moisture handbook, http://www.macinstruments.com/pdf/handbook.pdf, relative humidity is a measure of the amount of water vapor that is mixed with other gases. That is, it is a gas-phase measurment. A thought experiment. You have a box, in it is steam, unknown quality. That is, this steam may contain suspended water droplets. You have a port in the side of the box and you insert your instrument probe. Your instrument is supposedly designed to tell you the steam quality. Notice something: water droplets are not exactly mixed with the steam, they can and will condensed together and fall to the bottom of the box. Obviously, your probe can only measure what it contacts. Your steam quality meter results will depend on how well the steam and water droplets are mixed, the droplet size, etc. (If the droplets are large, they will obviously fall to the bottom of the box. If your probe happens to lie within the condensed water, it will tell you that the steam is 100% liquid water! If above it, it will not tell you the total water content of the box. How could it? Only with an
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
For comparison I checked the underside of my electric kettle and the power rating is approx. 1500 W Harry - Original Message From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 12:01:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? No problem, that's ok :). BTW, I made some more calculations, after GoatGuy told me something: * Without the thermal conductivity worked out, the blackbody approximation is in error. Use 50° C instead. (i.e. a hot-but-can-be-held temperature). Also, don't forget that net-radiative has to come from the temperature differential, not the temperature absolute. A 50°C blackbody in a 50°C room will neither gain, nor lose, heat by SBL. P = AεσT4 where A = area, ε = emissivity, σ = 5.67×10-8 ( 3 m × 3.14 × 0.02 m × 0.8 emissivity × 5.67×10-8 × ((50 + 273)4 - (25 + 273)4 )) = 25.6 W That's more like it. I'd believe that 25 watts would maybe be radiated as the differential. I chose 80% as the greybody emissivity (which is in line with black rubber). I'm not sure what you were doing the extra multiplications by the Stefan-Boltzman constant for, but … the above works out well, directly. And again, I don't think any of this materially is significant compared to Rossi's stated “running at about 2,500 watts, stably”. You know? G O A T G U Y And I answered: ** Sure, I used the temperature differential. The emission of the hose emiting to the evironment at 100C, and the environment heating the hose ar 30C. Well, that's the difference anyway... Well, eventually, there must be conservation of energy, so I guess if I used the internal part of the hose and the environment, that would be more correct so, 110*(1.25/2)=69W. Per meter, it gives 23W. I made several approximations during all the way, but 23W is a bit close to 25.6.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Does it buz when it is boiling, like a pressure pan?
[Vo]:Krivit's Kullander interview
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/phone-interview-with-sven-kullander/ (copied in full for critical commentary under fair use) Phone Interview with Sven Kullander, Department of Radiation Sciences, Uppsala University June 20, 2011 Steven B. Krivit: When you looked at Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer, did you have the opportunity to see the output directly from the outlet on the E-Cat or was the hose always attached to the outlet? Sven Kullander: There is a valve on the top that was open and we checked that the steam came out. Krivit: Was the hose connected to the outlet at the same time you checked the steam? Kullander: Yes. Krivit is driving at something. I.e., what if there is water flowing out the hose? Steam out the top, water out the hose. Makes sense, eh? However, Krivit doesn't want to reveal his agenda, I think. He is treating the witness as an attorney would treat a hostile witness. So, the hose was attached. Is there a valve in the hose line? If so, was it open or closed. Krivit's questioning doesn't nail down the issues. There is a very legitimate question here, and this is why I suggested that this kind of demonstration have a tee, with valves. The tee has one side connected to the chimney top, the opposite side has a valve and a narrow spout that opens up to the air. The side of the tee is connected through a valve to the hose. Rossi is not likely to cooperate with efforts to create bulletproof demos, but if Rossi were to announce the pipe fitting specifications for the top of the chimney, and for the hose fitting, an observer could bring this tee-valve assembly, it would cost a few dollars at a hardware store. And that way the observers would know that the valves really shut! So, in operation, the demo would start with the hose valve closed and the top valve open. When the thing heats up, steam would start coming out of the top valve. (If it spits here, there is something wacky inside, steam is getting trapped behind water, there should be no spitting. The demo could alternately start with the hose valve open and the top closed.) At a certain point, a gap would appear in the steam plume, where it is invisible. The length of that gap would vary directly with the rate of steam generation (and that tee/valve assembly could later be calibrated, so that video of the plume with a scale behind it would give a direct measure of steam generation rate, i.e., power level, very directly observed and not fakeable. I suppose there might be some trick possible by mixing other fluids with water, like alcohol, but you gotta stop somewhere! I wrote long ago that, once pure fraud is on the table, anything is possible. Ruling out fraud and maintaining industrial secrecy are incompatible.) Then, because you don't want to fill the room with water vapor (in the hot Italian summer!) you'd open the hose valve and shut the top valve, but it could periodically be opened to check the steam quality. Only dry steam will show that clear gap, if we are sure that water isn't being spit out. (People have described the sting test. If one waves one's hand quickly through the live steam (very quickly!), if there are water droplets, they will stick to the skin and sting, apparently. Very briefly. Someone experienced with steam would surely know these tricks. (There is a theory that entrained water droplets explain the Fleischmann-Pons excess heat results. Doesn't work with closed cells, but it was not cogent with the original F-P work either, the gas flow out of the cell is quite low, not enough to carry water out, up a long exit tube. But skeptical hope springs eternal.) From Kullander, though, my guess, there was no valve on the hose. So the steam relief on the top would only give a measure of the steam quality, but not the total flow of steam, and could not rule out water being forced out of the hose, since this water, if present as liquid all the way up to the hose level, would still not produce water in the steam above it. It would have been nice if Krivit had nailed this down. Krivit: Do you know if the steam dryness was measured by volume or by mass? Kullander: I think it was measured by volume but I'm not sure. If they physically observed the live steam, was that by volume or by mass? There are various measures of steam dryness, I think. Some are by volume and some are by mass. For calorimetry, we'd want mass, but the other can be converted. Zero wetness is the same in both systems! Krivit: What makes you think it was measured by volume? Kullander: Because I don't see any mass involved, there is just volume quantities. It was a measuring gauge that was inserted inside. I could not see how that could be a mass measurement. Nor a volume measurement, either. How could the gauge measure volume? What it would measure is mass/volume. I think these things work by capacitance, which will vary with humidity. See, Krivit
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-20 08:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: So you're saying the chimney would act like a steam dryer on an old locomotive? Interesting... Either that or Rossi has discovered antifuggingravity. Come on! Water is heavier than air. Eh, no, actually it takes a little more than that. The simple steam domes on old locomotives would keep liquid water from splashing into the pipes but a simple dome didn't produce dry steam all by itself. See, for instance, the following tangential steam dryer which could be fitted into a dome to turn it into an effective dryer: http://www.trainweb.org/j.dimech/6167/etsd.html They run the steam through a whizzy whirligig thing in order to get the entrained water droplets out of it. Gravity alone isn't enough, any more than gravity keeps dust from being entrained in the air in your house and your furnace ducts. To get out the water -- or the dust -- what you need to do is get the gas to go around a sharp turn; the entrained droplets (or dust) don't corner as well as gas, and will smash into the wall at that point. For a demonstration in your house, find a heating duct which is blowing on something (floor, ceiling, wall), such that the air needs to make a sharp turn as it comes out. You'll typically find a dirty spot where the entrained dust fell out of the air. For another example of the effect, find an old electric fan which has been heavily used, and look at the leading edges of the blades. The air must get out of the way very quickly as the blade comes around, and the entrained dust can't make the turn. Consequently, you end up with a layer of crud plastered onto the leading edges of the blades. But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 12:55:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam You are right you would not use it to measure the enthalpy of hot water. Bingo! Wet steam is, partly, hot water! It is not a uniform material, it will separate out into hot water and water vapor. I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If they have already determined that the steam exiting the reactor is dry by sight and by feel, it is appropriate to measure the ratio of water-gas to air-gas with a suitable probe. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
On 11-06-21 01:46 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 12:55:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam You are right you would not use it to measure the enthalpy of hot water. Bingo! Wet steam is, partly, hot water! It is not a uniform material, it will separate out into hot water and water vapor. I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If they have already determined that the steam exiting the reactor is dry by sight and by feel, it is appropriate to measure the ratio of water-gas to air-gas with a suitable probe. But it's pointless. We know, a priori, that after the system's been in operation for a short while, all air has been flushed from the cooling system and the stuff coming out is essentially 100% water (whether gaseous or liquid is a different question). Some amount of CO2 and assorted other gases could be dissolved in the input water but certainly not enough to worry about.
[Vo]:Steam quality measurement
http://thermo-diagnostics.com/files/Steam_Distribution_Quality.pdf talks about the measurement of steam quality. Page 3 and 4 show a method of measuring steam quality. It does not involve using a relative humidity meter, which, to me, looks like a fish bicycle for this measurement. An RH meter, in steam of any quality, as long as it is at the boiling point, will show 100% RH, it seems. I got a manual for the Testo 650. https://go.testo.de/online/abaxx-?$part=PORTAL.INT.Applications.active-area.default.Common.Manuals$event=changeDirid=13 The manual I needed is linked from this page, it's 782 KB (the other manual is in German). To get this page to display, I had to register as a user with the web site. The manual doesn't mention enthalpy. However, there is a parameter that is measured, aw. The chapter begins on page 28 of the manual. aw value measurement -- aw is in lower case and refers to water activity, and the primary interest is with bacteria. The test procedure is complex and involves weighing water using the dry and weigh method. This is obviously not what was done with the Rossi measurements. aw value does show total water content in some way. But that's not this application, and water content is being measured for solids, if I read this correctly. A special device is used, filled with the material to be measured and sealed, pressure tight. The mystery increases, it is not going away yet. What this boils down to (heh!) is that there are aspects of the demonstrations that simply raise questions rather than answering them. These demonstrations, alone, cannot be considered to be conclusive, given these questions. Some, putting together information from many sources, are personally convinced, others, perhaps without access to all that information, are not convinced. I will say this: I'm not seeing anyone with extensive information outside of public channels who is saying, Stay Away! Fraud! But I'm not sure what that means. Let's see what Defkalion announces! I suppose I could eat some popcorn, if there is lots of butter on it.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it. How does it leave the surface of a liquid and remain a liquid? Even with evaporation, it's only the molecules with enough kinetic energy to overcome the liquid phase intermolecular forces that can leave the liquid. Obviously, I don't understand the basics of phase transition. T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
- Original Message From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 1:13:52 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? Does it buz when it is boiling, like a pressure pan? It has no whistle if that is what you mean. BTW regarding heat loss issues, the main body of the E-cat is also radiating heat. Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
But the total surface of the e-cat is very small, don't you think?
RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence But it's pointless. Well, to be honest - this entire wet-steam / dry-steam argument (and the massive bandwidth) could be little more than a diversion now, and is of historical importance only - if and when there is NO required input electricity. Thursday is the big day. To be precise, when the COP is infinite, so none of this matters very much. The real issues are how many E-Cats the purchaser will need, how much they will cost to amortize and the other expenses, especially refueling. IOW - no need to dwell on ancient history ... Defkalion's big problem is how well do they stack up against solar? Thursday will likely be the most important announcement since the Bologna demo, since this will be Defkalion's grand entrance to the Ball. They are fully cognizant of Greece's International debt problems, and methinks it will be staged as a grand entrance, maybe even milked by the Media for its PR value (even though the two events are unrelated). They have already been emphasizing the local resources of nickel. We know from Rossi that DGE have received hundreds of reactors already, and my guess is that they will show to the waiting World - months in advance of October - that when many of these share a common thermal reservoir with a low volatility heat transfer fluid (previously my guess was that it is the new version of Therminol) ... then no electrical input is needed after startup. Heck it may be only 200 kW instead of a MW but who's quibbling? Consequently, and this cannot be emphasized too much - when the COP is infinite then nothing really matters about the steam quality in those the early demonstrations. Matter of fact, it could have all been choreographed to happen this way. (but I doubt it). Let's move on to the real issues - like cost/performance vs. other green energy sources, especially solar thermal. Jones
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
The heat loss is small but I don't think it is insignificant. The pipes under the insulation conduct heat away from the reactor vessel and some of this heat is absorbed by the insulation rather than going into the water. However, don't ask me to calculate it! ;-) harry - Original Message From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 2:35:03 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? But the total surface of the e-cat is very small, don't you think?
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
- Original Message From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 2:56:38 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence But it's pointless. Well, to be honest - this entire wet-steam / dry-steam argument (and the massive bandwidth) could be little more than a diversion now, and is of historical importance only - if and when there is NO required input electricity. Thursday is the big day. To be precise, when the COP is infinite, so none of this matters very much. The real issues are how many E-Cats the purchaser will need, how much they will cost to amortize and the other expenses, especially refueling. IOW - no need to dwell on ancient history ... Defkalion's big problem is how well do they stack up against solar? Thursday will likely be the most important announcement since the Bologna demo, since this will be Defkalion's grand entrance to the Ball. They are fully cognizant of Greece's International debt problems, and methinks it will be staged as a grand entrance, maybe even milked by the Media for its PR value (even though the two events are unrelated). They have already been emphasizing the local resources of nickel. We know from Rossi that DGE have received hundreds of reactors already, and my guess is that they will show to the waiting World - months in advance of October - that when many of these share a common thermal reservoir with a low volatility heat transfer fluid (previously my guess was that it is the new version of Therminol) ... then no electrical input is needed after startup. Heck it may be only 200 kW instead of a MW but who's quibbling? Consequently, and this cannot be emphasized too much - when the COP is infinite then nothing really matters about the steam quality in those the early demonstrations. I think a new measure of COP is needed. A value of zero would equate with infinite performance in the old system, and an infinite value would equate with a terrible performance in the new system. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Look, Abd, you need to get real. I honestly have no idea how these meters work. That's right. I can tell you this: the brochure is quite specific as to what is measured, and it ain't enthalpy. What are you talking about? The brochure says that it measures, quote: Enthalpy (kcal/kg) http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The enthalpy of what? Hot molten salt? (seriously, not that, the temperature is too high. But obviously the meter needs to know what substance is being measured!) Steam, obviously. There is no significant enthalpy in humid air. Nobody wants to measure that, in any case. You are right you would not use it to measure the enthalpy of hot water. Bingo! Wet steam is, partly, hot water! It is not a uniform material, it will separate out into hot water and water vapor. I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If the probe does not correctly take into account the fraction of steam that is hot water, it would not work correctly. It would be useless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Jeff Driscoll wrote: I've been trying to say multiple times that the meter measures humidity of air up to 98% humidity. The probe can go to 150 C without being broken but that does not mean that it can measure accurately up to 150 C. But that's for *air* anyway. We want to know the steam quality. This probe does *not* do this. It takes an expensive complicated system to measure steam quality and even then, the one I found on the market needs an overpressure of some amount so that it can expand it into a chamber and then measure the resulting temperature, Not according to the Delta Ohm company or the Testo company. They say their meters tell you the enthalpy per kilogram of steam, so all you have to do is determine the mass. Perhaps you know more than the engineers at these companies, and perhaps you are right and they are wrong. I doubt that. I'll go with those companies and with Dr. Galantini. I will also go with the results of the second test with water, which confirmed the steam test. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Sorry, I cannot see what is wrong with the steam measurements. It is perfect according to the specification of all instruments. Even 2% won't make a meaningful difference. What I want to see addressed properly is a proper calculation of the volume output of the hose, which seems too low.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On 11-06-21 02:27 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it. How does it leave the surface of a liquid and remain a liquid? Splashing. (At any rate, that's certainly one way.) Even with evaporation, it's only the molecules with enough kinetic energy to overcome the liquid phase intermolecular forces that can leave the liquid. Boiling water tends to do a lot of splashing, and a lot of liquid water gets projected into the air. I don't know, I'm waving my hands. None the less, the folks who designed steam locomotives seemed to think it was common to have wet steam. They cared enough about the issue to put in special steam dryers, which were, as the link I posted showed, a lot more complicated than a simple vertical pipe. Folks who are trying to comply with EN 285 worry about this kind of thing, too. Obviously, I don't understand the basics of phase transition. Sure you do -- enough for this, anyway. You just don't understand all the stuff the liquid water does at the boundary between air and water when a violent phase transition is taking place. And neither do I, that's for sure. The only solid thing I've gotten out of this so far is that, if the steam was dry, then the only clear temperature graph I've seen looks totally wrong, and, furthermore, if the steam was dry with no spitting, then there is not a shred of a sensible explanation for how (or why) the effluent temperature should have been nailed to boiling. Perhaps I spend too much time looking at graphs (it's part of what I do for my job, BTW). Perhaps I'm overconfident. But when a graph seems to want to tell me A!, and an expert is telling me B!, my immediate reaction is to wonder how the expert got it wrong... And if the steam wasn't dry, then at this point I sure don't trust Rossi, Levi, or Galantini, not one little bit. I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. OTOH if an in-private no-input test is done, which is enough to convince Rossi and Levi and maybe Galantini, but nobody else is at the party, I, for one, won't be convinced of anything. T
RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
One more important thing which may be happening this week - behind the scenes. Defkalion has bought the rights to this device in Europe. It is possible that they did not agree to share with Rossi advances which they independently make. This could create a bit of friction in the future. Rossi is arrogant enough that he would have overlooked cross-licensing as being an important contractual detail. Plus if his substandard patent attorney is any indication - he is getting poor - no *disgraceful* professional advice in many important areas. Therefore, the bottom line of what could happen on Thursday is a first indication that this deal will not keep DGE from improving on the both the individual units and the system for their own benefit. Plus, it is possible if not likely - given the circumstances, that DGE have previously been able to enlist many top level power engineers, which Rossi does not have access to, basically because of his secrecy/paranoia/arrogance - and conversely, the high unemployment rate and other factors in Greece. Many of us are on record as seeing Rossi's breakthrough as largely serendipitous. He gives absolutely no indication of high level skills in many fields, and the entire scenario is consistent with a failed but persistent inventor having a large dose of good fortune and not much else. ERGO - it will not surprise me if Defkalion announces an advance, even a breakthrough, beyond what Rossi has done! Sweet. In fact, the earlier prediction that DGE have long-since moved-on beyond water as the heat transfer medium, is based on this kind of anticipation. Ditching water in favor of a dedicated heat transfer fluid is really a no-brainer for a good power engineer - ...and, yes, that alone tells us volumes about what Rossi lacks. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Well, to be honest - this entire wet-steam / dry-steam argument (and the massive bandwidth) could be little more than a diversion now, and is of historical importance only - if and when there is NO required input electricity. Thursday is the big day. To be precise, when the COP is infinite, so none of this matters very much. The real issues are how many E-Cats the purchaser will need, how much they will cost to amortize and the other expenses, especially refueling. IOW - no need to dwell on ancient history ... Defkalion's big problem is how well do they stack up against solar? Thursday will likely be the most important announcement since the Bologna demo, since this will be Defkalion's grand entrance to the Ball. They are fully cognizant of Greece's International debt problems, and methinks it will be staged as a grand entrance, maybe even milked by the Media for its PR value (even though the two events are unrelated). They have already been emphasizing the local resources of nickel. We know from Rossi that DGE have received hundreds of reactors already, and my guess is that they will show to the waiting World - months in advance of October - that when many of these share a common thermal reservoir with a low volatility heat transfer fluid (previously my guess was that it is the new version of Therminol) ... then no electrical input is needed after startup. Heck it may be only 200 kW instead of a MW but who's quibbling? Consequently, and this cannot be emphasized too much - when the COP is infinite then nothing really matters about the steam quality in those the early demonstrations. Matter of fact, it could have all been choreographed to happen this way. (but I doubt it). Let's move on to the real issues - like cost/performance vs. other green energy sources, especially solar thermal. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 1:57:55 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam On 11-06-21 01:46 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomaxa...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 12:55:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam You are right you would not use it to measure the enthalpy of hot water. Bingo! Wet steam is, partly, hot water! It is not a uniform material, it will separate out into hot water and water vapor. I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If they have already determined that the steam exiting the reactor is dry by sight and by feel, it is appropriate to measure the ratio of water-gas to air-gas with a suitable probe. But it's pointless. We know, a priori, that after the system's been in operation for a short while, all air has been flushed from the cooling system and the stuff coming out is essentially 100% water (whether gaseous or liquid is a different question). Some amount of CO2 and assorted other gases could be dissolved in the input water but certainly not enough to worry about. Perhaps at one time they were concerned about air leaking into the system while the E-Cat was purring. Harry
[Vo]:Defkalion does not plan to demonstrate their machine
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. There will no demonstration on Thursday. Here is what they told me, which I uploaded to the news section: The focus of this press conference will be mainly on the company's commercial plans rather than technical information about the reactor. They do not plan to demonstrate a reactor. They will, instead, introduce to the public: the company, the Board of Directors and the investors. They will discuss the marketing plans, products and potential markets. A video of the press conference will be made, and it will be uploaded to YouTube. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion does not plan to demonstrate their machine
Thanks for the clarification, Jed. On 11-06-21 04:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. There will no demonstration on Thursday. Here is what they told me, which I uploaded to the news section: The focus of this press conference will be mainly on the company's commercial plans rather than technical information about the reactor. They do not plan to demonstrate a reactor. They will, instead, introduce to the public: the company, the Board of Directors and the investors. They will discuss the marketing plans, products and potential markets. A video of the press conference will be made, and it will be uploaded to YouTube. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
what should the plume look like? GoatGuy is only guessing what he thinks it should look like. To get some idea, take two electric kettles and merge the spouts into one long hose. Harry - Original Message From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 3:47:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam Sorry, I cannot see what is wrong with the steam measurements. It is perfect according to the specification of all instruments. Even 2% won't make a meaningful difference. What I want to see addressed properly is a proper calculation of the volume output of the hose, which seems too low.
[Vo]:Rossi is a genius
Jones Beene wrote: Many of us are on record as seeing Rossi's breakthrough as largely serendipitous. He gives absolutely no indication of high level skills in many fields, and the entire scenario is consistent with a failed but persistent inventor having a large dose of good fortune and not much else. I strongly disagree. He is a genius. I have know some extremely smart people in my life such as Fleischmann. I know them when I see them. Rossi is one. Nobody could possibly discover what he did by luck, or by randomly searching. As Ed Storms said of finding a good cathode, that would be like trying to find a potent semiconductor by randomly testing gravel from your driveway. Rossi is, perhaps, and intuitive style genius, or a hands-on type, such as Edison, or such as Michelangelo or Rodin. A great sculptor without tools or stone to work with is nothing, and has nothing. Sculptors not express their genius in words or in actions. They do not give organized presentations. They do not have reasons or explanations for their work -- art critiques in books are mostly nonsense. Their work cannot be analyzed or understood in any terms other then sculpture itself. The only proper response to work of art is another work of art. Rossi is a genius level artist who works with catalysts, metal, heat, flowing liquid and gas, and thermodynamics. He understands these things at the level Fleischmann or McKubre understand electrochemistry, which is to say you or I could not rival their skill if we worked every day for 40 years. There is such thing as genius. Some people have an extraordinary ability to do one thing or another, that puts them far above the curve of normal distribution. See Robert Cringley, Accidental Empires. Such people may be ordinary in other aspects of their intelligence or skills. They may even be rather dull, since they spend most of their time doing the thing that sets them apart from the rest of humanity. There is no correlation between being a genius and being a nice person, or stable, dependable, moral, conservative or liberal. Genius are often happy because they often make a lot of money. Money is not a certain source of happiness but it is more conducive to happiness than is poverty. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion does not plan to demonstrate their machine
-Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. There will no demonstration on Thursday. Note I did not say should happen - but neither is it ruled out that there will be mention of details, going beyond Rossi - which could include a claim of no electrical input. I've seen indications that this will be more than an introduction but less than a demonstration. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Radio24 live forum about E-cat: Focardi, Celani, Bagnasco on Radio24[ITA]
Can anyone clarify this from Brain Ahern's experiment? The system was heated with a band heater to high temperature. There was no controller. A rheostat was set at an arbitrary position and the system comes to a an arbitrary temperature.The average power input was 90 watts. According to the email below, the experiment went on for 4 days. Was the band heater used for the entire experiment, or was it shut off at some point? There is a report floating around that the experiment continued without input power. Craig Haynie Manchester, NH On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 14:54 +0300, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Mic, take care please, I will listen again to the release The message from Brian at CMNS was probably this. From: Brian Ahern, Boxborough MA Re: Zr-Ni-Cu alloy performance Ames National Laboratory processed metal alloy foils via arc melting followed by melt spinning. This is the Yamaura process employed by Arata and others. The foils were baked in ordinary air at 445C for 28 hours. The brittle, oxidized foils were placed in a tumble mill for 24 hours. This resulted in 30 grams of black powder with a median grain size of about 40 microns.Presumably, each grain has about one million nanoscale islands of NiCu inside. The 30 grams occupies about 7 ml inside the 50 ml dewar. The system was vacuum baked at 220C for 24 hours and cooled to room temperature. H2 gas was added at 200psi. The pressure dropped only to about 185 psi over twenty minutes. In these replication experiments the exothermic reactions have had peak temperatures above 220C with substantial loading above 3.0 H/M ratios. This time the temperature only rose by 2 degrees C. The system was heated with a band heater to high temperature. There was no controller. A rheostat was set at an arbitrary position and the system comes to a an arbitrary temperature.The average power input was 90 watts. After several hours the hydrated system was evacuated overnight at a constant high temperature at 530C. The next day H2 gas was again added at 100psi and the temperature rose by 40C to 570C and came back down to 530C after two hours. At the end of the day the dewar was again evacuated while still at 530C overnight. The third day repeated the same procedure. H2 gas was added at 100psi and the temperature rose by 44C to 574C. However, this time it did not come back to the initial temperature. It remained at the elevated temperature overnight. On the fourth day H2 gas was again added at 100psi and the system rose by 50C to 580C and again stayed at the elevated temperature indefinitely. A rough calibration suggests that the 30 grams of hydrated nanopowder is putting out 5 watts of excess power. Yesterday Peter Gluck suggested that the relationship between loading and excess power may be a myth. This seemed to be true for electrolysis with Pd and heavy water where loading levels exceeding 0.9 D/M were a prerequisite for observing excess power. My loading level with this nanopowder sample as less than 0.1 H/M. This 5 watt excess is very much less than Rossi, but it is a real and repeatable experiment There was no radiation above the background level. Other alloys from Ames NL are expected within ten days Celani confirms a beatiful mail from Brian Ahern so beatiful it could not believed. Celani states that Brian Ahern is now using a material that also Celani uses has made very serious experiments and, as Celani expected, the results are true. I missed that while driving... better: I could incur in a car accident! mic PLUS- I was very happy to hear that Francesco supported the idea of a (more) perfect E-cat experiment. Peter 2011/5/30 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: Just listening to Oscar...not bad! Has Celani realyy spoken about a Rossi catalyst confirmation by Brian Ahern? Peter On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi cannot hide anymore... this radio talk show is really mainstream media (I think they reach more than 1M listeners each day). I did not hear anything new except that around 20-06-2011 there should be some validation test by the Greek Gvt. I was driving so maybe I did not catch the whole details... Translation will probably appear on 22passi.blogspot.com. It was live at 09:00 CET: http://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/main.php?dirprog=Nove% 20in%20punto,%20la%20versione%20di%20Oscar
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I don't know, I'm waving my hands. Hi! waving back I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. Defkalion says they will not show the machine. T
RE: [Vo]:Radio24 live forum about E-cat: Focardi, Celani, Bagnasco on Radio24[ITA]
-Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Can anyone clarify this from Brian Ahern's experiment? The system was heated with a band heater to high temperature. There was no controller. A rheostat was set at an arbitrary position and the system comes to a an arbitrary temperature. The average power input was 90 watts. Yes. Closer to 80 in the good runs. That includes the loss at the Variac which was not accounted for, at this stage. Funding has not been available to do a couple of dozen obvious things. Stay tuned. According to the email below, the experiment went on for 4 days. Was the band heater used for the entire experiment, or was it shut off at some point? Yes. For the entire experiment in every. There were dozens of successful runs. There is a report floating around that the experiment continued without input power. Well, it was turned off and allowed to cool, but it would not cool all the way down :-) It is pretty much that simple. Unplanned but certain (to a very high degree). Jones attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Defkalion says they will not show the machine. Oops, I see Jed already 'splained that. Messages are coming fast and furious. T
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
About 8N/cm^2, or 10psi, a usual pressure for tires. I guess you feel that if you hold an automatic pneumatic hose to fill the a bicycle's tire.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
Terry Blanton wrote: Defkalion says they will not show the machine. They said they will not demonstrate it. I am hoping they physically bring one into the room even if they do not run it. The good news is, they said they would discuss the machines. I expect that will include some technical details. It will not be a very convincing press conference otherwise. - Jed
[Vo]:Faking a short E-Cat demonstration is trivial
hello, here is interesting comment from http://www.facebook.com/EnergyCatalyzer vvv Cesar Pinheiro: A comment in this page ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece ) deserves merit to improve the tests. I don't know if testing the water was done before, but needs to be done if not yet. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, is a substance that can be dissolved in water with any concentration. It can easily be catalyzed to decompose into water, oxygen and 0,196 MJ of heat per mol. This liquid looks very much like water and has no noticeable odour. Test the water Anyway, It is a good idea to test the water for additives, if this has not allready been donebut I assume the professors at Bologna have thought of this allready. ^ This is a good reminder how easy it is to fake up such a short black box demonstrations. Really all you need is some cleverly hidden power source. That H2O2 is good example of variety of possible methods how to fake this thing, if that is the purpose. Right now, there is only word from about a dozen people, who has the first hand knowledge. But it is just a word. Although I think that faking a word is far more difficult than faking a demonstration. This is very much of the reason why I am very much of disappointed on this steam issue discussion, because it fails to see the point of demonstrations. People seem to fail completely to realize, that there are far more easy ways to fake up demonstrations. And there are dozens of them! This steam faking is not among them, because as it is clearly shown by rossi and levi, criticism just fails in the very basics. Like everyone can see when they are boiling water in the kettle. –Jouni
RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Radio24 live forum about E-cat: Focardi, Celani, Bagnasco on Radio24[ITA]
On Tuesday, June 21 Jones Beene wrote [snip]Well, it was turned off and allowed to cool, but it would not cool all the way down ☺ [/snip] Jones, That was a teaser! What do you mean by it would not cool all the way down??? Fran _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:15 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Radio24 live forum about E-cat: Focardi, Celani, Bagnasco on Radio24[ITA] -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Can anyone clarify this from Brian Ahern's experiment? The system was heated with a band heater to high temperature. There was no controller. A rheostat was set at an arbitrary position and the system comes to a an arbitrary temperature. The average power input was 90 watts. Yes. Closer to 80 in the good runs. That includes the loss at the Variac which was not accounted for, at this stage. Funding has not been available to do a couple of dozen obvious things. Stay tuned. According to the email below, the experiment went on for 4 days. Was the band heater used for the entire experiment, or was it shut off at some point? Yes. For the entire experiment in every. There were dozens of successful runs. There is a report floating around that the experiment continued without input power. Well, it was turned off and allowed to cool, but it would not cool all the way down ☺ It is pretty much that simple. Unplanned but certain (to a very high degree). Jones
Re: [Vo]:Faking a short E-Cat demonstration is trivial
This appears to have been a comment by someone who kind of missed the point, which is this: If the steam quality is bad or the thing is spitting a lot of water, then the amount of real excess energy involved is smaller, and a fake becomes easier. In principle, if the calorimetry were bolixed badly enough it could account for all the excess energy even with a dud reactor. However, since the electric heater shouldn't have been able to heat the cooling water above 60C, and the output temperature was about 100C, we can safely conclude that if it's not legitimate, something in addition to wet steam must have been used to fake it. Otherwise we're short at least 300 watts. The enthalpy of the steam would have to be negative for it to entirely account for the temperature measurements, if the reactor were generating no power. On 11-06-21 06:12 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: hello, here is interesting comment from http://www.facebook.com/EnergyCatalyzer vvv Cesar Pinheiro: A comment in this page ( http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece ) deserves merit to improve the tests. I don't know if testing the water was done before, but needs to be done if not yet. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, is a substance that can be dissolved in water with any concentration. It can easily be catalyzed to decompose into water, oxygen and 0,196 MJ of heat per mol. This liquid looks very much like water and has no noticeable odour. Test the water Anyway, It is a good idea to test the water for additives, if this has not allready been donebut I assume the professors at Bologna have thought of this allready. ^ This is a good reminder how easy it is to fake up such a short black box demonstrations. Really all you need is some cleverly hidden power source. That H2O2 is good example of variety of possible methods how to fake this thing, if that is the purpose. Right now, there is only word from about a dozen people, who has the first hand knowledge. But it is just a word. Although I think that faking a word is far more difficult than faking a demonstration. This is very much of the reason why I am very much of disappointed on this steam issue discussion, because it fails to see the point of demonstrations. People seem to fail completely to realize, that there are far more easy ways to fake up demonstrations. And there are dozens of them! This steam faking is not among them, because as it is clearly shown by rossi and levi, criticism just fails in the very basics. Like everyone can see when they are boiling water in the kettle. Horse pucky. There is nothing at all which was clearly shown about the steam in the experiments done by Rossi, Levi, and Galantini. And as discussed at length on this list, if the big Cat was actually putting out 15 kW of power, it would have been very difficult to fake it. There are certainly not dozens of easy ways to fake it. You don't get that kind of energy by simple stuff like pre-warming the boiler, or stuffing it with gasoline and platinum! A fake is only plausible if the *actual* excess power was much smaller than what was claimed. They've never shown their steam measurements. Galantini has talked about it but not one single number, except the temperature, has ever come from him, even when he was claiming to answer the critics who said the steam didn't seem all that dry. (An explanation for his behavior would be interesting.) –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi is a genius
Jed your a genius too. Frank Z
[Vo]:Outa here for a while.
I've run out of time for stuff, and I've really *got* to get some other stuff done ... so, I'll be following the discussion at a distance, but I won't be posting anything again for a while. That's a promise...
Re: [Vo]:Rossi is a genius
Speaking of that Scientific American has an article on intelligence this month. It says that we, as a species, can get no smarter. More intelligence would be accompanied with reduced reaction times and more energy use. It would not work out. Last year, read a book on human intelligence. It states that we are evolving more rapidly that ever. With a large population chances for a positive mutation are good. This mutation will propagate widely within a few 100 years. He used the average intelligence of the Askingin Jew as a case and point. This intelligence climbed up a notch over the last 300 years. I forgot the name of the book. Mitcho Kaku has stated that human evolution has stopped since there currently is no selection pressure. We are as smart as we are going to get. Without a selection pressure has human evolution reversed? I wish I knew. Frank Z
[Vo]:(Mostly) Smart People Marry Smart People and Stupid . . .
I think that certain social aspects tend to reinforce certain groupings in society; not enough to cause us to branch out into diverse species, but there is much more potential for people to find mates that match or complement their own characteristics due to the break down in social barriers, acceptance of diversity and just plain more people living closer together, especially from different backgrounds. I think we are going to seem more people who are more extremely exceptional in various ways. Of course it will be hard to separate out these effects from improved education and increased communication and information availability. Scott To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi is a genius From: fznidar...@aol.com Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:23:32 -0400 Speaking of that Scientific American has an article on intelligence this month. It says that we, as a species, can get no smarter. More intelligence would be accompanied with reduced reaction times and more energy use. It would not work out. Last year, read a book on human intelligence. It states that we are evolving more rapidly that ever. With a large population chances for a positive mutation are good. This mutation will propagate widely within a few 100 years. He used the average intelligence of the Askingin Jew as a case and point. This intelligence climbed up a notch over the last 300 years. I forgot the name of the book. Mitcho Kaku has stated that human evolution has stopped since there currently is no selection pressure. We are as smart as we are going to get. Without a selection pressure has human evolution reversed? I wish I knew. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 12:44 PM 6/21/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Rossi is dumping the evidence down the drain. Why else would he not dump it into a big tank and measure the temperature rise of the water? Abd says he just wants to confuse people and keep competitors away - I say it's because Rossi is a fraud. Just to clarify: I say that I can't tell the difference between these two hypotheses, not conclusively. Thanks to Jeff for confirming what I wrote about humidity meters and steam quality. If someone here knows better, I'd like to hear it? I have no investment in being right. In fact, being wrong is far more interesting, because then I get to learn something.
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 01:46 PM 6/21/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If they have already determined that the steam exiting the reactor is dry by sight and by feel, it is appropriate to measure the ratio of water-gas to air-gas with a suitable probe. But that's not what they reported. Once we know that there is no liquid water exiting, only vapor, then how much air is with it is not interesting. It would mean that all the water going in is being turned into steam. (excepting what might be accumulating internally). The concern is that liquid water might be expelled, which carries far less energy than water vapor.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer (NET - June 14, 2011)
At 02:27 PM 6/21/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: But just sending gas up a vertical pipe is certainly not enough to either clean or dry it. How does it leave the surface of a liquid and remain a liquid? Even with evaporation, it's only the molecules with enough kinetic energy to overcome the liquid phase intermolecular forces that can leave the liquid. Obviously, I don't understand the basics of phase transition. Yup. It leaves *without* phase transition. If you have a vigorous boil going on in a pot, when steam bubbles rise to the surface, they can cause little splashes of water that can be carried away by the gas flow, as mist. If there is trapped steam in the device, it can cause larger gushes of water. At low gas flow rate, a vertical pipe may handle drying it. At higher rates, no, the gas (steam) will just carry the mist with it.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
At 02:32 PM 6/21/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW regarding heat loss issues, the main body of the E-cat is also radiating heat. Right. However, bottom line, the quantity of interest is how much water is being boiled. The water jacket apparently surrounds the reaction chamber, so almost all the heat being generated in the reaction chamber must heat the water to escape. If the water chamber is insulated, as it is (that's the stuff on the outside, I think), then nearly all the energy ends up as vaporized water. (plus hot water if there is water escaping. We seem to have no problem with the steam/water being at the boiling point, as we'd expect from the physical configuration here.) Rossi held up the hose, Krivit had also mentioned this. He didn't want to allow this to continue, he said it was dangerous. Really? How? How's this for a theory: The E-Cat is not boiling much of the water, only a little. The pump is putting out more water than can boil, so it runs out the hose. It's hot. If Rossi emptied the hose, as he did, it would take some time for the hose to fill up again, Rossi would know how long. He'd have time to hold the hose up to show some steam coming out (which could be quite wet), but if he kept it up for too long, hot water would start coming out the end The suggestions many have made for the hose to empty into a container are very much on point; the only argument I can see against it is that steam would then be escaping into the room, which would make it uncomfortable. I'd address that with ventilation, because piping that steam into the sewer demolishes the demonstration. It would make the demonstration more believable! A more complicated arrangement could make what's happening visible, accumulating water in the bottom of a transparent vessel, but allowing the vapor to escape to the drain.
[Vo]:tested wisdom for positive contribution, Prof. Stuart Hill, U Western Sydney: Dan Novak: Rich Murray 2011.06.21
tested wisdom for positive contribution, Prof. Stuart Hill, U Western Sydney: Dan Novak: Rich Murray 2011.06.21 -Original Message- From: Dan Novak [mailto:dno...@etal.uri.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:50 AM To: 'theforu...@listserv.uri.edu' Subject: Shared -- dare I call it -- WISDOM Good Morning! Distilled from a ppt presentation by Professor Stuart Hill, Foundation Chair of Social Ecology, School of Education, University of Western Sydney (Kingswood Campus), Australia… A kind of gnomic manifesto for contemporary theory/practice… Refreshing, fine, and helpful… Cheers, Dan Novak Shared – dare I call it – WISDOM (these were compiled in 2005, based largely on my university and international development experience over the past 60+ years, as possible ‘testing questions’ for all theory practice) • Ask of all theory practice – what is it in the service of? – before supporting or copying it • Work mostly with ‘small meaningful achievable initiatives' vs. ‘Olympic-scale projects' (most of these are abandoned or fail, have numerous negative side-effects) • Don’t get stuck in endless ‘measuring studies’ (‘monitoring our extinction’) – these are often designed to postpone change that is perceived as threatening to existing power structures • To achieve sustainable progressive change, focus (at least first) on enabling the ‘benign’ agendas of others vs. trying to impose on them your own ‘benign’ agendas • Focus on enabling the potential of people, society nature to express itself – so that wellbeing, social justice sustainability can emerge (in integrated, synergistic ways) • Collaborate across difference to achieve broadly shared goals – don’t end up isolated, alone in a ‘sandbox’ • Don’t let ‘end point’/goal differences prevent possibilities of early stage collaboration • Outcomes are only as good sustainable as the people creating implementing them – so start with the people; remember that we are a relational/social species! • Use the media – let me repeat – use the media! – such ‘political’ communication is key to change • Work with business the public/community; government will always follow, but rarely lead! • Celebrate publicly at every opportunity – to enable the good stuff to be ‘contagious’ • Keep working on implementing – especially with others – your (shared) benign visions • Most of what is remains unknown – which is what wise people are able to work with; so devote most effort to developing your wisdom vs. your cleverness, which is just concerned with the very limited pool of what is known (Einstein was clear about this!) • Always be humble provisional in your knowing, always open to new experiences insights • Take small meaningful risks to enable progress, transformational learning development • Devote most effort to the design management of systems that can enable wellbeing, social justice sustainability, that are problem-proof vs. maintaining unsustainable, problem-generating systems, devoting time to ‘problem-solving’, control, input management • Work sensitively with time space, especially from the position of the ‘others’ (ask: who, what, which, where, when, how, why, if if not?) • Act from your core/essential self – empowered, aware, visionary, principled, passionate, loving, spontaneous, fully in the present (contextual) – vs. your patterned, fearful, compensatory, compromising, de-contextual selves • See no ‘enemies’ – recognise such ‘triggers’ as indicators of woundedness, maldesign mismanagement – everyone is always doing the best they can, given their potential, past experience the present context – these are the three areas to work with • Be paradoxical: ask for help get on with the job (don’t postpone); give when you want to receive; give love when you might need it, or when you might feel hate • Learn from everyone everything, seek mentors collaborators at every opportunity
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: How's this for a theory: The E-Cat is not boiling much of the water, only a little. The pump is putting out more water than can boil, so it runs out the hose. It's hot. How hot? Always over 100 deg C? That's what the temperature shows. Also, when they use a meter to measure steam quality, they find that the steam is dry. It would be wet if it was mostly water. Perhaps you suggesting the demo Krivit saw was fake and the ones with the RH meters and flowing water were real. That's contrived. Perhaps you still suggesting that the companies that make these meters and Dr. Galantini do not know what they are doing, and you do. That's chutzpah. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 03:36 PM 6/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Look, Abd, you need to get real. I honestly have no idea how these meters work. That's right. I can tell you this: the brochure is quite specific as to what is measured, and it ain't enthalpy. What are you talking about? The brochure says that it measures, quote: Enthalpy (kcal/kg) http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 That's a calculated value, not a measurement. Please understand the issue. The page you cited does *not* state that it measures enthalpy. Read more carefully! You should know better, I'm not entirely dim, not dead yet. The instrument simultaneously measures several parameters: [CO2, CO, temperature, relative humidity], and calculates others, and enthalpy is in that second list. The main application seems to be HVAC. The manual is at http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/manuali/HD37AB1347_M_15-12-2010_uk.pdf The device is described as being intended to measure indoor air quality. The enthalpy of what? Hot molten salt? (seriously, not that, the temperature is too high. But obviously the meter needs to know what substance is being measured!) Steam, obviously. There is no significant enthalpy in humid air. Nobody wants to measure that, in any case. You may if you are checking an evaporative cooler, I'd think. HVAC. No, the big market for these meters is HVAC, in fact. You think people doing cold fusion calorimetry are a big market? Jed, read the manual. Page 6 of the manual seems to contradict me. I think that there, they simply did not discriminate between what is measured and what is calculated. By the way, I think I erred when I reported the operating range as up to 85% RH, non-condensation. That was referring to the unit itself, not to the probe. Look at page 59, a probe specified for enthalpy measurements. It has a temperature limit of 60 degrees. Obviously this probe isn't intended to measure steam enthalpy! On page 60, there are probes rated for 150 C. But the probe operating temperature is given as only up to 80 C.! Jed, I've looked, not just here, and I'm not seeing the slightest clue, anywhere, that these devices, these RH meters, are sold and intended to be used as steam quality instruments. Much more complex stuff is sold for that purpose, there are consulting services you can hire to make these measurements, and if an RH meter could hack it, wouldn't they be touting this? There are papers on the internet describing what's needed to measure steam quality and it's pretty complex. You are right you would not use it to measure the enthalpy of hot water. Bingo! Wet steam is, partly, hot water! It is not a uniform material, it will separate out into hot water and water vapor. I don't think the probe is measuring the hot water at all. If the probe does not correctly take into account the fraction of steam that is hot water, it would not work correctly. It would be useless. Useless for measuring steam quality. Not useless. These devices are sold primary for measuring air quality. Like, the stuff people breath and live in. I don't see that these probes are intended to work in steam at all. From the specs, you may be able to stick this thing in steam up to 150 C., without it breaking, but that's not operating temperature. It's looking like someone screwed up, royally. However, there is this possibility: someone really does know what they are doing, knows how to use an RH meter to measure steam quality. It would involve more than just sticking the thing in, I'd expect. But there is no sign of the more sophisticated process we'd expect. Jed, you got stuck on this for some reason, a while back. Drop it. You screwed up, that's all. This need not change the overall conclusions about Rossi, it doesn't make your additional information wrong. It does increase the worry factor a little, I'd say, that's about it.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
- Original Message From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 9:12:25 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? At 02:32 PM 6/21/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: BTW regarding heat loss issues, the main body of the E-cat is also radiating heat. Right. However, bottom line, the quantity of interest is how much water is being boiled. The water jacket apparently surrounds the reaction chamber, so almost all the heat being generated in the reaction chamber must heat the water to escape. If the water chamber is insulated, as it is (that's the stuff on the outside, I think), then nearly all the energy ends up as vaporized water. Passerini on his blog meantioned the body of the e-cat felt warm to the touch. If some of the water was getting through without being vapourised first, some of the unused heat might be radiating through the insulation. (plus hot water if there is water escaping. We seem to have no problem with the steam/water being at the boiling point, as we'd expect from the physical configuration here.) Rossi held up the hose, Krivit had also mentioned this. He didn't want to allow this to continue, he said it was dangerous. Really? How? How's this for a theory: The E-Cat is not boiling much of the water, only a little. The pump is putting out more water than can boil, so it runs out the hose. It's hot. If Rossi emptied the hose, as he did, it would take some time for the hose to fill up again, Rossi would know how long. He'd have time to hold the hose up to show some steam coming out (which could be quite wet), but if he kept it up for too long, hot water would start coming out the end Or he is worried that condensing water will pool in the bend causing a water plug which will become a water bullet and hot water will spray on Steven krivit while he is observing the steam. The suggestions many have made for the hose to empty into a container are very much on point; the only argument I can see against it is that steam would then be escaping into the room, which would make it uncomfortable. I'd address that with ventilation, because piping that steam into the sewer demolishes the demonstration. It would make the demonstration more believable! See the Mats Lewan test where the hose empties into a bucket. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3166552.ece A more complicated arrangement could make what's happening visible, accumulating water in the bottom of a transparent vessel, but allowing the vapor to escape to the drain. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
At 03:41 PM 6/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jeff Driscoll wrote: I've been trying to say multiple times that the meter measures humidity of air up to 98% humidity. The probe can go to 150 C without being broken but that does not mean that it can measure accurately up to 150 C. But that's for *air* anyway. We want to know the steam quality. This probe does *not* do this. It takes an expensive complicated system to measure steam quality and even then, the one I found on the market needs an overpressure of some amount so that it can expand it into a chamber and then measure the resulting temperature, Not according to the Delta Ohm company or the Testo company. They say their meters tell you the enthalpy per kilogram of steam, so all you have to do is determine the mass. Jed, stop it! They don't mention steam. That meter measures air quality. Not steam quality. Let me repeat, they don't say what you just claimed they said. They said something else that you translated into what you said, making assumptions. That gets you into trouble! Perhaps you know more than the engineers at these companies, and perhaps you are right and they are wrong. I doubt that. I'll go with those companies and with Dr. Galantini. I will also go with the results of the second test with water, which confirmed the steam test. Well, Dr. Galantini hasn't said squat about this. Where is his report? And the engineers at these companies didn't say what you reported. Jed, if those steam quality measurements are a part of your basis for confidence that Rossi is real, please let me know, so I can revise my own opinion! Okay, Krivit got a mail from Galantini: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Galantini wrote: Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by E-Cat generators, always was made providing results in % of mass, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . The used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. The device is the Testo (that's a translation artifact, the Text Code. This is http://www.testosites.de/export/sites/default/datalogger2011/en_INT/local_downloads/brochure_EN.pdf Testo 176 H2 in this brochure. The device does log (it's a data logger) g/m^3. But I'm pretty sure that this is a calculated measurement, it's grams of water *vapor* per cubic meter of *air.* Not steam as he says. I can't find any hint that this device is intended to measure steam quality. I was unable to find an operating manual. There is no sensor in the device that would detect other than water vapor. It's an RH meter! It's looking now like Galantini did err. Maybe some hero will appear with magic confirmation of how to measure steam quality with an RH meter!
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
At 09:28 PM 6/21/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: How's this for a theory: The E-Cat is not boiling much of the water, only a little. The pump is putting out more water than can boil, so it runs out the hose. It's hot. This is an ad-hoc theory, remember, in context, not a claim. How hot? Always over 100 deg C? That's what the temperature shows. I'm talking about the external temperature of the hose. Also, when they use a meter to measure steam quality, they find that the steam is dry. It would be wet if it was mostly water. Sorry, there isn't a meter that measures steam quality, as far as I can tell. The question here would be, not steam quality, per se, but water actually running out the hose. There might be steam in addition to that. Perhaps you suggesting the demo Krivit saw was fake and the ones with the RH meters and flowing water were real. That's contrived. No, I'm not making any specific suggestion. Suppose, for example, that the device wasn't working at the claimed output that day. Suppose that the pump flow rate was too high for the output. This is the problem that Stephen pointed out, if the pump rate is constant, isn't there a problem if it is too low or too high? Perhaps you still suggesting that the companies that make these meters and Dr. Galantini do not know what they are doing, and you do. That's chutzpah. Thank you. The question here, Jed, is not the companies. They don't claim the utility you read into the information they provide. They do not claim application for steam quality, haven't found that anywhere, found a lot of material that would contradict it. As to Dr. Galantini, well, everyone makes mistakes. I even make mistakes, eh? But when you were tossed in with Richard P. Feynman at 17 years old, you may tend to have some chutzpah, so don't be surprised if I don't fall down when people wave impressive credentials. I'll be quite happy to find I'm wrong. But what you've waved at me doesn't show that, Jed. It's that simple. By the way, the only issue I see here is the possible presence of spit water. There are reasons to think that this thing did spit water, that's what would be dangerous! Steam coming out of a hose like that isn't dangerous. (But, note, there would be condensation in the hose, which would be boiling hot water. That's why Rossi took care to make sure that the water in the hose ran out the drain. Even if the E-Cat isn't spitting, itself.) To me, the strongest evidence here would be observation of live steam at the valve. That the hose was still connected, though, weakened that. You could have live steam coming out the top and hot water coming out the hose.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, June 21, 2011 9:28:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: How's this for a theory: The E-Cat is not boiling much of the water, only a little. The pump is putting out more water than can boil, so it runs out the hose. It's hot. How hot? Always over 100 deg C? That's what the temperature shows. Also, when they use a meter to measure steam quality, they find that the steam is dry. It would be wet if it was mostly water. If the probe can recognize water-mist but can't discriminate between water-gas and other air-gases then I can understand how it can tell us the dryness of the steam plume. However if the probe can't distinguish between water-gas and water-mist it is useless for determining steam quality. Harry Harry
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
ABD wrote: Rossi held up the hose, Krivit had also mentioned this. He didn't want to allow this to continue, he said it was dangerous. Really? How? I think its quite obvious and simple... If enough water accumulates in the hose, and liquid water has significant mass, then it will act like a plug causing steam pressure to build up behind it until it blows out some of the water. I would not want to be anywhere near the end of the hose when that happens. Would you? Granted, with this e-kitten's very modest output of 2.5kW, it would probably take hours for enough water to accumulate with the ~6 feet of hose that was lying level on the floor. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax?
I wrote: If the probe can recognize water-mist but can't discriminate between water-gas and other air-gases then I can understand how it can tell us the dryness of the steam plume. However if the probe can't distinguish between water-gas and water-mist it is useless for determining steam quality. Actually if the probe could discrimate between all three, it could also tell us the dryness of the steam. That would also make it an impressive instrument! Harry
RE: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
ABD wrote: By the way, I think I erred when I reported the operating range as up to 85% RH, non-condensation. That was referring to the unit itself, not to the probe. That is correct. All instruments that I've ever dealt with, be it $100K microwave analyzers to simply DMMs and temperature meters, ALL have a spec for operating temperature and humidity FOR THE ELECTRONIC DISPLAY ITSELF, apart from any attachments. For obvious reasons... Any condensation whatsoever inside the device will almost assuredly change the electrical circuit properties and cause erroneous readings. Even though some companies use a 'conformal coating' on the entire circuit assembly to protect it from condensation and other contaminants, it is still likely to cause errors in the measurements... If you open up most any older Hewlett-Packard instrument, you will immediately see that they almost always used a thin gold layer on all copper PCB traces... This was done so that the instrument would maintain its sensitivity and accuracy over time, and in harch environments. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Something more on the steam
Okay, Krivit got a mail from Galantini: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Galantini wrote: Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . The used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. The device is the Testo (that's a translation artifact, the Text Code. This is http://www.testosites.de/export/sites/default/datalogger2011/en_INT/local_downloads/brochure_EN.pdf Testo 176 H2 in this brochure. The device does log (it's a data logger) g/m^3. But I'm pretty sure that this is a calculated measurement, it's grams of water *vapor* per cubic meter of *air.* Not steam as he says. I can't find any hint that this device is intended to measure steam quality. I was unable to find an operating manual. There is no sensor in the device that would detect other than water vapor. It's an RH meter! It's looking now like Galantini did err. Maybe some hero will appear with magic confirmation of how to measure steam quality with an RH meter! http://www.testosites.de/export/sites/default/datalogger2011/en_INT/local_downloads/brochure_EN.pdf yes, this device, and its probes, measure the relative humidity of *air* . It does not measure steam quality. What is Galantini doing?
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat proven to be a hoax? How Galantini did it...
Now, I'm going to take a que from Horace (where are you Horace?), and do some basic algebra... Those who have been beating the measurement issue beyond dead-horse status do remember what algebra is Water in = Water out (water in whatever form) For the e-Cat demos/tests, we have: Liquid_Water_in = Water_Vapor_out + Water_Liquid_out (by MASS, not volume of course) Now, from your middle school days of elementary algebra, rearrange terms to get: (mass of liquid Water out) = (mass of Liquid Water in) - (mass of Water vapor out) What we are looking for (mass of liquid Water out), is what's left over when we subtract the mass of the water vapor in the output steam from the total water into the unit. If ABD's research into what exactly is being measured by the instrument (the mass of water vapor?), then we have BOTH terms on the right side of the equation and we can solve for the left side... There is also a reason why Rossi and Galantini ***always make a point of saying*** that the pressure inside the 'chimney' can be considered to be pretty much always at atmospheric pressure. Let's see if you can sit back, think, and figure out why that's important. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion does not plan to demonstrate their machine
but they have to demonstrate their confidence in the product- to show that they know and are convinced that it is ready to go to the customers- the readiness of the E-cat peter On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell I will be seriously amazed if a *convincing* no-input demo is done, as Jones says should happen on Thursday. There will no demonstration on Thursday. Note I did not say should happen - but neither is it ruled out that there will be mention of details, going beyond Rossi - which could include a claim of no electrical input. I've seen indications that this will be more than an introduction but less than a demonstration. Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:relative humidity
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity -- A common misconception Often the notion of air holding water vapor is presented to describe the concept of relative humidity. This, however, is a misconception. Air is a mixture of gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, water vapor, and other gases) and as such the constituents of the mixture simply act as a transporter of water vapor but are not a holder of it. Humidity is wholly understood in terms of the physical properties of water and thus is unrelated to the concept of air holding water.[3][4] In fact, an air-less volume can contain water vapor and therefore the humidity of this volume can be readily determined. The misconception that air holds water is likely the result of the use of the word saturation, which is often misused in descriptions of relative humidity. In the present context the word saturation refers to the state of water vapor,[5] not the solubility of one material in another. -- Reading this makes me think Galantini used the probe correctly. Harry
