[Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
This morning the Defkalion website became functional. Registration necessary.. Info re Products and RD. In construction, still. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote: Abd wrote: Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain assumptions. Unfortunately, the assumptions are the very issue here! I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions. The instrument does calculations based on scientific laws and uses what measured variables it does have to calculate different units... For example, Relative humidity is calculated from Absolute humidity and temperature and pressure. It sounds like you're just making shit up. The instrument doesn't have a way to measure absolute humidity directly. It measures capacitance, which varies with relative humidity. So, they have to calibrate it using known humidities (usually with different salts that have a known vapor pressure). So, humidity h1 in air corresponds to capacitance c1, and humidity h2 in air corresponds to capacitance c2, and so on. Then they make a graph of capacitance vs humidity, and use the graph to determine an arbitrary humidity from an arbitrary capacitance. Now, if it's calibrated in air, as it is, then the assumption they make when they report humidity is that you are using the device in air. If you use it in a mixture of steam and mist, the capacitance measurement may mean something, but using the calibration curve generated in air will not be meaningful. I have never seen an instrument that bases the display of other units on assumptions. I certainly wouldn't buy one! Most speedometers make assumptions about tire diameters. Many mass scales assume a value for g, and wouldn't read the correct mass on the moon, or in orbit. A barometric altimeter assumes you are in earth's atmosphere (and the weather is fair for good accuracy), and will not work in the space shuttle in orbit, or on another planet. Etc.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at 100% RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the partial pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 atm. Ergo, 100% RH. I think the RH of the steam is 0% when it is fully dry just like the RH of fully dry air is 0%. You can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my reasoning: Dry steam is water in the form of a gas and only a gas. (I prefer the word gas over the word vapour because the meaning of water vapour is highly fluid in common paralance. Pun intended) Water can only exist as a gas if the atmospheric pressure drops considerably or if the temperature rises considerably or through combination of the two. Therefore at room temperature and pressure water does not exist as a gas, and the humidity of the air consists entirely of an extremely fine suspension of liquid water drops. Air at room temperature and pressure is free of water gas. When the relative humidity of the air (or some other gas) reaches 100% it can't hold any more liquid water drops. On the other hand my assertions about water gas are hard to reconcile with the phenomena of water evaporation so I may well be wrong! Harry From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, June 23, 2011 1:02:02 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Yes, as I've been trying to explain all along, once you get to 100%RH, all remaining water will be in the form of liquid water because at the given temperature and pressure it is now saturated and can no longer support further water molecules as vapor. But steam inside the conduit is always at 100% RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the partial pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 atm. Ergo, 100% RH. I've already answered your question as to HOW one can calculate that portion that is liquid water... No. You really haven't.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power. That's true, but I've only been arguing that Rossi has not provided the public with evidence of excess heat. I don't have proof that the rock in my front yard is not producing heat either. But Rossi is making the claim. The onus is on him to provide the evidence. Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm skeptical. I suspect that Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows how he looks and is deliberately creating the impressions that he's creating. I can think of a number of reasons for this, both psychological and practical or economic. I don't know how one can come to this idea except to start with the conclusion that the ecat works, and you said starting from the conclusion is a bad thing.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at 100% RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the partial pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 atm. Ergo, 100% RH. I think the RH of the steam is 0% when it is fully dry just like the RH of fully dry air is 0%. You can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my reasoning: Dry steam is water in the form of a gas and only a gas. (I prefer the word gas over the word vapour because the meaning of water vapour is highly fluid in common paralance. Pun intended) Water can only exist as a gas if the atmospheric pressure drops considerably or if the temperature rises considerably or through combination of the two. Therefore at room temperature and pressure water does not exist as a gas, and the humidity of the air consists entirely of an extremely fine suspension of liquid water drops. Air at room temperature and pressure is free of water gas. When the relative humidity of the air (or some other gas) reaches 100% it can't hold any more liquid water drops. On the other hand my assertions about water gas are hard to reconcile with the phenomena of water evaporation so I may well be wrong! You are indeed wrong. Time for a refresher. Look up vapor pressure in wikipedia for a start. Water evaporates into pure gas (not droplets) below its boiling point. Humidity measures the amount of water vapor (gas, not droplets) in the air. When the partial pressure of the water vapor in air equals the vapor pressure of water, evaporation stops, or at least it balances condensation. That represents 100% humidity. The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. The RH of steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere is therefore 100%.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From this document http://www.macinstruments.com/pdf/handbook.pdf, from a website trying to sell absolute humidity gauges, it would appear that a relative humidity sensor can give accurate reading up to the boiling point of water and that the measurement of humidity decreases in dry steam as the temperature of the super heated vapor increases. The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% above 95% RH from this spec sheet http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347. If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then an an examination of the phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water can be entrained in the vapor. Under these conditions the steam would be dry and the humidity sensor would read = 100 +/- 3.5% according to the above information. The fact that the steam exiting the hose in the video is invisible is very strong qualitative evidence that the steam is relatively dry. Since the steam can only become wetter after it's exit from the chimney, it must be more dry when it is produced than when it exits the hose. If the temperature and pressure were measured accurately then the steam is likely to be significantly dry. In summary, it would appear that if the water is superheated then the steam is dry. Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:52:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote: If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very different and yield very different readings. From what I found, it is not the dielectric constant of the fluid that determines the capacitance, but the dielectric constant of a polymer which absorbs more or less water depending on the humidity. I found variations of this paragraph at several different sites: Most humidity sensors use capacitive measurement to determine the amount of moisture in the air. This type of measurement relies on the ability of two electrical conductors to create an electrical field between them with a non-conductive polymer film laying between them. Moisture from the air collects on the film and will cause changes in the voltage levels between the two plates. (www.tech-faq.com/humidity-sensors.html) In this case wet steam is likely to give a higher reading than dry steam, which would give exactly the wrong information. In any case, if the device does actually give different measures for different wetness of steam, it would have to be calibrated for the purpose. The manufacturer does not do this. They calibrate it to represent the humidity in air.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C. You don't expect water droplets above the boiling point. The temperature of the mixture of steam and droplets will be *at* the boiling point. The actual boiling point inside the conduit will be slightly elevated because of a slight increase in pressure. Rossi emphasizes that the pressure is at atmosphere inside the reactor, but in fact it must be slightly higher, or there would be no flow of the fluid. The pressure difference, flow rate, and tube geometry are related by a simple formula, and reasonable estimates indicate an elevation in the bp of a degree or so is easily plausible. If the boiling point goes up by degree or two that makes no difference to the implausibility of water drops existing in the beginning of the plume which has a temperature just above the boiling point. As a practical matter it seems to me steam quality is primarly an issue at the place where it is needed, e.g. to drive a turbine etc. Steam quality would rarley be an issue near the boiler where it is produced. Haary
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 12:12 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy. *What steam?* Understand that 2.5 KW of steam being generated at the E-Cat is not going to be 2.5 KW of steam coming out of a 3 meter hose, right. Except Rossi claims the ecat is producing 5 kW, not 2.5 kW. Suppose, as someone claimed, the steam is right for the input power claimed (about 750 watts). Actually, I think that's wrong. Taking the flow rate as claimed, 600 W are needed to bring the water to the boiling point, leaving only 150 W to produce steam. So, on the face of it, the ecat seems to be producing some power, if the output steam represents more than 150 W. The problem is that it's hard to trust any of the numbers. Someone has estimated the flow rate to be 1/2 of what Rossi claimed, based on the pump frequency, and a photograph of the pump dials. And the power was only measured at the beginning. It was not monitored. In the Lewan video, Rossi is caught with his paws on the control dials. He is not similarly caught in Krivit's video, but it can't be ruled out. What is abundantly clear though, is that the steam coming out is not consistent with 5 kW being produced by the ecat, as claimed by Rossi. So, then, we need only lose 1.75 KW by conduction, convection, and radiation, from the 3 meters of hose, and someone did calculations showing that to be reasonable. There is no way that is reasonable. The equivalent surface area of a steam radiator produces about 150 W, and there is no way that rubber radiates more than 10 times the amount of heat than cast iron does at the same temperature. And anyway, even at 1.75 kW, there should still be about 3 kW left corresponding to the steam.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Oh well, I'll run the errand tomorrow... As a start, go read about the gas laws and partial pressure and how humidity is calculated from partial pressure... In order to understand how Galantini can ESTIMATE the liquid water content of the steam, you need to think several steps ahead as in chess, or in a complex mathematical derivation that involves many steps and applying theorems at each step in order to derive the final desired answer. Its not a direct measurement as I've said numerous times. You're not saying anything. The behavior and properties of gases are very different from liquids, and are dictated by mass or mole fraction, not concentrations. Gases dissolve, diffuse, and react according to their partial pressures, and not according to their concentrations in gas mixtures or liquids. Still nothing. If you vaporized so many grams of liquid water into a cubic meter box with NO other molecules present, you'd end up with a specific temperature and pressure, and that could also be communicated as a mixing ratio. For atmospheric science where we ARE dealing with air, then the mixing ratio is the mass of water (if you condense the water vapor) to the mass of dry air. However, you do NOT need other molecules in order to measure humidity. Humidity exists without other molecules. That's true. But if you want to measure humidity with a device calibrated in air, you need to make the measurement in the same conditions the calibration was performed under. But humidity is not what you want if you're interested in the steam wetness. The relative humidity of steam is 100%. If that device gives the mass of water vapor per unit volume, then it will give the density of steam: 0.6 kg/ m^3, or 1000 g of water vapor per kg of steam. We already know that number. So you're getting hung up on the denominator thinking that there has to be some entity or volume of some other molecule(s) when in fact, it might as well say, cubic meter of empty space. But if all you know is x g/m^3, you don't know the mass unless you know how many m^3. And you need the mass for your simple algebra. The mass per unit volume doesn't help.
RE: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
Registered for the forum. Now, let's hope for useful information straight from Defkalion's mouths. All posts await moderation, though; I'd imagine skeptical questions that they don't like may get cast into an atomic dustbin. Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:03:02 +0300 From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site This morning the Defkalion website became functional. Registrationnecessary.. Info re Products and RD. In construction, still.Peter -- Dr. Peter GluckCluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Finlay, Appreciate your contributions... Thanks for the link to the humidity handbook... good clear explanations. Given my reading so far, I would agree with your statement that... If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then an examination of the phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water can be entrained in the vapor. Under these conditions the steam would be dry... You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not vaporized (i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing steam), it would pretty much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi. So this has been a major concern since the Jan demo... Then again, some have already concluded that this really is a moot point given the work by Piantelli and Focardi on Ni-H systems, the extensive history of LENR research, and recently Ahern's work with Ni-H and zero energy input (and 8W of heat out). We are dealing with macroscopic effects that don't require extremely sensitive and accurate and expensive instruments to measure. I think that there is strong evidence that allows one to make a qualitative call that there is overunity here and something novel is going on... thus, move on and figure out how to optimize it. Quibbling over whether its 1% or 2% liquid water in the steam is probably a waste of time... -Mark _ From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From this document http://www.macinstruments.com/pdf/handbook.pdf, from a website trying to sell absolute humidity gauges, it would appear that a relative humidity sensor can give accurate reading up to the boiling point of water and that the measurement of humidity decreases in dry steam as the temperature of the super heated vapor increases. The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% above 95% RH from this spec sheet http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347. If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then an an examination of the phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water can be entrained in the vapor. Under these conditions the steam would be dry and the humidity sensor would read = 100 +/- 3.5% according to the above information. The fact that the steam exiting the hose in the video is invisible is very strong qualitative evidence that the steam is relatively dry. Since the steam can only become wetter after it's exit from the chimney, it must be more dry when it is produced than when it exits the hose. If the temperature and pressure were measured accurately then the steam is likely to be significantly dry. In summary, it would appear that if the water is superheated then the steam is dry. _ Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:52:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote: If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very different and yield very different readings. From what I found, it is not the dielectric constant of the fluid that determines the capacitance, but the dielectric constant of a polymer which absorbs more or less water depending on the humidity. I found variations of this paragraph at several different sites: Most humidity sensors use capacitive measurement to determine the amount of moisture in the air. This type of measurement relies on the ability of two electrical conductors to create an electrical field between them with a non-conductive polymer film laying between them. Moisture from the air collects on the film and will cause changes in the voltage levels between the two plates. (www.tech-faq.com/humidity-sensors.html) In this case wet steam is likely to give a higher reading than dry steam, which would give exactly the wrong information. In any case, if the device does actually give different measures for different wetness of steam, it would have to be calibrated for the purpose. The manufacturer does not do this. They calibrate it to represent the humidity in air.
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
I consider that apart of questioning, perhaps we could help them,. They are at the interface with the customers and their success depends on the performances and reliability of the E-cats- now Hyperions. It is not easy to transform/.apply a brand new energy source - for example in a home heater as say Bosch 3000W- automated hot water for heat exchangers when it is cold, hot water for washing when desired. The device costs some 700 euro and consumes natural gas for some 300 euro pro year, it is reliable and versatile- has a good infrastructure/. The development department of the Defkalion company has a herculean task. On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Registered for the forum. Now, let's hope for useful information straight from Defkalion's mouths. All posts await moderation, though; I'd imagine skeptical questions that they don't like may get cast into an atomic dustbin. -- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:03:02 +0300 From: peter.gl...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site This morning the Defkalion website became functional. Registration necessary.. Info re Products and RD. In construction, still. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua wrote: The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. The physics definition for RH is: %RH = (Pw/Ps)*100 Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the saturation pressure of water vapor... What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit up. -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at 100% RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the partial pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 atm. Ergo, 100% RH. I think the RH of the steam is 0% when it is fully dry just like the RH of fully dry air is 0%. You can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my reasoning: Dry steam is water in the form of a gas and only a gas. (I prefer the word gas over the word vapour because the meaning of water vapour is highly fluid in common paralance. Pun intended) Water can only exist as a gas if the atmospheric pressure drops considerably or if the temperature rises considerably or through combination of the two. Therefore at room temperature and pressure water does not exist as a gas, and the humidity of the air consists entirely of an extremely fine suspension of liquid water drops. Air at room temperature and pressure is free of water gas. When the relative humidity of the air (or some other gas) reaches 100% it can't hold any more liquid water drops. On the other hand my assertions about water gas are hard to reconcile with the phenomena of water evaporation so I may well be wrong! You are indeed wrong. Time for a refresher. Look up vapor pressure in wikipedia for a start. Water evaporates into pure gas (not droplets) below its boiling point. Humidity measures the amount of water vapor (gas, not droplets) in the air. When the partial pressure of the water vapor in air equals the vapor pressure of water, evaporation stops, or at least it balances condensation. That represents 100% humidity. The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. The RH of steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere is therefore 100%.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not vaporized (i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing steam), it would pretty much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi. No. Where do you get that? What senior contributer said that? If 95% of the water (by mass) is converted to steam then Rossi's claims are 95% right. (Well, ignoring discrepancies in flow rate and input power.) What is true is that if the output is 5 % liquid by *volume*, then Rossi's claims are 6 or 7 times too high. Because 5% liquid by volume corresponds to 99 % liquid by mass.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Joshua wrote: The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. The physics definition for RH is: %RH = (Pw/Ps)*100 Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the saturation pressure of water vapor... What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit up. Nope. *Vapor pressure* or *equilibrium vapor pressure* is the pressurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure of a vapor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor in thermodynamic equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium with its condensed phases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter) in a closed system. Meteorologists also use the term *saturation vapor pressure* to refer to the equilibrium vapor pressure of water or brinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine above a flat surface, to distinguish it from equilibrium vapor pressure which takes into account the shape and size of water droplets and particulates in the atmosphere. They're pretty close in meaning, and the difference is too subtle to matter here.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote: The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% above 95% RH from this spec sheet http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347. I think you're reading that spec sheet wrong. The 150C refers to the range of temperature measurement. But the RH sensor operating temperature is given as -20 to 80C in the section on common characteristics of RH sensors below the table. So, there appears to be no claim that it can measure even RH at 100C.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C. You don't expect water droplets above the boiling point. The temperature of the mixture of steam and droplets will be *at* the boiling point. The actual boiling point inside the conduit will be slightly elevated because of a slight increase in pressure. Rossi emphasizes that the pressure is at atmosphere inside the reactor, but in fact it must be slightly higher, or there would be no flow of the fluid. The pressure difference, flow rate, and tube geometry are related by a simple formula, and reasonable estimates indicate an elevation in the bp of a degree or so is easily plausible. If the boiling point goes up by degree or two that makes no difference to the implausibility of water drops existing in the beginning of the plume which has a temperature just above the boiling point. I don't follow. If the bp goes up, then the temperature of the plume is not just above the boiling point; it is at the boiling point. And so water drops are entirely plausible. What's not plausible is that at the moment it hits the bp, which requires 750 W, it immediately begins to vaporize all the water, which requires 5 kW. A 7-fold increase in power requires a 7-fold increase in the temperature difference between the reactor walls and the fluid. How can that happen so fast?
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Josh wrote: It sounds like you're just making shit up. The instrument doesn't have a way to measure absolute humidity directly. It measures capacitance, which varies with relative humidity.. Yes, agreed that at the most fundamental level it is making an electrical measurement, that being capacitance. However, since relative humidity is a moving target depending on the temperature, RH is usually calculated from absolute humidity and temperature. I'm not making this up... this is from direct experience... a few years ago we were using a temp/humidity sensor in the lab and I wrote the code to query it and get its data. I believe it too was a polymer/capacitive sensor and what it measured was absolute humidity (which doesn't change with temperature), and the user manual provided an equation to convert that into RH given the temperature, which it also measured. Perhaps they are a bit more sophisticated these days and they've incorporated the adjustment for temperature in order to get RH... -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Abd wrote: Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain assumptions. Unfortunately, the assumptions are the very issue here! I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions. The instrument does calculations based on scientific laws and uses what measured variables it does have to calculate different units... For example, Relative humidity is calculated from Absolute humidity and temperature and pressure. It sounds like you're just making shit up. The instrument doesn't have a way to measure absolute humidity directly. It measures capacitance, which varies with relative humidity. So, they have to calibrate it using known humidities (usually with different salts that have a known vapor pressure). So, humidity h1 in air corresponds to capacitance c1, and humidity h2 in air corresponds to capacitance c2, and so on. Then they make a graph of capacitance vs humidity, and use the graph to determine an arbitrary humidity from an arbitrary capacitance. Now, if it's calibrated in air, as it is, then the assumption they make when they report humidity is that you are using the device in air. If you use it in a mixture of steam and mist, the capacitance measurement may mean something, but using the calibration curve generated in air will not be meaningful. I have never seen an instrument that bases the display of other units on assumptions. I certainly wouldn't buy one! Most speedometers make assumptions about tire diameters. Many mass scales assume a value for g, and wouldn't read the correct mass on the moon, or in orbit. A barometric altimeter assumes you are in earth's atmosphere (and the weather is fair for good accuracy), and will not work in the space shuttle in orbit, or on another planet. Etc.
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
On 2011-06-23 08:03, Peter Gluck wrote: This morning the Defkalion website became functional. Registration necessary.. Info re Products and RD. In construction, still. Defkalion Green Technologies white paper: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White%20Paper_DGT.pdf Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Giuseppe Levi Interview (June 23rd)
Great interview! I only wish that they'd confirmed the actual existence of the 2nd test with Levi, while he was there. But, alas, the answer is: wait and see. Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, This is a Google-translated interview to Giuseppe Levi by the official online journal of CICAP, a notable Italian skeptical organization. It answers several questions about the background of the earlier tests, steam quality issues and future plans about E-Cat measurements and validation tests: http://goo.gl/9cJOL Cheers, S.A.
RE: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
It is a shame the sound quality isn't better. It was nevertheless adequate. I'm glad this clip was posted. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Terry, What 'endorsements' has Brian Josephson missed-out on, specifically? I did not say miss-out on. Please refrain from altering my meaning. I said they had not improved his credibility. The main one is homeopathy, specifically water memory. Regardless of the facts, his endorsement has reduced his credibility. T
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
I love it : All products are plug-and-play. T
Re: [Vo]:Brian Josephson on Rossi
When I speak of credibility, I am referring to BJ's credibility with his peers. Personally, I have had positive results from homeopathic medicines. T
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
plug-and-play ? They do have to meet Microsoft certification :) 2011/6/23 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com I love it : All products are plug-and-play. T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On 11-06-23 04:23 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net mailto:zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not vaporized (i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing steam), it would pretty much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi. No. Where do you get that? What senior contributer said that? If 95% of the water (by mass) is converted to steam then Rossi's claims are 95% right. (Well, ignoring discrepancies in flow rate and input power.) What is true is that if the output is 5 % liquid by *volume*, then Rossi's claims are 6 or 7 times too high. Because 5% liquid by volume corresponds to 99 % liquid by mass. That would probably have been Horace, and I think he may have meant by volume. The calculations are in the archive, among the most recent posts from Horace just before he bowed out due to lack of time, if anyone cares to go digging.
[Vo]:Anything From The DEFKALION Press Conference?
Wasn't the DEFKALION press conference today? Did they say anything new?
RE: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
-Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa Defkalion Green Technologies white paper: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/White%20Paper_DGT.pdf I was hoping for actual photographs of their prototypes. None there, but they do mention getting away from water/steam and going to a heat transfer fluid and a large thermal store. So far, so good. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Anything From The DEFKALION Press Conference?
Rock_nj wrote: Wasn't the DEFKALION press conference today? Did they say anything new? The press conference is just ending now. They will upload a YouTube video of it. I know several people attending. If they send me a description I will copy it here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anything From The DEFKALION Press Conference?
Let us know if any mainstream media showed up. No, really... it could happen... Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Rock_nj wrote: Wasn't the DEFKALION press conference today? Did they say anything new? The press conference is just ending now. They will upload a YouTube video of it. I know several people attending. If they send me a description I will copy it here. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Yes, agreed that at the most fundamental level it is making an electrical measurement, that being capacitance. However, since relative humidity is a moving target depending on the temperature, RH is usually calculated from absolute humidity and temperature. I'm not making this up... this is from direct experience... a few years ago we were using a temp/humidity sensor in the lab and I wrote the code to query it and get its data. I believe it too was a polymer/capacitive sensor and what it measured was absolute humidity (which doesn't change with temperature), and the user manual provided an equation to convert that into RH given the temperature, which it also measured. If that device used a capacitive probe, then I doubt it measured absolute humidity, independent of what it reported to the user. Because the same absolute humidity at different temperatures would result in different wetness of the polymer, and therefore different capacitance measurements. Therefore, it certainly cannot deduce the absolute humidity from the capacity measurement alone. The wetness of the polymer will have a much simpler relationship with the RH than with the absolute humidity. There may still be a temperature dependence, but it will be weaker, and probably it is calibrated at different temperatures. And that's probably why it's only valid within a range of temperatures. If the device is calibrated at different temperatures, and uses the temperature to calculate the humidity, then it is entirely equivalent whether it calculates relative or absolute humidity. But if it deduces humidity from the capacitance measurement alone, then it can only be the relative humidity. The fact that you don't actually know the technology used in the probe in your lab, and that a capacitance measurement alone cannot give a unique absolute humidity, but that it could do reasonably well at giving relative humidity, suggests you were just guessing.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show? Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate? How would this show that Galantini was correct? Yes, I meant the test with flowing water. This showed that the steam in the first test must have been dry. It is conceivable that Galantini measured it wrong but he got lucky and it was dry anyway. Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we don't have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter. I do not see how they contradict Galantini. Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are confusing confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers, with confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public demonstrations with private evidence, as with the second test, i.e., by Levi with high flow. It wasn't exactly private. Or I guess I should say it wasn't supposed to be. Lewan and I got a report of it. We were hoping and expecting more. I might not have described it at LENR-CANR.org if I had known that no further details were forthcoming. The interview with Levi in Query today discusses it. I disagree with his assertion that a far more compelling test is needed, and much more time. If I had a few days with flowing water tests, or even one day, I think I could do a more compelling job than they have done so far. You have already acknowledged being convinced by private information. That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us. Yes. It is very frustrating for me, but I cannot do anything about it. Believe me, I am trying. In the larger sense, I have been trying for years to persuade cold fusion researchers to publish more. I have had mixed success. I have thousand of pages of papers and information I cannot upload. Most of it is unimportant, but some would go a long way to clearing up these misunderstandings. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: None there, but they do mention getting away from water/steam and going to a heat transfer fluid and a large thermal store. I mentioned Thermisol on their forum and got this response from someone tagged as farshooter: therminol (monsanto) is not a good choice. I have used fot 35+ years, it is a fire hazard , polution hazard and, and has a max useful temp of just over 600 Deg F. You need to design your faciliy to be explosion proof. end
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: I mentioned Thermisol ThermiNol. Fat fingers.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf. A number of them are rated to 150C. also. It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated. Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:46:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote: The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% above 95% RH from this spec sheet http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347. I think you're reading that spec sheet wrong. The 150C refers to the range of temperature measurement. But the RH sensor operating temperature is given as -20 to 80C in the section on common characteristics of RH sensors below the table. So, there appears to be no claim that it can measure even RH at 100C.
[Vo]:Defkalion Press Conference
From the Defkalion forum: Hi all Defkalion's Press Conference just finished (around 16.30 Athens time) In Palaio Faliro Municipality Congress Center, around 150 people attended. Among them: The Minister of Industry and Energy Mr Xinidis. Prepresentatives of political parties. Among them, The Green Party of Germany The President of Greek Technical Chamber The president of Union of Greek Chambers The president of the Greek-Americal Chamber of commerce Representative of the Industrial Union of North Greece and other officials local and freigners. Press coverage: 7 cameras from Greek mainstream stations, RAI, news paper journalists from major Greek newspapers, Italian, Assosiated Press, and others. On the stage: Prof Stremenos, A. Xanthoulis from Defkalion GT and Andrea Rossi. A press release and a press kit was distributed to the media. A special company announcement on the event will follow on Friday 24th with details, full list of participants etc. The event was filmed and it will be uploaded with English subtitles in YouTube after technical preparation (as I heard by Monday or Thusday) end
Re: [Vo]:Anything From The DEFKALION Press Conference?
On 2011-06-23 15:47, Rock_nj wrote: Wasn't the DEFKALION press conference today? Did they say anything new? User jhadj from Defkalion Green Technologies official forums reports this: * * * http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=24 Hi all Defkalion's Press Conference just finished (around 16.30 Athens time) In Palaio Faliro Municipality Congress Center, around 150 people attended. Among them: The Minister of Industry and Energy Mr Xinidis. Prepresentatives of political parties. Among them, The Green Party of Germany The President of Greek Technical Chamber The president of Union of Greek Chambers The president of the Greek-Americal Chamber of commerce Representative of the Industrial Union of North Greece and other officials local and freigners. Press coverage: 7 cameras from Greek mainstream stations, RAI, news paper journalists from major Greek newspapers, Italian, Assosiated Press, and others. On the stage: Prof Stremenos, A. Xanthoulis from Defkalion GT and Andrea Rossi. A press release and a press kit was distributed to the media. A special company announcement on the event will follow on Friday 24th with details, full list of participants etc. The event was filmed and it will be uploaded with English subtitles in YouTube after technical preparation (as I heard by Monday or Thusday) * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky. No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests if there was no anomalous heat. There would be no trace of steam. The only question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a little? Who cares?!? The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and serious fraud -- could be easily done. That is true. But it would not matter how convincing the test is. Some people would find reasons to disbelieve it, and many would say it has to be fraud. For example, many people would say the thing has to be self-powered or in heat after death or they will not believe it. This is irrational, but that is what they would say. Actually, this test is nowhere near as bad as portrayed here. All this discussion of wet and dry steam is bullshit. It is nitpicking. Any steam at all is proof there is cold fusion heat, and the amount of heat does not matter. This is like watching the Wright brothers fly and arguing whether they are 10 feet in the air or 20 feet. People do argue about that! At ~10 feet they had the advantage of ground effect. Some people say this is cheating, so they did not really fly at first. I say flying is flying and who cares. Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. I do not excuse it. I explain it. There is world of difference. It is causing me no end of trouble, so I am in no mood to excuse it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
Terry, There is an improved version from another company: http://www.solutia.com/en/SolarEnergy.aspx quote: Therminol(r), the world leader in high-temperature synthetic heat transfer fluids, can be used in numerous applications including renewable energy technologies such as solar and biodiesel, manufacturing processes, waste heat transfer, pharmaceuticals, specialty chemicals and oil and gas processing. It all depends on the design goals and the temperature range of the E-Cat, since you want a low pressure system, at the highest possible temperature. Glycol is cheaper, but lower performance, and if it is satisfactory - that means that they have chosen a lower range of operating temperatures - below 200C. It also means that they have probably given up (at least at this early stage of development) on the possibility of efficient conversion of the heat to electricity. That would be expected at the initial stages - since the engineering required to convert heat efficiently is more demanding. They will probably license that task out to companies that are specialists. Jones -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton I mentioned Thermisol on their forum and got this response from someone tagged as farshooter: therminol (monsanto) is not a good choice. I have used fot 35+ years, it is a fire hazard, polution hazard and, and has a max useful temp of just over 600 DegF. You needto design your faciliy to be explosion proof. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote: There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf. A number of them are rated to 150C. Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think that means the RH can be measured over that range. Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning it applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it gives the sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C. also. It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated. Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure enough. I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations. But when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some fundamental physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid water. It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat, and within a degree or so of 100C.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Conference
Terry Blanton wrote: The event was filmed and it will be uploaded with English subtitles in YouTube after technical preparation (as I heard by Monday or Thusday) I guess this is obvious, but the press conference was in Greek. Someone there told me there was simultaneous interpretation available with these wireless earplug things but the audio quality was poor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
From Jones: ... It also means that they have probably given up (at least at this early stage of development) on the possibility of efficient conversion of the heat to electricity. That would be expected at the initial stages - since the engineering required to convert heat efficiently is more demanding. They will probably license that task out to companies that are specialists. I agree with this assessment. Many wish Rossi's e-cats would be efficient enough to generate electricity RIGHT NOW, but that simply isn't in the cards. I bet they COULD but it would be unpredictable dangerous to do so insofar as selling such configurations to the general public. If they can get the catalizers to act as efficient building heaters, the obvious next goal would be to begin intense RD on electrical conversion. But alas, I suspect few have a clue as to the actual physics involved. Makes me think of the movie: Quest for Fire. Seems very appropriate here! Defkalion seems to be approaching the exploitation of the Rossi effect cautiously. That's smart. Should help cut down on potential lawsuits possibly due to unanticipated/unspecified injuries. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky. No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests if there was no anomalous heat. Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires only 600W. The electrical input was 750W. There would be no trace of steam. With just the electrical power, there would be just a trace of steam. The only question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a little? Who cares?!? The output steam does seem to exceed the 150 W from electrical only, but the amount of excess is important, because only a little can be produced chemically. Moreover, if it is only a little, then there are other possible discrepancies that could account for what is seen. For example, esowatch has calculated a flow rate based on the pump frequency to be 1/2 that claimed by Rossi. Then only 300W are needed to bring the water to 100C. And that leaves 450 W to go into steam. That seems pretty consistent with what is coming out of the hose. The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and serious fraud -- could be easily done. That is true. But it would not matter how convincing the test is. That's not true. You yourself have said that an isolated device that stays hotter than its environment for a really long time would be convincing to anyone. This is like watching the Wright brothers fly and arguing whether they are 10 feet in the air or 20 feet. People do argue about that! At ~10 feet they had the advantage of ground effect. Some people say this is cheating, so they did not really fly at first. I say flying is flying and who cares. Well no one denies flying is possible now, so clearly a sufficiently convincing demonstration of that is possible. But no, it's not about 10 ft or 20 ft. Rossi has not got off the ground yet.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table. The chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the %RH than is listed in the common characteristics table. There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet steam that should be ruled out: If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged with water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam would be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to the input flow rate. For the short demonstrations so far this explanation would be sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are correct. The only way that you would see a significant change in the temperature of the output steam is if the heating took place after evaporation or under pressure. It seems logical to assume that most of the heat is transferred to the water at a liquid/reactor core interface. The 18 hour test did show fluctuations in output power however. Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:14:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote: There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf. A number of them are rated to 150C. Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think that means the RH can be measured over that range. Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning it applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it gives the sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C. also. It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated. Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure enough. I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations. But when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some fundamental physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid water. It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat, and within a degree or so of 100C.
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
I guess it means sets of 20'' containers.
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
Hi, On 23-6-2011 18:23, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: If they can get the catalizers to act as efficient building heaters, the obvious next goal would be to begin intense RD on electrical conversion. For the conversion to electricity, it should be first determined which method to follow. A couple come in mind: - TEG - Steam turbine - Stirling engine From those above I have the impression that Rossi seems to prefer the Stirling engine. Well he's in luck as actually these types of systems are already albeit in low volumes used for conventional heating systems in the Netherlands and Belgium. See also second column (MEC) on the following page http://www.microchap.info/stirling_engine.htm One of the companies who produces these is Vaillant. Promotional video of a vaillant boiler including stirling engine with design-layout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygg7NqLGgCQ As you can see it is absolutely feasible to have very fast a combined system on the market. Maybe a suggestion for Rossi or Defkalion to start some kind of cooperation with one of these companies to develop and produce a combined heater and CHP system. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
How about this: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-source-green-electricity.html ?
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
Daniel said: All MW range products are built within a 20 sized container I guess it means sets of 20'' containers. That's not how I would interpret the meaning. I perceive no plural interpretation within the sentence structure. But who knows. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
They are distancing themselves from LENR... Note last sentence. Many have labeled Cold Fusion with positive and negative connotations. It has also been referred to as LENR and CANR. Most of these terms hold behind them thousands of hours of research work, all hoping to achieve the ultimate energy dream: limitless energy. However, overall, a stigma has created ambiguous feelings of aiming to reach the end of the rainbow. The science behind the products of Defkalion is none of the above, even though it is identified as such in current media coverage. They're just calling it a, Ni-H Exothermic reaction -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:43 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site Reading the White Paper, On page six it sez: All MW range products are built within a 20 sized container That's inches... right! If that is correct, wow! That's small! Significantly smaller than prior speculation on the 1 MW contraption. It's the size of a hefty microwave oven, or compact refrigerator. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
Hi, On 23-6-2011 18:42, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: All MW range products are built within a 20 sized container I guess this is again a European typo, I read somewhere else 20 feet (which is, as you may know one of the predefined lengths for cargo containers on ships/trucks/trains) They'd better say the size in meters/kgs/Centigrades etc. and forget about imperial measures. Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:[Video] Low Energy Nuclear Revolution (English version)
Hello group, About a week ago a link to the Italian version of a very well done 40-minutes documentary about Rossi's Energy Catalyzer was posted to this group. It appears that an version subtitled in English has been uploaded today by the authors to their Vimeo channel. Here's the link: http://vimeo.com/25501969 Video info: * * * Promo version. This film resumes all the information about Andrea Rossi's device from the 14th of January: the public experiment, critics, tests, protagonists of the story. First part of a big work in progress. - Credits - Produced by: Phizero ( phizero.it ) Directed by: Manuel Zani Scientific Committee by: Ing. Giacomo Guidi D.o.P: Luca Nervegna Web: phizero.it Info: l...@phizero.it * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
From Bridges: All MW range products are built within a 20 sized container I guess this is again a European typo, I read somewhere else 20 feet (which is, as you may know one of the predefined lengths for cargo containers on ships/trucks/trains) They'd better say the size in meters/kgs/Centigrades etc. and forget about imperial measures. Good assessment. I agree. They should stick with using the same unit of measurement - especially within the same document... in adjacent sentences. Very confusing. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Conference
One of the listed attendees: The Green Party of Germany I think the press conference was more about stalling debtors from issuing Notices of Default to the Greek govt... The govt is hoping this buys them a little more time and leverage. And perhaps to ease the civil unrest. It'll be quite interesting to see how this plays out, especially if its real. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:DEFKALION web-site
Hi, On 23-6-2011 18:52, Daniel Rocha wrote: How about this: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-source-green-electricity.html * *Ok, looks interesting, but two comments: 1. Quote: This revolutionary energy conversion method is in the early stages of development When do they think they can commercialize it? (This usually takes approx. 5-10 years) 2. What is it's efficiency? (is it higher than TEG?, which is only approx. 2-3%) Kind regards, MoB * * **
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Joshua wrote: The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. The physics definition for RH is: %RH = (Pw/Ps)*100 Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the saturation pressure of water vapor... What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit up. Nope. Vapor pressure or equilibrium vapor pressure is the pressure of a vapor in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed phases in a closed system. hmm but we aren't dealing with a closed system. Harry
[Vo]:Video of interest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ Promo film about LENR and the Andrea Rossi's device. First part of a big work in progress. Produced by: Phizero (http://phizero.it) Directed by: Manuel Zani Scientific Committee by: Ing. Giacomo Guidi D.o.P: Luca Nervegna Web: http://phizero.it attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:unsubscribe..
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:41 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... On 11-06-23 04:23 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not vaporized (i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing steam), it would pretty much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi. No. Where do you get that? What senior contributer said that? If 95% of the water (by mass) is converted to steam then Rossi's claims are 95% right. (Well, ignoring discrepancies in flow rate and input power.) What is true is that if the output is 5 % liquid by *volume*, then Rossi's claims are 6 or 7 times too high. Because 5% liquid by volume corresponds to 99 % liquid by mass. That would probably have been Horace, and I think he may have meant by volume. The calculations are in the archive, among the most recent posts from Horace just before he bowed out due to lack of time, if anyone cares to go digging.
[Vo]:Defkalion reactor sizes
Man on Bridges wrote: All MW range products are built within a 20 sized container I guess this is again a European typo, I read somewhere else 20 feet (which is, as you may know one of the predefined lengths for cargo containers on ships/trucks/trains) They'd better say the size in meters/kgs/Centigrades etc. and forget about imperial measures. From the web site: The line of products to be produced by Defkalion Green Techologies S.A. will carry the name Hyperion. Individual units producing heat ranging from 5 up to 30KWh/h will have the following dimensions:L55xW48xH35cm. Larger units producing 1MW heat will be sized to fit inside a container sized 20 and 40 feet. All products are plug-and-play. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/products - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Video of interest
On 2011-06-23 19:39, Jones Beene wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ Promo film about LENR and the Andrea Rossi's device. First part of a big work in progress. This is the same video of which I posted a link 30 minutes before this message (Low Energy Nuclear Revolution). The original Vimeo link, however, has got a much better video quality (HD). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests if there was no anomalous heat. Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires only 600W. The electrical input was 750W. So you will stick to the Krivit demo and ignore the others. You look at one piece of data at a time while ignoring other pieces. That is a common technique used by people who are determined to deny reality. Moreover, if it is only a little, then there are other possible discrepancies that could account for what is seen. For example, esowatch has calculated a flow rate based on the pump frequency to be 1/2 that claimed by Rossi. Whereas Rossi measured the flow by weighing the reservoir before and after. That method is infallible. It overrules the people at esowatch who are speculating about the pump and waving their hands. But no, it's not about 10 ft or 20 ft. Rossi has not got off the ground yet. No comment. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
To clear up the working range of the RH sensor, I found the answer from page 110 of this extensive users manual: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2008/uk/manuali/DO9847_M_17-06-2009_3.1_uk.pdf In looking into the working temperature range for the capacitive RH sensors, there are two different sets of specs. The 'working temperature of the probe' is -40C to +150C, but there was also a spec with a -20 to +80C working range. Whether the two sets of specs are determined by limits of the capacitive/polymer element, or a temperature limit which is determined by the max temp of the other materials that go into probe construction, is not stated... = Measuring relative humidity Sensor Capacitive Typical working temperature of the probe -40°C…+150°C Measuring range 0 … 100%R.H. Accuracy ±1%RH in the range 20…90%RH ±2%RH in the range 10…99%RH Resolution 0.1%RH Temperature drift @20°C 0.02%RH/°C Response time %RH at constant temperature 10sec (10Æ80%RH; air velocity=2m/s) == I need to stop playing and get some work done! -Mark _ From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:47 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table. The chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the %RH than is listed in the common characteristics table. There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet steam that should be ruled out: If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged with water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam would be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to the input flow rate. For the short demonstrations so far this explanation would be sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are correct. The only way that you would see a significant change in the temperature of the output steam is if the heating took place after evaporation or under pressure. It seems logical to assume that most of the heat is transferred to the water at a liquid/reactor core interface. The 18 hour test did show fluctuations in output power however. _ Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:14:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... From: joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote: There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf. A number of them are rated to 150C. Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think that means the RH can be measured over that range. Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning it applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it gives the sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C. also. It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated. Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure enough. I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations. But when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some fundamental physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid water. It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat, and within a degree or so of 100C.
Re: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Conference
One of the listed attendees: The Green Party of Germany The Green Party of my country? (Die Grünen). I am a mmeber of that party since 20 years. It's almost impossible to imagine a German green party exponent to support a fusion tecnology with gamma radiation and transmutation of nickel to copper. Very strange, I can't believe it. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, Angela -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
RE: [Vo]:Video of interest
Yes, sorry to have missed that post, and vimeo http://vimeo.com/25501969 is indeed better video quality. -Original Message- From: Akira Shirakawa On 2011-06-23 19:39, Jones Beene wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQ Promo film about LENR and the Andrea Rossi's device. First part of a big work in progress. This is the same video of which I posted a link 30 minutes before this message (Low Energy Nuclear Revolution). The original Vimeo link, however, has got a much better video quality (HD). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 08:08 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.comjoshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: So, what specifically do you think that g/kg means in the context of a 2-phase mixture of steam and water? What do you use for the denominator to calculate the total mass of the steam? If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of water vapor, then it should be 1000 g / kg. How do you use that? If 10% by mass is liquid water then it would be 900 g/kg. That's the whole point. How could it measure enthalpy or partial pressure of vapour if it doesn't know how much vapour there is? It measures the enthalpy of vapor by measuring water vapor. RH meters measure vapor pressure of water, comparing it with saturation at the given pressure and temperature. The meter knows how much vapor is present, in terms of vapor pressure, by how much vapor is absorbed by a capacitor, as Cude has, I believe correctly, explained. If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of total fluid, how could a device that measures humidity (i.e. wetness of air) determine that? You are not making sense. Not me. Complain to instrument manufacturer or Galantini. I don't see grounds to complain to either. What claims have they made to complain about? Nobody, here, has pointed to an actual claim by Galantini. It's all about what others have said about Galantini, such as Levi or Rossi. Galantini claimed to use a certain meter. He has not explained exactly how he used it. What we don't see is how to use that meter to measure steam quality. He hasn't explained how he did it. The manufacturer does not explain how to use the meter to measure steam quality, it is not at all a claimed application, and it seems to conflict with the meter specifications.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote: I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table. The chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the %RH than is listed in the common characteristics table. OK, you may be right, but it seems a little ambiguous to me. Anyway, if the device can measure the RH of steam at 100C. I hope is reads 100%, or someone got taken. There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet steam that should be ruled out: If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged with water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam would be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to the input flow rate. For the short demonstrations so far this explanation would be sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are correct. I agree that in principle a reservoir of water in the reactor could regulate the temperature at the bp even if the power exceeded that necessary to convert all the input to steam. But it's hard to think of a practical design for this within the confines of the ecat as shown in the photos. The steam from the reservoir would have to join the flow of output steam, but it should not be replenished by the input flow of water, because then the mass flow rate would be constant, and regulation wouldn't work. They claim the reactor itself is only 50 mL, and some demos have gone on for several hours. The question is why would they do this. Letting the temperature go higher would be all the evidence they need that the steam is dry. And if there is some need to maintain the temperature of the fluid at 100C, they could simply adjust the flow rate to keep the steam a little wet. That is, they could first identify the flow rate at which the steam temperature exceeds boiling, in order to calculate power, and then increase it a little to keep the steam a little wet. A reservoir seems implausible to me. But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of steam at the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid does not change phase.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 10:38 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C. Wrong question. Do we expect water droplets above the boiling point of water? No, not except transiently. Is Mr. Rocha assuming that the boiling point of water is 100 C? If we can tell that the steam is above the boiling point, yes, water droplets, if they exist at all, would very rapidly evaporate, absorbing energy from the steam to do so. This will tend to maintain the steam at exactly the boiling point, only very slightly above because of rate considerations, it takes time for a droplet to heat The measurements apparently show that the steam is at the boiling point for the atmospheric pressure (part of the measurement must be the pressure inside the measurement space, as well as the temperature. From this, we cannot tell the percentage of water droplets. Basically, the appearance is that any droplets in the steam are in equilibrium with the steam, which is precisely why the temperature seems to be nailed at boiling. Ice is a similar situation. If you have a mixture of ice and water, the temperature of the water will be stabilized at the melting point (which also varies with pressure, I think, though I think that is not so much). Cool it, more ice will form. Heat it, ice will melt, maintaining the constant temperature until the whole thing is frozen or the whole thing melts. We cannot, from the temperature, tell how much of the water is ice! For the same reason, we can't, from the temperature, tell how much of the steam is water, if we have a mixed phase condition. If the temperature of the ice goes above the melting point, we know that the ice is all gone, and if it goes below the melting point, we'd know that it all froze. In between the extremes, we can't tell. In addition, there is another very serious problem. The steam could be very dry, but water could still be running out the hose underneath the steam. That the feed rate is fixed leads to a serious suspicion of this, for matching the feed rate to the evolution of steam is tricky, a fixed rate would probably be too much or too little. The water running out, if there is steam being evolved, would be at the same temperature. It would take quite a while to fill the hose, so the hose could be displayed as this one was, provided that the hose was first emptied into the drain, which Rossi took care to do. That's not an indictment of Rossi at all, because even if the steam is completely dry, water would accumulate in the hose from condensation and cooling over that very significant length. Bottom line: the demonstration did not show what was apparently intended. People may have completely independent reasons for believing or disbelieving, hence, as people often do, they line up in sides, attempting to support or reject what is, in this case, a bogus claim, that steam quality has been conclusively determined. It may have been determined, but not by the means that have been shown. (Kullander and Essen report examining steam directly. That's interesting, confirming steam quality, but unfortunately does not appear to have ruled out water running out the hose without having evaporated.)
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
I went digging... its an important bit of data. Yep, its the liquid portion by *volume*, thanks Josh and Stephen for catching that... I'll copy Horace's table below... For anyone who would like to review Horace's analysis and calculations, the posting was on 1/21/2011 and has a subject line of: [Vo]:Wet vs Dry Steam in Rossi Experiment PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.0000. 100.00 0.0010.6252 0.3747 0.002 0.7695 0.2304 0.0030.8337 0.1662 0.0040.8700 0.1299 0.0050.8933 0.1066 0.0060.9095 0.0904 0.0070.9215 0.0784 0.0080.9307 0.0692 0.0090.9380 0.0619 0.0100.9439 0.0560 0.011 0.9488 0.0511 0.0120.9529 0.0470 0.0130.9564 0.0435 0.0140.9594 0.0405 Horace explains, We can thus see from this table that if 1 percent by volume of the steam is entrained water micro-droplets, easily not seen in tubing or exhaust ports, that only 5.6 percent of the heat of vaporization is required to produce that mixture. -Mark From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 6:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... That would probably have been Horace, and I think he may have meant by volume. The calculations are in the archive, among the most recent posts from Horace just before he bowed out due to lack of time, if anyone cares to go digging.
Re: [Vo]:Water Flow Question
At 10:43 PM 6/22/2011, Craig Haynie wrote: How does Rossi control the water flow rate? If too much water flows, then it would not all convert to steam and it would pour out of the outlet. If it's too slow then the reactor would overheat. Does he control the water flow by its effect on reactor temperature? Is there some other sort of feedback mechanism? It's been suggested that there must be such a feedback mechanism, but it's not been shown, and it's been assumed in the calculations that feed rate is kept constant, I think. (There is so much writing on this that I may easily miss something.) I've suggested gravity feed should be used, so that as the water boils off, the water flows to exactly replace it, up to an easily set level (by how you arrange the gravity feed.) That has not been done, and I don't know why, since it is simpler. You just feed from a reservoir, and the reservoir can be sitting on a scale. You add known amounts of water periodically to keep the level constant. A float valve could be used, but then there would be problems with the influence of the plumbing on the weight. Simpler to just pour water in periodically. There are cheap scales that will report over a standard interface the weight, continuously With that, paying more attention than is necessary to add water often enough would not be necessary.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 11:34 PM 6/22/2011, Finlay MacNab wrote: If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very different and yield very different readings. A quick google search for capacitance measurement of steam quality yields several papers and a multitude of patents on the subject so it would seem that a measurement of steam quality from capacitance values is possible. A quick literature search for the dielectric constant of steam results in an avalanche of data about the dielectric constant of steam at various temperatures and pressures. There is even data at 100.1C and 1 atm. Then again I am just a lowly chemist so what do I know? About as much as anyone else outside their specialty. Maybe a little more. Saying that a Google search leads to this or that without providing the actual search, and without showing what results you looked at, is less than helpful. I did this search: http://www.google.com/search?q=capacitance+measurement+of+steam+qualityie=utf-8oe=utf-8aq=trls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialclient=firefox-a I found papers, for example, on the measurement of steam quality using capacitance. The RH meters in question are not designed to use that approach. If they were, they would surely advertise it! (This is a valuable application.) You want to measure steam quality, see http://www.thermochem.com/Geo_On-line_Steam_Quality_Measurement_Equipment The equipment described is far more complex than these RH meters. I've suggested here a simple possibility for steam quality measurement or at least estimation, involving light passing through a glass tube containing the steam flow. I see this from Thermochem: New Laser-Based Steam Quality Meter is under Development and soon to be Commercial. It's pretty easy to guess what they are doing and, in fact, I've been involved in the design of equipment that does something like this with smoke particles in air (in wind tunnels). They are simply observing the water droplets, directly, with lasers. My own suggestion was much simpler, it would detect dry steam but would not catch really large water droplets as much. My guess is that with some experimental work to calibrate it, it could set an upper bound on entrained water. But for the gross measurements being done, seeing that steam is transparent, visibly, and with the tests suggested used by experienced steam engineers, should be enough. Has anyone thought of inviting an actual steam engineer to the demonstrations? That is *not*, apparently, Galanatini, a chemist from every piece of evidence I've seen. His company, touted as evidence of his expertise, does mostly chemistry with some environmental analysis, the kind that will use an RH meter. So he'd have a meter, but nothing there indicates steam quality measurement experience.
Re: [Vo]:Water Flow Question
He uses a metering pump by manufacturer LMI (UK). Its model P18. Lewan told it. http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf max 3.20 GPH (12.1 l/h) 22 psi (1.5 Bar) max stroke frequency = 100 / minute max stroke volume = 2 ml manual of the pump http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf The problem I see is the follwing: Rossi was asked several times to explain how he switchs off his reactor. He said that he would stop electrical heating and would increase the water flow in order to cool down the reactor. But: why did the reactor continue to operate in the february test? During that test, the water flow was increased (using the tap pressure, not the pump). Temperatures were: 15 C input 20 C output (note: there is no report so far). How could the reactor work under these conditions? Angela -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 12:14 AM 6/23/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd wrote: One page 6, the list of humidity probes begins. The robust probe, part number 0628 0021, is rated to 180 C. The measurement range extends from 0 to 100% RH. However, the accuracy is not rated above 98%. Basically, the accuracy is 2%, from 2 to 98% RH. Abd, give me a link to what you're reading because on the webpage that Galantini provided a link to on NET website in his response to Krivits visit, here are the specs for humidity accuracy: +-2.5%RH (10...90% RH) +-3.5%RH remaining range And the usable temperature range is -40C...+150C and the usable RH range is 0...100% RH I believe that I gave the link. There is more than one meter that has been referenced, and they have different specifications, leading to lots of confusion. I don't have time to look back right now. When I referred to page 6, I believe that this was after having given the specific reference. What Mark wrote is not really different, though. The usable range does go up to 100% RH, as I wrote. The problem is? Wet steam is, in terms of g/m^3, above 100% RH. The meter does not go above 100%, apparently. Don't you see that? Abd wrote: But the meter has no capacity to measure that excess water, it would simply peg at 100%, it seems. I see no sign, anywhere, of any expert opinion that RH meters have any application to the measurement of steam quality. Yes, as I've been trying to explain all along, once you get to 100%RH, all remaining water will be in the form of liquid water because at the given temperature and pressure it is now saturated and can no longer support further water molecules as vapor. Right. I've already answered your question as to HOW one can calculate that portion that is liquid water... As I recall, you left out a critical factor. The value provided by the RH meter is useless, once we know that we have steam at the boiling point, it will give us no information at all on the percentage that is liquid water. All steam, wet or dry, will show the same temperature and RH.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 11:54 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote: Abd wrote: Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain assumptions. Unfortunately, the assumptions are the very issue here! I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions. The instrument does calculations based on scientific laws and uses what measured variables it does have to calculate different units... For example, Relative humidity is calculated from Absolute humidity and temperature and pressure. The instrument, if it has the right probe, is measuring atmospheric pressure, temperature and at least 3 or 4 other variables. It then provides the convenience of displaying other units, like mixing ratio, based on the actual measured variables and specific scientific laws (mathematical equations). I have never seen an instrument that bases the display of other units on assumptions. I certainly wouldn't buy one! The instrument does not give mixing ratio as a displayed value, as far as I've seen. It displays g/m^3, but grams of what? Looks to me like this is grams of water vapor per cubic meter, which can be calculated from RH at a given temperature and pressure. That is not the mixing ratio of interest, which would be grams of liquid water per kilogram of steam. It gives, however, if designed to do that (I think it may be an option), grams of water vapor per kilogram of gas, on an assumption that the gas is air or water, i.e., air/water vapor mixed. The meter is not accurate above 98% RH, apparently, at least the accuracy is not guaranteed.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Joshua Cude wrote: No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests if there was no anomalous heat. Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires only 600W. The electrical input was 750W. So you will stick to the Krivit demo and ignore the others. Well, that's the one under discussion now. The others have had their turn. We can't consider them all together all the time. It's too confusing. But anyway, it's only the EK test that the water would be 60C from the input power alone, if all measurements are accepted. That means an additional 300W was needed to reach the boiling point. They used 4 kW to rule out chemical sources. It would not be as obvious with 300W. Moreover, the power was not monitored in this experiment. It is possible that it was turned up after the initial measurement. In both of Lewan's demos, the electrical input was enough to bring the water to its boiling point (at least within a few degrees). In the January demo, the reported power was not enough to bring the water to its bp at the reported flow rate. In that case, the power was monitored, but the reported flow rate was about twice higher than the pump could provide. If you use the maximum flow rate of the pump, the input power is enough to boil the water. And in all the cases, it is not implausible that the reactor supplies some chemical heat. Moreover, if it is only a little, then there are other possible discrepancies that could account for what is seen. For example, esowatch has calculated a flow rate based on the pump frequency to be 1/2 that claimed by Rossi. Whereas Rossi measured the flow by weighing the reservoir before and after. That method is infallible. It overrules the people at esowatch who are speculating about the pump and waving their hands. Why should I believe Rossi? If I did, there would be no need for demos, would there? I'd put in an order for my own ecat. I don't trust Rossi at all. That pump has now been photographed from every angle, scrutinized in excruciating detail, and I have far more confidence in the Esowatch analysis of the pump frequency than I do in Rossi's word.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 02:32 AM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power. That's true, but I've only been arguing that Rossi has not provided the public with evidence of excess heat. I don't have proof that the rock in my front yard is not producing heat either. But Rossi is making the claim. The onus is on him to provide the evidence. For science, yes. For dramatic theater, no. He can say what he wants, he can induce you to tie yourself in knots, and he knows what he has in reserve, and you don't. If he wants to convince us, he could do so -- if this thing is real. That doesn't mean that he has *any* motive to convince us. Are we offering him payment? Is he asking us for payment? I don't think so. At this point, the more skeptical outrage there is, the more he wins, if the device is real. And if it's not real, he doesn't lose anything, unless he fails to avoid actionable fraud. Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm skeptical. I suspect that Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows how he looks and is deliberately creating the impressions that he's creating. I can think of a number of reasons for this, both psychological and practical or economic. I don't know how one can come to this idea except to start with the conclusion that the ecat works, and you said starting from the conclusion is a bad thing. No, the number of reasons could include scenarios where he's a fraud. A suspicion is not reasoning from conclusions, though certainly held conclusions could influence it, such as your held conclusion, my guess, that this thing *must* be bogus, since LENR is impossible. Right?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: such as your held conclusion, my guess, that this thing *must* be bogus, since LENR is impossible. Right? Wrong. It's highly unlikely, in my opinion, and so until good evidence is presented, I will remain skeptical.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 02:45 AM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: You are indeed wrong. Time for a refresher. Look up vapor pressure in wikipedia for a start. Water evaporates into pure gas (not droplets) below its boiling point. Humidity measures the amount of water vapor (gas, not droplets) in the air. When the partial pressure of the water vapor in air equals the vapor pressure of water, evaporation stops, or at least it balances condensation. That represents 100% humidity. The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity. The RH of steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere is therefore 100%. Hah! Cude depends on Wikipedia too. A small confirmation, not conclusive, of a private theory of mine as to his identity. People arguing with Cude should realize that he knows his physics, he has demonstrated that again and again. He also knows the literature of cold fusion moderately well. I highly recommend being very careful arguing with him, he can make the relatively ignorant look like idiots, to those who know, and always remember, these debates are read by people who do know, eventually. He mixes up his extensive knowledge of physics with what he doesn't know, he seems to be unaware of the edges of quantum mechanics, where it breaks down and is unable, because of the sheer complexity, to make accurate predictions unless simplifying assumptions are made. In the case of cold fusion, those simplifying assumptions assume away the necessary conditions, which involve serious multibody effects, apparently. In any case, we'll know about the E-Cats soon enough, I'll predict.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: Whereas Rossi measured the flow by weighing the reservoir before and after. That method is infallible. It overrules the people at esowatch who are speculating about the pump and waving their hands. Why should I believe Rossi? If I did, there would be no need for demos, would there? I'd put in an order for my own ecat. Everyone who has seen the test told me he did this, including the 50 people who saw the first test. Some of the photos show the reservoir is sitting on the scale. In Krivit's visit, Rossi said he had weighed the water and he would do it again after the test. If he had not done this, and he was lying, my guess is that Krivit would mentioned that. So you don't have to believe Rossi. I think you should stop making this about Rossi. Stop focusing exclusively on him. He is not the only one who ran tests and made claims with this device. Other such as Piantelli have seen heat from Ni systems. Many others have seen heat from Pd systems. I realize that you do not believe any of these claims, but as I said, you should stop considering the claims one at a time, in isolation. Looking at one while ignoring all others. First you pretend that Rossi did only one experiment. Then you pretend that Rossi is the only one who says he weighed the reservoir, so if we cannot believe him, it cannot be true. Next you will claim that if Rossi says 4.2 joules equals one calorie, we can't believe it because he says it. Your tactic is called divide and conquer or defeating in detail (piecemeal). It is good military strategy. It is a shame the Union Army did not do this to Gen. Lee before the Battle of Gettysburg. But it is not a valid method of doing science. It is not rational. You have to consider the totality of the evidence. Some number of mistaken or even fraudulent experiments are possible, but this many is out of the question. For you to believe this many researchers could be wrong (or lying) is a lot like believing that NASA faked the moon landings. - Jed
[Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
It has been brought to my attention that my posts from January-April have been discussed. I can sum up my position by simply saying that RH probes do not measure steam quality. The following links provide more detail. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg41849.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44947.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44953.html There are of course many more relevant links. Since few people seem to read links I'll post some highlights below. *** I believe the HP474AC probe actually measures the capacitance of the air, and converts that to relative humidity. The more the capacitance, the more water in the air, by volume. Another important thing is heat content is carried in proportion to mass, not volume. I have appended the computations I posted earlier showing the huge proportion of mass that is contributed by a small volume of liquid, and that estimates of the heat flow from the device can be off by 96%, i.e only 4% of the estimated heat value due to vaporization, if only 1.4% of the volume flow is liquid water droplets. Therefore a very small error, less than 1%, in measuring capacitance can produced huge errors in calculated heat flow. The stated error of the probe is +-3.5% where it counts, at 99% water content. It is also notable the meter/probe requires calibration: http://tinyurl.com/4z5985v Most important is the fact the probe is designed to detect the percent of water vapor in air, not percent of water microdrops in pure steam. Pure vapor should have more capacitance than 100% humid air, and be way beyond the meter's measuring limits. Adding water droplet should push the capacitance even higher. Once the meter is maxed, the question arises: can extra water droplets make any difference to an already maxed out 100% reading? The +-3.5% error could thus actually be irrelevant. This whole issue may be of academic interest only. Even if all the heat flow due to vaporization is negated, the COP is still over unity, assuming the water is not heated much above 13 °C by ambient conditions before entering the device. Further, if the device can run without energy input at all, then none of this matters, provided the total energy to start up the device is way less than the device produces. This would clearly be the case if the device can run 6 months as stated. Here again is my analysis showing the importance of the huge difference in mass vs volume ratios: From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(properties) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H2o http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/DmitriyGekhman.shtml The following approximate values for water can be used from the above refs: Liquid Density: 1000 kg/m^3 = 1 gm/cm^3 Heat of vaporization: 40.6 kJ/mol = 2260 J/gm Heat capacity: 4.2 J/(gm K) Molar mass: 18 gm/mol Density of steam at 100 C and 760 torr: 0.6 kg/m^3 = 0.0006 gm/cm^3 Now to examine the importance of mass flow vs volume flow measurements for the steam. If x is the liquid portion by volume, then x/((x+(1-x)*0.0006)) is the portion by mass. This gives the following table: Liquid LiquidGas PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.000 0. 100.00 0.001 0.6252 0.3747 0.002 0.7695 0.2304 0.003 0.8337 0.1662 0.004 0.8700 0.1299 0.005 0.8933 0.1066 0.006 0.9095 0.0904 0.007 0.9215 0.0784 0.008 0.9307 0.0692 0.009 0.9380 0.0619 0.010 0.9439 0.0560 0.011 0.9488 0.0511 0.012 0.9529 0.0470 0.013 0.9564 0.0435 0.014 0.9594 0.0405 We can thus see from this table that if 1 percent by volume of the steam is entrained water micro-droplets, easily not seen in tubing or exhaust ports, that only 5.6 percent of the heat of vaporization is required to produce that mixture. Rough calculations based on Rossi specifics: Suppose for the Rossi experiment the mass flow of a system is 292 ml/ min, or 4.9 gm/s, the inlet temperature 13 °C. The delta T for water heating is 100 °C - 13 °C = 87 °C = 87 K. If the output gas is 100% gas, we have the heat flow P_liq given by: P_liq = (4.9 gm/s)*(87 K)*(4.2 J/(gm K))= 1790 J/s = 1.79 kW and the heat flow H_gas for vaporization given by: P_gas = (4.9 gm/s)*(2260 J/gm) = 11.1 kW for a total thermal power P_total of: P_total = 1.79 kW + 11.1 kW = 12.9 kW Now, if the steam is 99% gas, we have: P_liq = 1.79 kW P_gas = (0.1066)* (11.1 kW) = 1.18 Kw P_total = 1.79 kW + 1.18 kW = 2.97 kW or 23% of the originally estimated power out. It thus seems reasonable to do calorimetry on the steam-liquid out. *** The isotopic analyses and contradictory claims about isotopic abundances thus far make Rossi's claims look absurd. The theories
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 11:04 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show? Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate? How would this show that Galantini was correct? Yes, I meant the test with flowing water. This showed that the steam in the first test must have been dry. Okay, thanks for clarifying. No, it doesn't show that the steam in the first test must have been dry. It shows, to the extent that a private test like this shows anything, that it is plausible that the steam in the first test was dry or not far from dry. In fact, we have reason to believe that the steam isn't dry, not completely. Remember, Rossi has acknowledged that these earlier E-Cats emitted wet steam, at least somewhat wet! And completely dry steam is apprently pretty hard to come by, so the question is really how much? If you had an E-Cat with stable heat output, you might make a pretty good guess from the data. I'd suggest, Jed, getting very precise about this issue. Don't say dry as a finding, especially when completely dry steam is fairly unlikely. It is conceivable that Galantini measured it wrong but he got lucky and it was dry anyway. Right. That Galantini didn't use a correct method doesn't mean that his conclusion was wrong. But, Jed, we don't know what Galantini said, do we? Where is his measurement -- or calculation -- of the wetness of the steam? What did the meter indicate and how was this used? I haven't seen it anywhere. Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we don't have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter. I do not see how they contradict Galantini. Kullander and Essen did not claim that the steam was dry. Rather, they measured the wetness and found it to be, correctly or not, between 1.2% and 1.4%. I'm assuming that these are mass measurements, not volume, in spite of Kullander sputtering in the Krivit phone interview. Otherwise those are pretty high! From the way that Kullander used the measurements, they would be mass ratio, the percentage of water being discharged as liquid instead of as vapor. I just don't see how they came up with the values! Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are confusing confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers, with confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public demonstrations with private evidence, as with the second test, i.e., by Levi with high flow. It wasn't exactly private. Or I guess I should say it wasn't supposed to be. Lewan and I got a report of it. Private, here, means witnessed only by Levi and Rossi. Lots of people were told about it, not private in the sense of kept secret. We were hoping and expecting more. I might not have described it at LENR-CANR.org if I had known that no further details were forthcoming. Yeah. It's got to be disappointing. The interview with Levi in Query today discusses it. I disagree with his assertion that a far more compelling test is needed, and much more time. If I had a few days with flowing water tests, or even one day, I think I could do a more compelling job than they have done so far. I think you are correct, but this gives Rossi more time, it fits with my understanding of his strategy. You have already acknowledged being convinced by private information. That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us. Yes. Great! It is very frustrating for me, but I cannot do anything about it. Believe me, I am trying. In the larger sense, I have been trying for years to persuade cold fusion researchers to publish more. I have had mixed success. I have thousand of pages of papers and information I cannot upload. Most of it is unimportant, but some would go a long way to clearing up these misunderstandings. Yes. It's a problem, a problem with science in general, but especially in a field like cold fusion, where the issues are extremely complex and where the sharing of knowledge can be crucial. There is a conflict here between the general advancement of science, and private interest. I'd hope for public support of pure science; in exchange for public support, the scientists openly publish and share their results, and hopefully rapidly. Errors can be corrected! And that, of course, should also be part of it I think that with publically funded research, the desirable situation is more or less what happens. But with public funding for cold fusion heavily whacked, we get what we have, a mess. Slow development. Plenty of research results that are not available. Trade secrets. Etc.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
The electrical input was 750W No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. I already posted the link to the italian wikipedia article abt mains tension in Italy. Must I repeat it? It was 220 V there until the end of the 90ies. When I was a child, it was 110 V in some areas, I remember it very well. Lewan measured the tension in the Rossi showroom in april, and the tension was even above 230 V: on 19th and 28th of april it was 236 V AC. I dont know why Rossi talks about 220 V. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Water Flow Question
On 11-06-23 03:04 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 10:43 PM 6/22/2011, Craig Haynie wrote: How does Rossi control the water flow rate? If too much water flows, then it would not all convert to steam and it would pour out of the outlet. If it's too slow then the reactor would overheat. Does he control the water flow by its effect on reactor temperature? Is there some other sort of feedback mechanism? It's been suggested that there must be such a feedback mechanism, but it's not been shown, and it's been assumed in the calculations that feed rate is kept constant, I think. Water flow rate is not controlled; it is constant. The feedback assumption is that heater power is varied based on the effluent temp to keep the temp barely over boiling. The feedback assumption is unsupported by any evidence AFAIK.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I believe the HP474AC probe actually measures the capacitance of the air, and converts that to relative humidity. Not quite. It measures capacitance with a polymer dielectric which absorbs water from the air in some calibrated relationship to the relative humidity. Otherwise, I agree with most of your post, except the part where you say you are convinced LENR is real.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: In Krivit's visit, Rossi said he had weighed the water and he would do it again after the test. But he quoted the flow rate in the middle of the test, before he weighed it at the end. Anyone can measure the flow rate, at any time. You do not have to wait until the end of the test. Just capture the flowing water before you turn on the heat, or put the reservoir on the scale midway through the test. Rossi or I could estimate the flow by glancing at the reservoir water level. That's not the reason to doubt him though. I should think you can set the pump to give a desired flow rate. That's what it's designed for. Krivit didn't read the pump settings, so all we have is Rossi's word... You miss the point. They confirmed the flow rate with the weight scale, not with the pump setting. You don't read pump settings anyway, except for medical IV pump. If Krivit watched Rossi weight the reservoir, and he noted the numbers, that confirms the flow rate. The flow rate does not change over the course of the test. Krivit would notice if Rossi changed the pump speed. Krivit is not reticent about reporting such things. He would not keep things secret. Other such as Piantelli have seen heat from Ni systems. Even you didn't believe his results a couple of years ago. I didn't _not_ believe either. I wasn't sure. I am not sure of many cold fusion results. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind about thousands of results you have never heard of. A large number of inconclusive results make them less believable to me, not more. There are hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings, and that totality of results does not make them more believable. That would be true if these results were inconclusive, but many of them are as conclusive as any laboratory experiment can be. You say they are not. You would describe heat after death at 20 W lasting for hours from a fraction of a gram of metal as inconclusive. That is preposterous. That's like saying we cannot be sure if the Fukushima reactor buildings really exploded because TEPCO denied it at first, and NHK still refuses to broadcast the video. Maybe that video showed a cloud and flock of birds, and someone in the foreground struck a kettle drum to make a boom sound. Sure! Maybe the buildings were falling apart years ago. That's what TEPCO would like you to believe. Your head-in-the-sand deny, deny, deny song-and-dance routine makes TEPCO look reasonable in comparison. - Jed
Re: RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Conference
At 02:42 PM 6/23/2011, Angela Kemmler wrote: One of the listed attendees: The Green Party of Germany The Green Party of my country? (Die Grünen). I am a mmeber of that party since 20 years. It's almost impossible to imagine a German green party exponent to support a fusion tecnology with gamma radiation and transmutation of nickel to copper. Very strange, I can't believe it. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, Angela No, this has enormous environmental implications. There is no detectable gamma radiation outside the vessel, and no residual radioactivity. This is much better than hot fusion proposals, it would be just as Defkalion promises, Green. The energy is generated in what can be small devices, distributed, thus reducing centralization. Politically, I'd expect Greens to be very interested, the only reason to be otherwise would be knee-jerk reaction to nuclear or fusion.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 11:56 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky. No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests if there was no anomalous heat. There would be no trace of steam. The only question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a little? Who cares?!? This appears to be taken from a probable error in the Kullander/Essen report. They claimed that the temperature would have not exceeded 60 degrees without excess heat. In fact, I think that what they intended to say was that the rate of change would not have exceeded the rate up to 60 degrees if not for excess heat. My guess is that it would still reach boiling point, at roughly the time predicting by extrapolation of the rate of temperature rise, because the device is insulated and most heat will not leave unless the water starts boiling. It's a 600 watt steam kettle, I'd expect such to boil water. Just not as quickly as seen. The interesting thing about that test was the increase in heating rate, that indicates higher energy being generated than was present before. That's the real and immediate evidence for excess heat. They just mis-stated it. The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and serious fraud -- could be easily done. That is true. But it would not matter how convincing the test is. Some people would find reasons to disbelieve it, and many would say it has to be fraud. For example, many people would say the thing has to be self-powered or in heat after death or they will not believe it. This is irrational, but that is what they would say. Yes. I think we agree here. However, there are a lot of people unconvinced, even increasing in skepticism, because of the weakness of the demos. You think that's stupidity or eccentricity, whatever, I think it might be, or, more likely, it might be planned. It's like the reactor itself, Rossi would want the public response to be muted and somewhat suppressed, because he will not want funding poured into research by his competition. That's dangerous for him, economically. If his interest were science, he'd have released the catalyst formula or other internal details. That's not a condemnation, he has the right to self-interest! It's just an apparent reality. (He might actually be stronger as to patent protection if he'd applied with full details. This is part of this that I don't understand. It may be that he's infringing on prior art, such as Piantelli that could explain his strategy.) Actually, this test is nowhere near as bad as portrayed here. All this discussion of wet and dry steam is bullshit. It is nitpicking. Any steam at all is proof there is cold fusion heat, and the amount of heat does not matter. Jed, I think that is your conclusion from the textual error of Essen and Kullander, an error that is not supported by their actual data, which shows no decline of heating as temperature approached 60 C. The initial heating will produce steam, that's almost certain. So the issue is how much steam. This is like watching the Wright brothers fly and arguing whether they are 10 feet in the air or 20 feet. People do argue about that! At ~10 feet they had the advantage of ground effect. Some people say this is cheating, so they did not really fly at first. I say flying is flying and who cares. Jed, you have fixed on this idea that it would not boil at the input power. Where did you get that idea? Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. I do not excuse it. I explain it. There is world of difference. It is causing me no end of trouble, so I am in no mood to excuse it. Okay, you explain it. But it need not cause you trouble. Stop defending the indefensible, particularly the use of an RH meter to report steam quality. The demonstrations are, such as I've seen, inconclusive, they are at most suggestive. The private Levi test at higher flow rate sounds good, but this was not repeated for the public, and there are many ways to make mistakes. More eyeballs means fewer possibilities for error. Consider what Krivit saw. We know that the hose very likely has water in it. You know very well that how much water is a critical issue, as well as the heat radiated from the hose. It would be trivial to examine the steam coming from the reactor in such a way as to rule out a problem with water ejection, and that's what I see as the huge problem. A little wet steam, piffle! You are right, unless this thing is really running very wet for some reason (it's possible), that would not explain the apparent excess heat. But
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of steam at the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid does not change phase. Not actually. There will be reduction in steam output due to cooling in the hose. It's to be expected. The question is how much. And I'm suspicious of all the ad-hoc calculations. The whole point of a conclusive demo is to make such calculations as simple as possible Basically, assume 750 W of input power, how much steam would be expected *at the end of a three meter hose* like that. My sense is, not a whole lot! My guess is that we might not see anything except a little mist. But it's a guess.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
2011/6/23 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Liquid Liquid Gas Portion Portion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.000 0. 100.00 0.001 0.6252 0.3747 I will just concentrate in the second entry. Are you suggesting that a gas can carry twice of its weight in a liquid form?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua sed: ... A large number of inconclusive results make them less believable to me, not more. There are hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings, and that totality of results does not make them more believable. Goodness gracious me! You actually said that? A UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object.You have essentially stated that UFOs don't exist because in your opinion they are not believable. Isn't that a bit circuitous? You also seem to be implying that people who have seen UFOs (whatever a UFO might be) cannot be believed, and as such their accounts should be dismissed, for having the misfortune of having seen something they can't identify. If that is your reasoning, and you have subsequently carried the same level reasoning over to your analysis of CF, heaven help us! No, heaven help you. My two cents. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:56 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky. No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests if there was no anomalous heat. There would be no trace of steam. The only question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a little? Who cares?!? This appears to be taken from a probable error in the Kullander/Essen report. They claimed that the temperature would have not exceeded 60 degrees without excess heat. In fact, I think that what they intended to say was that the rate of change would not have exceeded the rate up to 60 degrees if not for excess heat. My guess is that it would still reach boiling point, at roughly the time predicting by extrapolation of the rate of temperature rise, because the device is insulated and most heat will not leave unless the water starts boiling. It's a 600 watt steam kettle, I'd expect such to boil water. Just not as quickly as seen. Nooo. Not you, too. Now I find myself defending the Rossi crew against a LENR advocate. It's flowing water, not a kettle. So the input power can only heat it so much. Power in = mass-flow-rate * specific heat * temperature difference So, temperature difference = 300W / (1.73 g/s * 4.2 J/K g) = 41 K If the input temperature is 20C, then the maximum output is 61C. If you accept the numbers as given. It's not like a kettle. The reason the graph shows a gradual increase in the temperature when the power is first applied, is that the reactor has to heat up first, and that absorbs some of the power. When it reaches equilibrium temperature, all the power goes in to heating the water.
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Out of that 9m of hose, at least half is lying flat on the floor. That results in: 1) condensation forming a layer of liquid water that runs the entire length of that segment of hose, 2) the vapor must travel over that lquid water for that entire length 3) the floor itself could be sinking a significant amt of heat from the hose Its pretty much useless to try to use steam flow out the hose to estimate heat output... -Mark -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of steam at the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid does not change phase. Not actually. There will be reduction in steam output due to cooling in the hose. It's to be expected. The question is how much. And I'm suspicious of all the ad-hoc calculations. The whole point of a conclusive demo is to make such calculations as simple as possible Basically, assume 750 W of input power, how much steam would be expected *at the end of a three meter hose* like that. My sense is, not a whole lot! My guess is that we might not see anything except a little mist. But it's a guess.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:03 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua sed: ... A large number of inconclusive results make them less believable to me, not more. There are hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings, and that totality of results does not make them more believable. Goodness gracious me! You actually said that? A UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. OK. It was sloppy. Multiple claimed sightings of extra terrestrials with inconclusive evidence does not make said visits more believable. Likewise more fuzzy photos of the loch ness monster does not make its existence more believable.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of steam at the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid does not change phase. Not actually. There will be reduction in steam output due to cooling in the hose. It's to be expected. The question is how much. And I'm suspicious of all the ad-hoc calculations. The whole point of a conclusive demo is to make such calculations as simple as possible Basically, assume 750 W of input power, how much steam would be expected *at the end of a three meter hose* like that. My sense is, not a whole lot! My guess is that we might not see anything except a little mist. But it's a guess. If all of the claimed input water were converted to steam, that would represent 5 kW of power. At least 3 kW, and probably closer to 4 kW would escape that hose as steam enthalpy. It is clear that what escapes that hose is not even half that, maybe not even a quarter that. So, that means, as I said above, that most of the liquid does not change phase. The steam must be very wet. Actually. Try to think of a 1.5 kW space heater. Do you really think that 3 1-ft diameter turns of a rubber hose at 100C would throw that much heat. It's completely implausible.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: OK. It was sloppy. Multiple claimed sightings of extra terrestrials with inconclusive evidence does not make said visits more believable. Likewise more fuzzy photos of the loch ness monster does not make its existence more believable. The data published by people such as McKubre, Miles or Storms cannot be compared to fuzzy photos. It is not inconclusive. The signal to noise ratio is high, not low. When the experimental conditions are met, the effect always appears. There is clear correlation, and cause and effect. Just because you claim that an isolated naked eye extraterrestrial sighting resembles millions of of high precision instrument readings at SRI, taken over many years, that does not actually make those two things similar. It is hard to imagine two data sets more dissimilar. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Other such as Piantelli have seen heat from Ni systems. Even you didn't believe his results a couple of years ago. I didn't *not* believe either. I wasn't sure. You seemed pretty sure when you said: As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims. and many similar things. As for the discussion of LENR evidence in general, we've been over that ground several times. I don't have any new arguments, and I notice that you don't either. I'd rather stick to discussing the Rossi stuff for now. It's at least a little newer. If you really want to revive the discussion, you can make your arguments, then search the archives for the last time you made them, cut and paste my response, and so on. That's basically what I did at the end of our last round. You can have the discussion without me.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Out of that 9m of hose, at least half is lying flat on the floor. That results in: 3 m, 9 ft. 1) condensation forming a layer of liquid water that runs the entire length of that segment of hose, Water does not condense on a hose at 100C. It evaporates. 2) the vapor must travel over that lquid water for that entire length Nope. No liquid water. 3) the floor itself could be sinking a significant amt of heat from the hose I doubt it's very much. First convection from the air may be more effective cooling, and second the area of contact for a cylindrical hose is likely pretty small. Its pretty much useless to try to use steam flow out the hose to estimate heat output... I think you're wrong. The equivalent area of a cast iron radiator at the same temperature, dissipates about 150 W of power into a room. I doubt very much that hose dissipates very much more than that. Especially considering it probably isn't even at 100C, considering Mats Lewan was able to handle it without protection.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: I didn't _not_ believe either. I wasn't sure. You seemed pretty sure when you said: As far as I can tell, they disproved the Focardi claims. and many similar things. You say I was pretty sure when I said as far as I can tell? How many reservations, qualifications, maybes, not sure, could-be-wrongs do you want from me? Just because you are certain of everything you say, please do not imagine that I am. Take my word for it: when I say I don't know, I don't know. As for the discussion of LENR evidence in general, we've been over that ground several times. I don't have any new arguments, and I notice that you don't either. I don't need any. You have never found a single error any any major study, by someone like McKubre. No skeptic ever has. You have not published a single paper! You have NOTHING. I have uploaded hundreds of papers proving that I am right. You waste your time chattering on about wet or dry steam, when it does not make a dime's worth of difference. Any steam proves that Rossi is right. Heck, his reactor has run with no input! It is ridiculous to question these results.You blather on about this because Rossi has not published hard data and real scientific papers. He's an engineer and entrepreneur; such people never publish hard data. He says he does not want to publish! That makes him vulnerable to nitpicking and to people who look at one experiment at a time, ignoring the others. You are playing semantic games, squinting and pretending that a photo of the Loch Ness monster resembles a gigabytes of ultra-high precision calorimetry data from an instrument that cost $250,000. That's an absurd comparison. If you were serious, instead of looking at the weakest, most questionable data, from Rossi you would look at the best this field has to offer. You would find an error in McKubre or Miles. You would write a paper and submit it to peer-review in a journal. That's what scientists do -- they don't play games, they do real work. Let's see you find one substantive error in this paper: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHisothermala.pdf Not blather. Don't tell us this looks like a UFO sighting. Tell us _exactly why_ these results are in error. If you know so damn much, prove it. And write a proper paper, not a bunch of disconnected stream of consciousness remarks. Also, by the way, publish your full name, telephone number, and physical address. If you dare! Otherwise, shut up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** I have uploaded hundreds of papers proving that I am right. And yet, few believe. Any steam proves that Rossi is right. No. It doesn't. See earlier post. Heck, his reactor has run with no input! So he says. It is ridiculous to question these results. It is ridiculous not to. You blather on about this because Rossi has not published hard data and real scientific papers. No. Because he has not presented evidence for excess heat. In any form. If you were serious, [...] You would write a paper and submit it to peer-review in a journal. That may be true. I'm not that serious. Let's see you find one substantive error in this paper: Why? The world already doesn't believe it. I don't believe it. And finding other people's mistakes is a mug's game. I don't believe perpetual motion claims either, but I'm not about to find errors in every claim. I'll wait for the evidence to stand out as you put it. For the demonstration you and Mallove were dreaming about. For the isolated Rothwell beaker than stays palpably warmer than the surroundings. If the claims are right, this should be easy. Until then, I will remain skeptical. And now look. You've managed to suck me in to another infinite loop. The arguments on both sides in this post have been made almost verbatim at least a half dozen times already.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Dear Angela et al, On 23-6-2011 22:30, Angela Kemmler wrote: The electrical input was 750W No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. I already posted the link to the italian wikipedia article abt mains tension in Italy. Must I repeat it? It was 220 V there until the end of the 90ies. When I was a child, it was 110 V in some areas, I remember it very well. Lewan measured the tension in the Rossi showroom in april, and the tension was even above 230 V: on 19th and 28th of april it was 236 V AC. I dont know why Rossi talks about 220 V. You are right that the current voltage (ref. *count Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta*) is 230 Volt AC (50 Hz) in Europe; as a result of European Harmonisation in 1995; but as you mention that was not always the case. In most European Continental countries (e.g. Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy?, ...) , it used to be 220 Volt AC, but this was gradually raised (during several years) in four steps from 220 Volt into 230 Volt (220 - 223 - 226 - 230), so industry could gradually make their equipment (including lamps (Glühbirnen) ) to work with the higher voltage. The UK and Ireland were an exception and used to have 240 Volt AC, which was lowered to the harmonised 230 Volt. Although many people (including myself) know that nowadays the voltage is 230 Volt, *_we often still say 220 Volt _*(while we actually mean 230 Volt), based upon Rossi's age (approx. 60 years) , I'm not surprised at all that he talks about 220 Volt (while he actually means 230 Volt) as that is the Voltage he used to have known for the greatest part of his live. The fact that Rossi talks about 220 Volt only proves to me that he isn't an electrical engineer, but he never claimed to be one either, but heck that's not the business he is in, so I've no problem with it. B.t.w. 110 Volt AC (60 Hz) is still used in the US and Japan. As a side note: tension refers in my book and wikipedia's to : Tension (physics), a force related to the stretching of an object (the opposite of compression) Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: ** As a side note: tension refers in my book and wikipedia's to : Tension (physics), a force related to the stretching of an object (the opposite of compression) Tension can also mean voltage. According to wikipedia, under voltage: *Voltage* is an informal term for *electric potential difference*[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage#cite_note-0 and is also called *electric tension*.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Hi, On 24-6-2011 0:46, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: As a side note: tension refers in my book and wikipedia's to : Tension (physics), a force related to the stretching of an object (the opposite of compression) Tension can also mean voltage. According to wikipedia, under voltage: *Voltage* is an informal term for *electric potential difference*^[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage#cite_note-0 and is also called *electric tension*. You are right, but to be more complete this is what wikipedia considers all to be tension. *Tension* may refer to: * Tension (physics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28physics%29, a force related to the stretching of an object (the opposite of compression) * Tension (music) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28music%29, the perceived need for relaxation or release created by a listener's expectations * /Tension/ (film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28film%29, a 1949 film by John Berry * /Tension/ (album) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28album%29, an album by Dizmas * Tension (band) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28band%29, a Taiwanese a capella group and boy band * /The Void/ (video game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Void_%28video_game%29, also known as /Tension/ in some regions * Tension (knitting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tension_%28knitting%29, a factor that affects knitting gauge * Voltage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage or electrical tension * Muscle tone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_tone or /residual muscle tension/, a partial contraction of the muscles * Stress (biology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_%28biology%29 or tension * Suspense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspense or tension, the feeling of uncertainty and interest about the outcome of certain actions an audience perceives * Tension, a song by Avenged Sevenfold from Diamonds in the Rough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_in_the_LBC_%26_Diamonds_in_the_Rough * Tension, a song by Orbital from /The Altogether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Altogether/ So I would recommend to avoid ambiguity and use the term Voltage as everybody? knows what is meant by it. At least in electrical engineering and electronics we use the term voltage; I've sofar never met any electrical engineer who in discussions or talks refered to it being electric tension or electric potential difference ; the latter is something that may be used in official recommendations etc. Kind regards, MoB
