[Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Michael Cox: The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't compute the boiling point from it), and we've got anger and offended dignity and insults hurled at those who dare to question him, but we haven't got a number which indicates a measurement was done which would show the steam was dry. We saw much the same thing from Galantini earlier in blog posts, albeit with less of the offended dignity business that Rossi's giving us. Am I the only one who sees this behavior as a big red flag? On 11-06-29 02:06 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Michael Cox: The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is unable to support his position with evidence and reason... Lack of playful humor is another sign. Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. One thing also what must be considered, but what was ignored by pseudoskeptics was that the room temperature was over 30 degrees. This makes steam less visible than in 20°C. I wonder if people finally understand how utterly silly was that steam dryness discussion. Here in Vortex, but especially by Steven and Peter who made themself a clown and fine target for public ridicule. But interesting indeed was the reaction by people in general, although understanding this required no more engineering skill than boiling water in the kettle. —Jouni Ps. Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure when temperature is significantly above boiling point. Therefore it is completely ridiculous and lack of imagination to stick in this silly misconception. On Jun 29, 2011 4:54 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't compute the boiling point from it), and we've got anger and offended dignity and insults hurled at those who dare to question him, but we haven't got a number which indicates a measurement was done which would show the steam was dry. We saw much the same thing from Galantini earlier in blog posts, albeit with less of the offended dignity business that Rossi's giving us. Am I the only one who sees this behavior as a big red flag? On 11-06-29 02:06 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Peter Ekstrom's analysis: “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy”. http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf Rossi responds to Peter Ekstrom's analysis: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=497#comments Andrea Rossi June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 PM Dear Michael Cox: The “analysis” of Peter Ekstrom is wrong, based on wrong data. Days ago a clown made a similar “analysis” calculating difficult data from the television. I thought that this kind of thing were made only by clowns. Now I see that there are physics that do the same. I answered to the clown that I was impressed from his ability. To a physic I answer that I am very much impressed. The “movie professor” has forgot that the steam condensates, that when condensates it turns into very hot water and the heat lost goes to the surface of the pipe, heating it,therefore : 1- the pipe gets very hot (80-90 °C) radiating up to 1 Wh/h (thermal) per square cm across a surface of thousands of square cm (5400 in this case). This heat has to be calculated. If not we forget that when we keep warm our house during the winter, radiators heat up at expense of the circulating hot water. 5400 sq. cm x 1 wh/h makes up to 5.4 thermal kW that can go that way. 2- the hot water burns, so I emptied the condensed water from the pipe to avoid that a jet of hot water could burn my face (as once, unfortunately, happened): why did I make this? Because I am not masochist. And: shaking the pipe I made it free from the morse of the mouth of the sink. 3- the temperature of the fluid inside the vertical chimney was more than 100.1 °C, and the pressure measured was room pressure. Should the water have been liquid, at room pressure the temperature in a vertical chimney would have been 99 °C, because, for the gravity, the chimney would have been filled up by water, and water at 100.1 °C, at room P, cannot be liquid. I have not the time to correct the many other mistakes of our “movie-professor”, because I worked 16 hours, time is 2 a.m. and I must go to sleep, tomorrow other 16 hours of work: no more time for “movie-professors” Besides, clowneries apart, I answer with my plants. In October we will start up our first plant of 1 MW in Greece. I will send a movie of it to the clown and to Peter Ekstrom , maybe they will join together to find the way to explain to the persons that will utilize the plant that it does not work, because they saw it in the movie! By the way: we made as well tests heating water, without phase change, and the efficiency has been the same, as published. Anyway, let me set up a good operating plant, and all the snakes, clowns and movie-professors will be swept away; their arms are chatters (and movies too), my arms are working plants. …and I have a surprise…but it will come in October. Warm regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On 11-06-29 10:06 AM, Rich Murray wrote: Ad hominem responses are always confirmations that the responder is unable to support his position with evidence and reason... Lack of playful humor is another sign. Abd and Jed have shown this too, in recent days. Nonsense. Please don't make such claims about individuals unless you can back them up (which you can't, in this case). Rich, you cited no specific messages here, probably because you couldn't. This turns your argument into an ad hominem attack in itself: It's just a vague accusation directed at individuals. Jed gets a little peeved now and then when somebody isn't following his argument, and he gets seriously peeved when dealing with pathological skeptics, but I don't think I've ever seen Abd do anything even vaguely like that, and a quick perusal of his recent messages shows him attacking arguments, pointing out flaws in reasoning, picking logical holes in things ... but I see not a shred of an ad hominem attack. Rich, please don't mistake attacks on *your* reasoning or arguments as ad hominems, by the way. Just because you think you sound sensible doesn't mean anybody else is going to agree with you!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. So Abd is a pseudoskeptic because he questioned the dryness of the steam, and asked if it's possible the thing is ejecting liquid water? Sounds like somebody has widened the definition of the term a bit. Jouni, pseudoskeptic doesn't mean I don't like you, which is how you just used the term. And calling Abd and Joshua movie clowns is just an empty ad hominem, just as it was when used by Rossi himself.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Lawrence, the definition of movie clown is to make conclusive deductions from low resolution video footage without knowing what is a) surrounding temperature b) temperature of the hose and c) current power output of E-Cat. There was just too many unknowns to make strong conclusions. Pseudoscepticism was even reinforced by lack of explanation how steam can be wet AND two centigrades above boiling point. Ignoring this kind of simple detail and replacing it with conspiracy theory, is sure sign of pseudoskepticism. —Jouni Ps. as i suggested steam temperature is very easy to fake. Energy can also be from chemical sources, they are not excluded. But this not what was said but asumption was that there was just two orders of magnitude measurement error what is just ridiculous. On Jun 29, 2011 5:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-06-29 10:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Very good response by Andrea. We see that those movie clowns have also infiltrated Vortex, like Joshua, Abd and few other pseudoskeptics. So Abd is a pseudoskeptic because he questioned the dryness of the steam, and asked if it's possible the thing is ejecting liquid water? Sounds like somebody has widened the definition of the term a bit. Jouni, pseudoskeptic doesn't mean I don't like you, which is how you just used the term. And calling Abd and Joshua movie clowns is just an empty ad hominem, just as it was when used by Rossi himself.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Mysterious AND measured boiling point of water was 99.7±0.1°C. Therefore if steam temperature is above 100.1±0.1°C, then the steam is dry, because water cannot remain in liquid phase in normal atmospheric pressure when temperature is significantly above boiling point. You yourself argued at length that the temperature is not above the boiling point, as evidenced by its perfectly flat nature. You argued it was because only liquid water is heated directly. If the steam is dry and above the bp, then the steam must be heated directly, and then there is no explanation for its perfect flatness. Put that it yer pipe and smoke it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:53:12 -0400 Von: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis More bizarreness. Note that in all the apparent anger over the wetness of the effluent, nobody has stated *any* measurement which was made and which indicated the steam was dry. We've got temperature, we've got pressure (relative to ambient, please note, not even an actual pressure number, so we can't compute the boiling point from it),.. my remark: I looked up the air pressure in Bologna the day 14th of june, 2011. It was 1016 hPa (=1016 mBar) calculated at sealevel (air pressure is always related to its sealevel value, exept for some exceptions in mountain regions). Bologna, via dell'Elettricista 16 is 43 m above sealevel. So, the real air pressure was 1016 - 5.3 = 1010.7 hPa in the Rossi showroom that day. Angela -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
BTW, the boiling point for water at 1016hPa is 100.1, according to this boiling point calculator (pure water) http://www.partyman.se/boiling-point-calculator/
[Vo]:Cold Fusion-the Economist Magazine
Greetings Vortex-L: Cold Fusion LENR : I was amazed to find this link: http://www.economist.com/node/18774834/comments Respectfully, Ron Kita , Chiralex Ah...the Nervous Nellies of the World of Cold Fusion ...perhaps Lemmings. One must learn the Art of Waiting. I can wait until October and beyond. Cold Fusion will arrive..a ghostly B... .doesn t scare me.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
So, the boiling temperature is 99.9C.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? Its the altitude compensation. http://www.ehow.com/how_7716999_adjust-altitude-barometer.html a simple value like 1010.7 is not helpful itself. But, in relation to my long time working with air pressure values, I estimate an error of about 1 hpa is correct. Good barometers have an accuracy of about 0.2 hPa, but in reality it is a bit worse. Also, the exact height over sl for that location may be a bit different from 43 m. I looked it up at Google earth. There is perhaps another 5 m error or so. Its better to say: 1010.7 +/- 1 hPa I suppose, Rossi had a barometer there, I think it is included in the recording instrument collecting the temperature values. But we dont know if he looked up the value and if it was exacly compensated for altitude. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Angela: Thanks for providing some hopefully more accurate data! I posted a question a few days ago as to what the altitude was for the location of Rossi's office where all the tests/demos have been done. We can't make the mistake of thinking they were done at the University. Just how well do you know the area, and how accurate are your estimates of the altitude of Rossi's office? Unfortunately, the system is running (just above) the phase-transition parameters and that makes the measurement of temp/pressure very important... -Mark -Original Message- From: Angela Kemmler [mailto:angela.kemm...@gmx.de] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:12 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:10:41 -0300 Von: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom\'s analysis Why are you subtracting the in Bologna if it was actually measured there? no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
From Angela: no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. It looks like some are seriously looking into altitude and historical weather pattern data... looking for clues in operational behavior. This is a daunting task. Good luck in your endeavors. Only time will tell if research into this matter proves to be revealing... or not as the case may be. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Steven: If you're implying that Angela (or someone) might be proposing that weather conditions might have some effect OTHER THAN simply affecting the BP of water, then NO, I don't think that's the case. As has been discussed at length here, the E-Cat's performance critically depends on the steam quality (dryness), and Rossi/Gallantini/Levi/Kullander are all basing their numbers on the steam being nearly completely dry... The reasoning is based on basic physics. Liquid water cannot exist in any significant amounts in steam when the temperature of the steam is clearly above the BP, and the steam is at ambient pressure. So any information that Angela could provide would help significantly since we were not given details of the atmospheric pressure outside the reactor -- we were only told that the pressure inside the chimney was the same as outside. Obviously, that requirement could be violated if the heat output of the reactor is fluctuating. Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, which may very well happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have a much shorter chimney, but I would think that its very unlikely with the older e-Cats whose chimney looks like its at least 16 inches tall. The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. Perhaps that's why the newer e-Cats have a shorter chimney -- because baffles were put inside. We just don't know... The only real figures we have about the steam quality are from Kullander's report which calculated the liquid content of the steam was less than 1.4% to 1.2% -- Don't remember, but I think that would have to be by mass. -Mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 11:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis From Angela: no, they measured it a bit away, but still in Bologna. I you want the precise position, I may tell you that later, I have access to all the historic weather data. I think it is the airport there. Meteorology was my business for a long time. Every station transmits the local air pressure and adds the lacking pressure that comes from local height above sea level. See wikipedia barometric formula for details, its about 1 hPa per 8 m. If every station of the world would simply transmit local air pressure, you would not be able to draw the ground pressure charts. All values are sl-values. It looks like some are seriously looking into altitude and historical weather pattern data... looking for clues in operational behavior. This is a daunting task. Good luck in your endeavors. Only time will tell if research into this matter proves to be revealing... or not as the case may be. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]: Old vs New (chimneys)
Another interesting observation of the old chimney, is that not only is it about 4 times taller, but the diameter of it increases to at least double that of the short vertical section of pipe that feeds it! Could it be that when they were running this thing at 10KW to 20KW, the volume of steam generated was obviously double to quadruple what it is now, and they needed more volume inside the chimney and a larger outlet in order to maintain that expanding vapor at ambient pressure! Perhaps this is obvious to everyone and why its never been mentioned, but if the diameter of the chimney outlet is not large enough to allow the vapor to escape as fast as it is being generated, then pressure will begin to increase inside the chimney... But as pressure builds up inside, it increases the flow rate thru the outlet, which reduces the pressure inside... And so the system oscillates about some mean... Apparently that mean is ambient. Here's something else to consider... pressure building up inside is not necessarily an indicator of steam quality coming out. Yes, just as in a car radiator, increased pressure raises the BP, and so the steam inside the chimney may contain significant liquid water, but as soon as that steam escapes to ambient, the liquid content will immediately vaporize -- ever make the mistake of opening the radiator on a car when its at operating temperature!!! A very unpleasant experience I assure you... -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Jun 29, 2011 6:03 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: You yourself argued at length that the temperature is not above the boiling point, as evidenced by its perfectly flat nature. You argued it was because only liquid water is heated directly. If the steam is dry and above the bp, then the steam must be heated directly, and then there is no explanation for its perfect flatness. Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist like in your setup, then steam temperature is closer to boiling point. Of course there is a limit how big steam bubles can get and how hot steam can go through liquid water in bubbles. Therefore steam is heated to about 101.0±1.0°C, if boiling point is calbrated to be 99.7±0.1°C. This of course depends heat difference between heating element and boiling water. Daniel calculated the actual boiling point. But thermometers absolute accuracy is ±0.4°C, although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. Therefore thermometer must be calibrated and actual boiling point must be measured. In absolute sense boiling point was 99.7±0.4°C, but we do not need this figure because we measure relative temperatures where accuracy is ±0.1°C. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
this site says: Steam - produced in a boiler where the heat is supplied to the water and where the steam are in contact with the water surface of the boiler - will contain approximately 5% water by mass. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Steven: Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, which may very well happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have a much shorter chimney, but I would think that its very unlikely with the older e-Cats whose chimney looks like its at least 16 inches tall. Before the water boils, where would the liquid be going, if not ejected out of the chimney? There is a pump pushing the water into the reactor at a constant flow rate. Assuming the pressure does not increase outside the range of the pumps specs, regardless of the phase, the water will exit through the chimney. The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. Then what happens before the water boils? And where does the water fall back to, if the space is taken up by new water pumped in. If the chimney were filled with water, as some people claim, then that alone would cause a pressure increase in the ecat. The pressure increase is given by density*g*height, or 10 kPa * height (in m). So if the height of the chimney is 10 cm, then the increase in the pressure is 1 kPa, which increases the bp by 0.3C. Perhaps that's why the newer e-Cats have a shorter chimney -- because baffles were put inside. We just don't know... We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Good try but you forgot the surface tension. When you boil water in the kettle then you will get bubbles. Therefore steam can be hotter than actual boiling point. If you reduce the surface tension or make fine mist like in your setup, then steam temperature is closer to boiling point. The surface tension is part of the picture either way. The argument stands. If you claim that liquid is providing the temperature regulation, then the steam is not above the boiling point. Daniel calculated the actual boiling point. But thermometers absolute accuracy is ±0.4°C, although it's relative accuracy is ±0.1°C. If the absolute accuracy is .4C, then that undermines the argument completely, if it was not calibrated. If the bp in the lab really was 99.9C, and the measured value was 100.1C, then even calibrated, the confidence with which the difference can be regarded as significant is only marginal. If the chimney is filled with water, as you claim, the pressure inside the ecat is increased by about 1 kPa, and this would cause an increase in the bp by 0.3C.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. Start-up is only a transient state and performance calcs are made on measurements taken during steady-state, not start-up. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Second: You wrote: We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling. You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I find it hard to believe that you don't understand what baffles are... -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Steven: Another proposal here is that liquid water is ejected out of the chimney, which may very well happen. This is certainly possible with the new, smaller e-Cats which have a much shorter chimney, but I would think that its very unlikely with the older e-Cats whose chimney looks like its at least 16 inches tall. Before the water boils, where would the liquid be going, if not ejected out of the chimney? There is a pump pushing the water into the reactor at a constant flow rate. Assuming the pressure does not increase outside the range of the pumps specs, regardless of the phase, the water will exit through the chimney. The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. Then what happens before the water boils? And where does the water fall back to, if the space is taken up by new water pumped in. If the chimney were filled with water, as some people claim, then that alone would cause a pressure increase in the ecat. The pressure increase is given by density*g*height, or 10 kPa * height (in m). So if the height of the chimney is 10 cm, then the increase in the pressure is 1 kPa, which increases the bp by 0.3C. Perhaps that's why the newer e-Cats have a shorter chimney -- because baffles were put inside. We just don't know... We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling.
[Vo]:The Greatest Show on Earth
Are any Vorts planning on attending? Looks like lots of fun. http://www.teslatech.info/ttevents/2011conf/program2011.pdf T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. I get that. But the behavior during start up can be used to give information about the device. Like, for example, it indicates that the device has thermal mass, and in this case, it indicates that there is nothing in the chimney preventing liquid water from getting out. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Good, then what would prevent water from going through the chimney during steady state. Second: You wrote: We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling. You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I guess I misunderstood you when you said The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. What did you mean by that then? The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. Please indulge my obviously inferior intelligence and limited experience. But your explanation just doesn't make sense to me.
[Vo]:[Video] Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference
Hello group, This link was just forwarded to me: * * * http://vimeo.com/25785236 Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference. by Giacomo Guidi Really short interviews with mr. Rossi and A. Xanthoulis, investors representative. The interviews were recorded after the press conference. Unfortunately mr Rossi didn't have time to answer to all the questions. Produced by Phizero Questions by M. Zani G. Guidi Reporter in Greece Konstantinos Panagiotopoulos phizero.it/lenr l...@phizero.it * * * Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:China Mirage
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:21:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] Multiverse M Brane intersection? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008161/Ghostly-mirage-appears-river-Huanshan-City-China.html I find it surprising that no one appears to have made an effort to actually identify the city itself? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... And yes, a clear hose would be a very simple way to eliminate that concern... No disagreements there! I think the reason Levi and other don't puch that issue is because they've seen the unit in operation without the hose on and know that liquid water is not coming out. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? No one is that stupid or gullible... I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. I at least feel its a reasonable possibility, and am trying, on a daily basis, to determine how likely this is what it seems to be... that to me is more rational than someone who only notices and points out what is questionable, and not the supportive evidence. It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have irrefutable evidence, your only conclusion is it doesn't work. I look at it as a continuum... and at any point in time, my confidence level can vary according to any new details or analysis I come across. Your analyses are helpful at times, but it is very obvious that you just don't want to even consider that this MIGHT be working that's certainly your perogative. -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:21 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Geezus Josh, you're grasping at straws... and obviously flawed ones at that. First: It should be COMPELETLY obvious that we're talking about the behavior/performance of the system at steady-state -- NOT start-up. I get that. But the behavior during start up can be used to give information about the device. Like, for example, it indicates that the device has thermal mass, and in this case, it indicates that there is nothing in the chimney preventing liquid water from getting out. Yes, of course the liquid water must fill-up the entire device and flows out of the chimney during the start-up phase... Good, then what would prevent water from going through the chimney during steady state. Second: You wrote: We know there are no baffles stopping liquid, because water runs through it before it is boiling. You comment here really makes me question your objectivity at least, if not your intelligence. Baffles inside the chimney would not significantly impede the water (liquid or vapor) flow up and out of the chimney! I guess I misunderstood you when you said The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. What did you mean by that then? The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. Please indulge my obviously inferior intelligence and limited experience. But your explanation just doesn't make sense to me.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Hello group, This link was just forwarded to me: * * * http://vimeo.com/25785236 Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference. by Giacomo Guidi Production capacity is sold out for the next five years!?! I assume that is for all 3 factories. They need 300 factories! T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? They did not witness liquid water flowing out of the chimney. If Rossi showed them, they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. And yes, I have no doubt at all that many academics inexperienced with steam and steam/mist mixtures would accept that it was dry steam. I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. No. I think it is the opposite situation. That you so want to believe it is true that you are ignoring obvious flaws in the demonstrations. Like how the ecat knows to turn on exactly when the water boils. How the power transfer can increase from 600W to 5 kW in a minute or 3, when the increase from 0 to 600 W takes more than 10 minutes. How the temperature can remain so perfectly regulated in the absence of liquid water. And so on. What Rossi is claiming is unlikely, and therefore without evidence, I remain skeptical. He has not provided evidence. Everything he has shown can be easily explained without resorting to nuclear reactions. No exotic explanations are needed to understand his demos, so why would I invoke exotic explanations? It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have irrefutable evidence, your only conclusion is it doesn't work. No. Without evidence, I am skeptical that it works. I do not conclude that it doesn't work. But I am not ready to conclude that it does work, until the evidence is much stronger, even irrefutable. As long as it's refutable, why should anyone accept it? I look at it as a continuum... and at any point in time, my confidence level can vary according to any new details or analysis I come across. I have not seen any indication of doubt from you, but ok, if you are less confident than you indicate, that's good.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Joshua wrote: I guess I misunderstood you when you said The chimney could also have some baffles inside that would prevent liquid water from being ejected; it would simple fall back down into the boiling water. [iverson] Ever hear of an 'ejection' seat... or the phrase, 'the person was ejected from the vehicle' ? Come on Josh, someone with your intelligence and vocabulary certainly understands that 'ejection' is very different from 'flowing'. There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some (macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting thru the opening in the side of the chimney... ( images of the mayans throwing a ball thru a hole in the wall) ... This is a very reasonable concern that could have easily been assuaged if a clear hose was used. Baffles would be a simple solution to that problem. But again, the scientists involved have seen E-Cats operate without the hose, and any significant liquid water coming out of the chimney would have been a major red flag and seriously questioned... -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: There is a concern that due to the likely rigorous boiling inside, some (macroscopic) liquid water is being thrown upward and some of it exiting thru the opening in the side of the chimney... Depends what you mean by macroscopic. Considering that more than 90% (probably close to 99%) of the fluid is gas (by volume), flowing at about 1700 times faster than the liquid water is coming in, the liquid would probably get broken up into pretty small (but still possibly macroscopic) droplets, and carried along with the high speed gas, right out of that chimney. That's a kind of ejection; it's also a kind of flow. But whatever you prefer to call it, it has no choice but to get out of the chimney, was the point. This is a very reasonable concern that could have easily been assuaged if a clear hose was used. I'm not so sure. A mist, and steam are not that different. Baffles would be a simple solution to that problem. I don't see how. The water has to get out. It has no choice. I think it would do it as a mist, and I don't see how baffles that allow gas to get through, wouldn't also allow a mist to get through. But again, the scientists involved have seen E-Cats operate without the hose, and any significant liquid water coming out of the chimney would have been a major red flag and seriously questioned... Maybe not if it came out as a mist. What should be a red flag is that Rossi didn't show the video makers what comes out of that chimney. It's supposed to be a demo, after all.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Josh wrote: they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. No, Kullander specifically states in his report: The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. Kullander would NOT have made that statement if there was visible mist... And Galantini specifically stated several times that the steam exiting the chimney was transparent... why do you think they make a point of it? Because they understand the importance that the steam quality will have on performance figures being reported (not just by Rossi, but in their own reports). These people have satisfied to themselves that the steam was very nearly dry... Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. The outlet was controlled is obviously not right... there's nothing to control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. This is certainly a concern in that there seems to be no feedback of outlet temperature in order to provide data to the control boxes (PLCs).. Is the operation of the E-Cat so consistent that so long as there's a steady flowrate and fairly constant input temperature, the unit can operate in an open loop manner??? We just do not know at this time and we just have to wait... I have always recognized that there are significant concerns and no end to the frustrations that come from how the tests/demos were conducted! -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 4:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Again, I think it would be obvious that ***IF*** the heat production of the reactor is not enough to vaporize nearly all of the water flowing in each second, then YES, the chimney will eventually fill up and spill water out of the inlet... No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. Do you honestly think that Levi or the Swedes or ANY scientist or engineer who witnessed liquid water flowing out of the chimney during steady -state would endorse Rossi as they have??? They did not witness liquid water flowing out of the chimney. If Rossi showed them, they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. And yes, I have no doubt at all that many academics inexperienced with steam and steam/mist mixtures would accept that it was dry steam. I think the disconnect here is that your mind simply cannot even CONSIDER the possibility that the reacor ***IS*** keeping up with water inlet flowrate and vaporizing all of it... it seems to really bother you, and you look for any shread of evidence, regardless of how insignificant, in order to satisfy your intellect, or you are trying to generate doubt in the mind of readers who aren't technically savvy. No. I think it is the opposite situation. That you so want to believe it is true that you are ignoring obvious flaws in the demonstrations. Like how the ecat knows to turn on exactly when the water boils. How the power transfer can increase from 600W to 5 kW in a minute or 3, when the increase from 0 to 600 W takes more than 10 minutes. How the temperature can remain so perfectly regulated in the absence of liquid water. And so on. What Rossi is claiming is unlikely, and therefore without evidence, I remain skeptical. He has not provided evidence. Everything he has shown can be easily explained without resorting to nuclear reactions. No exotic explanations are needed to understand his demos, so why would I invoke exotic explanations? It seems as if you look at this as black or white. You look at what data there is and given the fact that we don't have irrefutable evidence, your only conclusion is it
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net This is certainly a concern in that there seems to be no feedback of outlet temperature in order to provide data to the control boxes (PLCs).. Is the operation of the E-Cat so consistent that so long as there's a steady flowrate and fairly constant input temperature, the unit can operate in an open loop manner??? We just do not know at this time and we just have to wait... I suspect he found the sweetspot with trial and error. Harry
Re: [Vo]:China Mirage
Scientists say Erie mirage could be real http://www.crystalinks.com/mirage.html AP - July 31, 2006 - Cleveland, Ohio Scientists say it's a mirage, but others swear that when the weather is right, Clevelanders can see across Lake Erie and spot Canadian trees and buildings 50 miles away. Eyewitness accounts have long been part of the city's history. The whole sweep of the Canadian shore stood out as if less than three miles away, a story in The Plain Dealer proclaimed in 1906. The distant points across the lake stood out for nearly an hour and then faded away. I can see how this could be possible, said Lawrence Krauss, chairman of the Physics Department at Case Western Reserve University. Krauss and Joe Prahl, chairman of the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department at Case, said mirages can occur during an atmospheric inversion, in which a layer of cold air blankets the lake, topped by layers of increasingly warm air. When this happens, it can cause the light that filters through these layers from across the lake to bend, forming a lens that can create the illusion of distant objects. The scientists said the air has to be extremely calm for the mirage to appear. If the wind blows, it distorts or dissolves the image. Prahl and Krauss said such a mirage is rare. Tom Schmidlin, a meteorologist in the Geography Department at Kent State University, said, It's not terribly unusual. Sailors are always exposed to this kind of thing. Prahl, who regularly sails his 30-foot sloop Seabird from Cleveland to Canada, has never seen it. Bob Boughner, a reporter for the Chatham Daily News in Ontario, said he's seen Cleveland from across Lake Erie twice, the first time four summers ago while driving along a road near the lake. He saw it again two summer ago while driving along the same road. All of a sudden, there was Cleveland, just off the Canadian shore, as if it were just across a river, he said. I happened to look across the lake and, geez, I couldn't believe the sight, he said. I could see the cars and the stoplights. I could even make out the different colors of the vehicles. It lasted a good two or three minutes. Boughner said he remembers his aunt Melba Bates, who lived all her life on Lake Erie and recently died in her late 90s, talking about being able to see Cleveland, but he didn't believe her. I thought she was making up stories, he said. But sure enough, I could see the same damned thing. When it shows up, it looks like you can touch it. - Original Message - From: mix...@bigpond.com mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:10:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:China Mirage In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:21:33 -0400: Hi, [snip] Multiverse M Brane intersection? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008161/Ghostly-mirage-appears-river-Huanshan-City-China.html I find it surprising that no one appears to have made an effort to actually identify the city itself? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Joshua wrote: No, this is not the way it would happen. Even if the power is enough to vaporize only a few per cent of the water (by mass), then gas will occupy nearly all the volume (ninety some per cent). So, there is no way that the chimney would fill up with water; that would block the high volume of gas forming behind it. What you have is high velocity gas in the presence of a small volume of liquid. The liquid gets entrained in the gas in the form of small droplets and gets sent through the chimney as a mist. This is not hard to conceive. Just think of an ultrasonic mister, or google 2-phase flow. The mist behaves like a gas, but has a very different enthalpy. That's Rossi's game. It's amazing how many smart people he has sucked in with it. I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it by adding steam quality to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy me that your explanation here is very unlikely, if not a total guess. First ref I looked at was wikipedia, which makes no mention of entrainment of liquid water in the vapor... the 2-phases are referring to the fact that liquid is flowing thru a heated pipe, which is apparently heated over more than just a few inches, and there are three distinct regions: a region where you have all liquid, then a transition region where there are varying degrees of liquid and vapor, and then vapor. No mention of entrainment. Then I found this article discussing 2-phase flow in horizontal vs vertical piping, and it is at least CONTRADICTORY to your claim: A relation between steam quality and void fraction in two-phase flow Hideo Fujie First published online: 17 JUN 2004, AIChE Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2, pages 227-232, March 1964 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aic.690100219/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library +will+be+disrupted+2+July+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance If you read the fourth paragraph, it says: The effects of entrained liquid quantity on the void fractions as well as on the momentum changes are neglected because in accordance with Dukler (3) the entrained liquid quantity is small compared with the quantity of the film along the wall, unless the gas velocity in the core exceeds 100ft./sec. Sounds to me like the liquid water on the walls is more than likely greater than what's entrained, unless the flowrate is real high... Certainly not the case we are dealing with. In addition, your use of the term 'high velocity gas' seems to be in contradiction to the MEASURED pressure inside the chimney, which is ambient, within the error limit of the sensor My problem with you Josh, is that you bring up what SEEM like reasonable objections, but there is no real detailed explanation as to how its relevent... this 2-phase issue is a perfect example. Yes, 2-phase flow does happen in steam generation systems, and there's a shitload of research on it primarily because of boiling water reactors which produce the majority of the planet's electricity, but you have NO specifics as to exactly how the 2-phase flow supports your CLAIM that there is alot of entrained liquid water in Rossi's system, nor any third-party supporting references to support your position. In fact, the second webpage I went to in the search that you suggested I do, resulted in finding a statement that could very well refute your claim... it is at least contradictory. Gotta git... -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Mark, I put an entire book on 2-phase flow on this discussion list, 3 days ago.
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion-the Economist Magazine + CNET ??
At 10:09 AM 6/29/2011, Ron Kita wrote: Cold Fusion LENR : I was amazed to find this link: http://www.economist.com/node/18774834/comments Also made it to http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20075206-54/a-reality-check-on-nuclear-fusion-at-mit/#comments Not noted by the original author, though. Only interesting one : by dumbspammers (1656 comments) June 29, 2011 11:53 AM PDT The cost of refining nickel to power the E-CAT system is higher than the amount of energy (allegedly) generated by the E-CAT. Thus, even given an infinite supply of nickel ore, the E-CAT has a negative net output of electricity; that is, it costs more KW to make the nickel powder required to operate it than the E-CAT can produce from the powdered nickel. And that's not even considering the energy required to isolate the hydrogen. ... a couple of posts disputing that by dumbspammers (1656 comments) June 29, 2011 4:31 PM PDT Call any metal refinery and ask them what it costs in KWh to refine 1 gram of 99-and-5-9s pure powdered nickel. Or Google, if you have the ability. I am unimpressed with people who believe that snake oil is the solution to our energy needs. - - - Eh? 2.5kW * 24 hrs * 365 days / 2 = 10 MW ??
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 5:20:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis The pump is still operating at steady state, meaning fluid is entering the chimney all the time. It's gonna push whatever is in the chimney out, whether gas or liquid. If there's not enough steam to carry away the input mass, then liquid has to get pushed out. Where else can it go? It can't fall back; there's more water taking up the space it might like to fall back to. If the water doesn't fall back in the chimney, then it shouldn't fall back anywhere, and you should be able to see some water splatter from the end of the hose the moment Rossi pulls it from the drain. Harry
[Vo]: Possible temperature feedback mechanism???
Guys: The E-Cats have more than one resistance heater. With the last several demos, there have been two, one internal and one external... This proposal only deals with the internal one, and assumes that the internal heating element is very near to the reactor, or inside the outer walls of the reactor (but not necessarily in the area where the Ni-H is... Is it possible to somehow read the heater's temperature by monitoring the voltage drop across it??? Wire does change resistance with temperature, and we're dealing with very large temps and significant amperage, so one might be able to at least estimate the temperature inside the reactor indirectly, and thus provide some feedback information to the control box via the same wires that power it. OR, turn off the power to the internal heater for short periods and connect it to a calibrated voltage in order to get a more accurate value for the voltage drop??? Seems fairly straight-forward... Then I have a question as to sources and sinks... Would not the heating element be acting more as a heat SINK when in steady-state? Actually, anything above what the max temp is for the given power into the heater. If the reactor is producing the amount of heat that it SEEMS to be, then the temperature of the Ni and Hydrogen in the reactor is way hotter than the internal heater. Heat will flow from hi to lo, so some of the heat from the Ni-H reaction is sinking into the heater. Do we know if this heating element is in contact with the water flowing thru; I think it must be? That would enhance its sinking effect. This may represent a sort of 'fine-tuning' that is needed to maintain this thing's stability when operating just above the liquid/vapor phase transition... What think ye? -Mark
Re: [Vo]: Possible temperature feedback mechanism???
- Original Message - From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:53:07 PM Subject: [Vo]: Possible temperature feedback mechanism??? Would not the heating element be acting more as a heat SINK when in steady-state? Actually, anything above what the max temp is for the given power into the heater. If the reactor is producing the amount of heat that it SEEMS to be, then the temperature of the Ni and Hydrogen in the reactor is way hotter than the internal heater. Heat will flow from hi to lo, so some of the heat from the Ni-H reaction is sinking into the heater. Do we know if this heating element is in contact with the water flowing thru; I think it must be? That would enhance its sinking effect. This may represent a sort of 'fine-tuning' that is needed to maintain this thing's stability when operating just above the liquid/vapor phase transition... What think ye? -Mark Rossi has said the internal heater is inside the reactor, but then again that is just what he has said. Harry
[Vo]:Krivit's Napoli visit?
What was interesting was this comment by SK, the day after I left Bologna, I went to Napoli and visited with three Italian researchers, one of them a brilliant 33-year-old scientist who showed me what appears to be a real working experiment (video forthcoming), real scientific data, and real scientific conference presentations and papers. Once I am finished with the Rossi-Focardi-Levi story, I will report on my new findings from this southern Italian laboratory. Do tell! -Mark This link was posted today on the facebook page for Rossi's E-cat. http://www.ioriocirillo.com/eng/index.php Could it be related? Unfortunately it requires a membership to navigate the website. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Krivit's Napoli visit? To all Italian-reading Vorts
To all Vorts that read/speak Italian: Could you please visit the website that Harry Veeder supplied and report back to The Collective! http://www.ioriocirillo.com/eng/index.php Thanks in Advance, -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hlvee...@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 8:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Krivit's Napoli visit? What was interesting was this comment by SK, the day after I left Bologna, I went to Napoli and visited with three Italian researchers, one of them a brilliant 33-year-old scientist who showed me what appears to be a real working experiment (video forthcoming), real scientific data, and real scientific conference presentations and papers. Once I am finished with the Rossi-Focardi-Levi story, I will report on my new findings from this southern Italian laboratory. Do tell! -Mark This link was posted today on the facebook page for Rossi's E-cat. http://www.ioriocirillo.com/eng/index.php Could it be related? Unfortunately it requires a membership to navigate the website. Harry
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference
- Original Message - From: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 6:03:40 PM Subject: [Vo]:[Video] Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference Hello group, This link was just forwarded to me: * * * http://vimeo.com/25785236 Two short interviews recorded after Defkalion's press conference. by Giacomo Guidi Really short interviews with mr. Rossi and A. Xanthoulis, investors representative. The interviews were recorded after the press conference. Unfortunately mr Rossi didn't have time to answer to all the questions. Produced by Phizero Questions by M. Zani G. Guidi Reporter in Greece Konstantinos Panagiotopoulos phizero.it/lenr l...@phizero.it Interesting that Xanthoulis said the 5 to 30 kW modules are the same except for the pressure difference. I guess he means the Hydrogen pressure. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** Josh wrote: they will have seen a mist coming out of the chimney. No, Kullander specifically states in his report: The 100 °C temperature is reached at 10:42 and at about 10:45 all the water is completely vaporized found by visual checks of the outlet tube and the valve letting out steam from the chimney. Kullander would NOT have made that statement if there was visible mist... We don't know that. He didn't describe what he saw. He just said visible checks. There have been plenty of pictures and videos of the device made, but none of this. Why not? There are good reasons not to place much confidence in any of the observers used so far: 1) They are measuring the the temperature every few seconds and logging it in a computer, when during the 8-fold increase in power, no change in the temperature is expected. Yet the steam quality, which changes dramatically over that 8-fold change in power is reported with a visual check, and a measurement of relative humidity. What they saw in the visual check is not reported. The value of the RH is not reported. It is not logged. And above all, the relative humidity does not give the steam quality. That indicates incompetence, regardless of their education and position. 2) The claim that in 3 minutes the power can go from 600W to 5 kW is not credible. You can see the effect of the thermal mass in the startup period. It takes time to warm up the ecat. In order to transfer 8 times the power to the water requires 8 times the temperature difference between the walls of the ecat and the water. - They even claim that the ecat ignites before the bp is reached. If you extrapolate the gradient after ignition to get the temperature required for 5 kW power transfer, it would take at least 30 min, but probably more like an hour (depending on the actual temperature of the ecat when boiling is first reached). - If by some miracle, the ecat increases to 5 kW output power exactly when boiling begins, it would still take more than twice that time to reach the necessary temperature to get a 5 kW power transfer to the water. - The only way to get the necessary gradient to get to 5 kW transfer from 600 W transfer in 3 minutes is if the ecat power was briefly much higher, somewhere in the range of 15 kW. But then when the power transfer approached the necessary 5 kW, the ecat power output would have to decrease back to 5 kW. That would be some trick! 3) Closely related to the last dash point, they accept the idea that no matter what input flow rate Rossi chooses in his various demos, the ecat somehow gives out just the right amount of power to convert all the water to steam, and not a per cent more, because a per cent increase in power would increase the temperature of the steam by something close to 10C. How is that possible? In fact, the demos aren't necessary. You tell me an input flow rate, and I'll tell you the power output. If you believe anything about the secret run, it is clear that not only does he not know exactly what the power output will be, but that it fluctuates considerably, even by as much as a factor of 10. The only way it can be pinned to the bp the way it is is if the steam is very wet indeed. And Galantini specifically stated several times that the steam exiting the chimney was transparent... I missed that statement. Can you tell me where this is reported? why do you think they make a point of it? The problem is that they don't. They make a point of measuring the temperature over and over. But they don't measure the steam velocity (or volume flow rate) which would indicate how dry it is. They don't make a point of showing the audience what the steam looks like by means of a photo or video. E and K don't even describe the steam qualitatively. They seem to make a point of obscuring the appearance of the chimney output. Because they understand the importance that the steam quality will have on performance figures being reported (not just by Rossi, but in their own reports). These people have satisfied to themselves that the steam was very nearly dry... Maybe, but they were too easily satisfied. Their satisfaction does not satisfy me. I'd like to see evidence. Here's a statement from Kullander that is a bit confusing... The temperature at the outlet was controlled continually to be above 100°C. According to the electronic log-book, it remained always between 100.1 and 100.2 °C during the operation from 10:45 to 16:30 as can be seen in figure 7. The outlet was controlled is obviously not right... there's nothing to control at the outlet! This must be more an issue with english not being his native language. What he means is that the temperature of the steam exiting the outlet was always maintained between 100.1 and 100.2. Well, it's a passive statement. Maybe he meant it was controlled by the process. I have little doubt it was controlled by
[Vo]:[Vo] : eCat Power Limitations
Assuming the eCat is not a scam: The Defkalion press conference video indeed says that the eCat power is limited by pressure. We know that the reaction chamber is controlled by - quantity of nickel powder, presence of hydrogen, and requires a sufficient heat to ignite the reaction. Saying that pressure is the deciding factor, I can only assume that this is pressure of the hydrogen at operating temperatures. Rossi's patent application states that Hydrogen pressure should be 2-20 bars, and ignition temperature will be 150-500C. Assuming that we carry through using the experimental figures, Hydrogen was introduced at 4 atmospheres (101.325 kpa). With a room temperature of approx 30C (303.15 kelvin), we can estimate final pressure using Gay-Lussac's Law. Worst case scenario of 500C (773.15 kelvin) chamber temperature at peak operation, pressure rapidly rises to 150 psi. If higher hydrogen pressures or higher temperatures are necessary to produce higher-powered eCats, the simple stainless-steel cylinders currently in use may be apt to fail. I hadn't considered reactor pressure, and I thought that I'd chime in with some food-for-thought. It's great to hear that a real RD contract has actually been confirmed with UNIBO, and now we can just ponder and wait. R. Leguillon
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** I did as you suggest and searched for '2-phase flow', and even refined it by adding steam quality to the search terms... I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it only took the first two references I looked at to satisfy me that your explanation here is very unlikely, if not a total guess. Not a total guess. The paper I had looked at is: Wang et al., Photographic Study on Two-Phase Flow Patterns of Water in a Single-Side Heated Narrow Rectangular Channel, J Eng Gas Turbines Power 133 (2011) 052907. These are vertical channels (like the chimney), and they identify 4 stages within the 2-phase stage: *Four discernible flow patterns, which names dispersed bubbly, coalesced bubbly, churn flow, and annular flow are observed.* * * Conditions are not the same as the ecat, but the paper was enough to suggest to me that a mist is reasonable. The photos of annular flow, at vapor speeds not that different from the ecat (with 1 inch tube), show droplets entrained in the flow. We don't know what is inside that chimney. It could be coiled tubing with a small diameter, which would produce higher speed of vapor, and a greater percentage of entrained drops. Or maybe he has concealed some kind of atomizer in the chimney. Or maybe a vertical chimney with a larger diameter produces more entrained drops. Who knows. What we do know is that liquid water has to get out of the chimney if it is not completely vaporized. Even if most of the liquid is along the walls, it's not clear what we would see at the output of a small opening. The gas speed through a 1 inch opening would be several hundred cm/s (depending on the degree of vaporization), and if the valve at the top of the chimney has a smaller opening, the speed would be even higher. The gas would expand at the exit and might entrain the water right there to form a fine mist. You can produce something approaching mist from 100% liquid by holding your thumb at the end of a hose, or with a suitable attachment. Most importantly, when they open the valve at the top of the chimney to examine the steam, they don't close the valve to the hose, which is vertically lower on the chimney. It is therefore entirely plausible that what comes out at the top contains considerably less liquid than what is forced through the hose lower down. You are right though to say that I don't know what is actually going on in that thing. The point is that what has been shown to us is not convincing evidence of dry steam. And if it were dry steam, there are very easy ways to prove it. Measure the volume flow rate. Reduce the input flow rate and see if the steam temperature climbs. The fact that they don't prove it when they could is very suspicious. Yes, 2-phase flow does happen in steam generation systems, and there's a shitload of research on it primarily because of boiling water reactors which produce the majority of the planet's electricity, but you have NO specifics as to exactly how the 2-phase flow supports your CLAIM that there is alot of entrained liquid water in Rossi's system, nor any third-party supporting references to support your position. It's Rossi's invention. The burden of proof is on him. He has no specifics to support his claim that it is dry steam. My claim is simply that if the power is lower than 5 kW but higher than 600W, the fluid has to be a mixture of 2 phases. I don't need references for that. And I argue with less certainty that what Rossi has shown us is at least consistent with a mixture of phases. As the ecat makes the transition from pure water to pure steam, it has to go through a stage where there is a mixture of phases. Why doesn't Rossi show us that stage so we can see how it changes as it becomes drier over what must be a period of at least tens of minutes. That's yet another way he could make his claim of dry steam more credible. And another thing he has not done.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point, spot on, concise, pertinent -- they deserve reading and rereading. He mobilizes the available evidence to show a great likelihood that the outflow includes a lot of liquid water and mist, and therefore no evidence of mysterious excess heat. The Rossi team will have to concede... no cat in the catalyser bag.
RE: [Vo]:[Vo] : eCat Power Limitations
Robert: Thank you for taking time to do some calcs on the hydrogen pressure inside after ignition... Another interesting tidbit I noticed when investigating the specific heat of the rubber hose vs other materials (including cast iron which Joshua Cude was using as a comparison), I sorted the table of material properties on the specific heat column and guess what had the highest specific heat? Hydrogen as a gas. (this was from wikipedia on Heat Capacity) Water= 4.18J/g.K H gas @ 25C = 14.3 J/g.K -Mark _ From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 9:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:[Vo] : eCat Power Limitations Assuming the eCat is not a scam: The Defkalion press conference video indeed says that the eCat power is limited by pressure. We know that the reaction chamber is controlled by - quantity of nickel powder, presence of hydrogen, and requires a sufficient heat to ignite the reaction. Saying that pressure is the deciding factor, I can only assume that this is pressure of the hydrogen at operating temperatures. Rossi's patent application states that Hydrogen pressure should be 2-20 bars, and ignition temperature will be 150-500C. Assuming that we carry through using the experimental figures, Hydrogen was introduced at 4 atmospheres (101.325 kpa). With a room temperature of approx 30C (303.15 kelvin), we can estimate final pressure using Gay-Lussac's Law. Worst case scenario of 500C (773.15 kelvin) chamber temperature at peak operation, pressure rapidly rises to 150 psi. If higher hydrogen pressures or higher temperatures are necessary to produce higher-powered eCats, the simple stainless-steel cylinders currently in use may be apt to fail. I hadn't considered reactor pressure, and I thought that I'd chime in with some food-for-thought. It's great to hear that a real RD contract has actually been confirmed with UNIBO, and now we can just ponder and wait. R. Leguillon
RE: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
Okay Rich, what have you been smokin' this evening? There are too many unknowns, unfortunately, to come to any real conclusion for or against... So we just wait and continue to discuss the information as it slowly flows out... Pun intended. :-) -Mark -Original Message- From: Rich Murray [mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis Joshua Cude's most recent 2 posts are excellent, lucid, crisp, point by point, spot on, concise, pertinent -- they deserve reading and rereading. He mobilizes the available evidence to show a great likelihood that the outflow includes a lot of liquid water and mist, and therefore no evidence of mysterious excess heat. The Rossi team will have to concede... no cat in the catalyser bag.
