Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You really should give up on this claim. The manufacturer makes no claim about steam quality. It calculates enthalpy of humid air from the temperature and RH. As Driscoll has argued, a capacitance measurement could not give steam quality.
[Vo]:Defkalion Board of Directors
From their web site: Directors: George Sortikos, born 1942 – Chairman Engineer. Ex banker and industrialist (high tech ceramics). Ex president of the state owned Greek Industrial Investment Bank (ETBA) in 80-90s and founder of Omega Bank.(90s) George Xanthoulis, born in 1987 – Deputy Chairman, Aurel David, born in 1969 – CEO Swiss, Banker with vast experience in project finance and logistics. Ex president of a Montenegro Bank. Alexandros Xanthoulis, born 1954 – Board member, representative of Praxen Macro-Economics, Greek-Canadian. Former EU officer, Head for Energy and Financial Reconstruction EU delegation in Central Asia (90s). Christos Stremmenos, born 1932 – Board Member Chemical Engineer. Professor (retired) in the University of Bologna, ex Ambassador of Greece in Italy Ioannis Chatzichristos, born 1958 – Board Member Mathematics/Systems theory, vast experience in software development, management and IT project management. Andreas Meidanis, born 1953 – Board Member Industrialist Mouafak Saouachni, born 1961 – Board Member Medical doctor, Greek-Israeli, responsible in labour health and environmental safety Andreas Drougas, born 1945 – Board Member Mathematics/IT, ex-executive consultant in LARCO (Greek Nickel mining co, now state owned), vast experience in management consulting and IT end The history of LARCO: http://www.larco.gr/our_history.php T
[Vo]:Feedback, formally - Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Some personal thoughts on Jeff Driscoll's recently expressed concerns - originally derived from subject thread: Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms, such as: ... Does anybody on Vortex agree with my previous email to Vortex about the capacitance probe? It can only sense the partial pressure of the water but saturated steam has a constant vapor pressure of 14.7 psi at all steam qualities between 0% and 100%. So the capitance will never change while the steam quality changes. and I know a guy that has visited many overunity groups that make extraordinary claims about a new energy source and every time after some scrutiny, there is fraud involved or some sort of mistake or he can never get close enough to determine the legitimacy of it. In my opinion Rossi shows signs of the fraud category. First, the LONG VERFSION OF A PERSONAL ADVENTURE OF MINE: I gather Mr. Driscoll has expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the measurements derived from a capacitance probe used in part to prove the quality of the steam allegedly generated from one of Rossi's e-cats. It seems to me that Mr. Driscoll has invested a considerable amount of his personal time in trying to explain as best he can his concerns on the matter. It is a commendable trait - to express one's concerns, to presumably seek feedback from others... assuming it really is honest feedback one is after, as compared to simply shopping around for additional confirmation that one's original theory had been correct all along. Mr. Driscoll's persistence on this matter reminds me of someone I know... I know a guy who didn't just visit overunity groups and kick a few tires in the sales lot. This particular individual allowed himself to become heavily invested (certainly in an emotional sense) in one particular overunity project. He also invested some of his own personal savings in trying to create a small POC, a Proof of Concept device. That guy was me. About five years ago I feverously worked in isolation on a personal OU project of mine. I worked on the project for about six months straight. Eventually, I assembled a report and I brought the fruits of my research to the attention of the organization I was working for under contract - without pay I might add. A colleague evaluated my findings. He completely dismissed my hard work, all in a matter of hours. He told me my design specs wouldn't work. He also chided me as to why had I waited so long before bringing my work to his attention. My response was that according to my calculations my design specs should work. He said my calculations were incorrect. We couldn't see eye-to-eye. Because the individual had been such a SOB to work for in the past, this based on past experience working for him as well as feedback I received from other colleagues, I was not entirely inclined to trust the conclusions he had arrived at - at face value, all within a matter of hours, not after I had spent 6 months of my own time meticulously working out the specs. This meant I had no recourse left me but to try to construct a preliminary bare-bones prototype myself... just enough of a prototype to strongly suggest to my peers that my POV on the matter might be reasonably accurate. It was time see who was right and who was wrong. My POC failed. Spectacularly so. I lost six months of my life pursuing a wild goose chase, along with eighteen months of personal savings. Quite understandably, I was in utter shock for about 48 hours. After an obligatory period of mourning, of suicidal rage, of crying and moaning and gnashing of teeth, I eventually took a closer look at my theoretical calculations. I eventually discerned a flaw in how I had interpreted certain readings generated from the software simulation package I was using. Turns out that my colleague, who honest-to-god really was a SOB to work for, was mostly correct - and I was entirely wrong. Granted, I was an honest mistake, a misinterpretation on my part, but a mistake nevertheless. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that I was trying to work in a field where there really weren't that many people I knew and that I could ask and get decent feedback from. I had learned from past experience that it was difficult to engage in feedback with this particular colleague because I occasionally observed him trash the work of other colleagues he felt he might be in competition with, regardless of whether such concerns were real or imagined. The point being, I made a decision to work in isolation. Unfortunately, it was an unwise decision on my part. Had there been someone I could have confided in I might have discovered my mistake earlier in the game and possibly have saved myself a lot of pain and hardship... as well eighteen months of personal $$$. One of the ironic lessons I took from that adventure was how exciting those times had been for me, this despite the fact that unbeknownst to me I was chasing a wild goose.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You really should give up on this claim. The manufacturer makes no claim about steam quality. It calculates enthalpy of humid air from the temperature and RH. As Driscoll has argued, a capacitance measurement could not give steam quality. You're quit right. Either the probe uses a polymer between two capacitor plates that absorbs water and the permeability between the capacitor plates changes accordingly or it measures the permeability directly. If it is a polymer, wet or dry steam makes no difference. The polymer will read 100% humidity in wet or dry steam. If it is measuring vapor directly the increase in capacitance is too high for 100% humidity. So, what's an instrumentation firmware programmer to do in this case? He can either display an overflow condition or call it 100% humidity. Having played the role of an instrumentation firmware programmer yahoo too many times, I would go with the latter choice. Why? The user could very well be using the thing in foggy weather. I still want my instrument to work in fog so I call it 100%. This would be OK. 100% is the humidity in fog.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole source of the dispute. Where have you been? Reading all this crap. Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . Now, you may certainly claim that this *implies* that the device he used can be used to indicate the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. But is that steam quality? He doesn't state that the device is a relative humidity meter. So he definitely does not state that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. He shows no sign of understanding the issue. Therefore using his comment as if Galantini had said that you are wrong, which is what you claimed, isn't being careful. Further, from his lack of understanding of the issue, presenting him as an expert is very shaky. There is no evidence I could find, other than bluster from Rossi, that Galantini would be any kind of expert in this field. He's a chemist. He does not state, there, that the steam is dry. He does not state what the meter read. He does not state what the ambient pressure was, which is critical for determining the boiling point. Note: grams of water per cubic meter of steam is, in fact, a calculated function of the meter he uses. It will display g/m^3. However, this is calculated from the RH and the temperature, and the meter isn't rated to make this calculation for live steam, it seems. No matter what probe. Jed, something has gone off the edge for you, with this. Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You are deriving conclusions outside the scope of the basic purpose and utility of the instrument. The device really only measures several parameters: relative humidity, and temperature (and, I think, pressure). Everything else is calculated. Steam quality is a complex and difficult-to-measure value, and the meter is not sold for it. There is no accuracy rating of the device, as to RH, at the boiling point. It *calculates* enthalpy assuming that this is air, at RH below 100% and temperatures below boiling, it appears. Where does the brochure state that it measures enthalpy? Again, Jed, I've been over this material and have quoted from these brochures many times. You simply make statements. Where does the brochure state that it will measure the enthalpy ... of steam? I've looked, extensively. Methods for measuring steam quality are very complex, compared to using an RH meter. It appears that if we have steam, any steam, high or low quality, at the boiling point, the meter will say the same value, which is the mass of water vapor per cubic meter, if it still works, which is not guaranteed. That is what it will display below that temperature. The device simply is not displaying liquid water that might be present, it has no way to measure it, it would require very complex sensors, certainly not what an RH meter uses. Here is what Galantini may have done: he used the meter and displayed the g/m^3 of water. He then compared this with the value for dry steam, and, amazing! They were close or the same! So he proclaimed that the steam was dry. It looks like Kullander and Essen may have done the same, but they came up with some (small) level of wetness. That might merely have been the measurement error of the meter! Krivit did speak with Kullander and Essen but obviously
Re: [Vo]:STOP obsessing about the meter. It makes no difference!!!
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Look, suppose for the sake of argument you are right. Suppose the steam is much wetter than Galantini thought. It makes no difference! It cannot be so wet there is no anomalous heat. But a small amount of anomalous heat is much less persuasive, because it requires smaller misrepresentations of power in, flow rate, or less amounts of chemical heat. The steam can certainly be so wet that no nuclear reactions need to be invoked. That's why Rossi claims dry steam. In most of the tests, the water temperature would not exceed 60°C if there was no anomalous heat. In *one* of the tests. Not most. The E and K test. In the Krivit test, the claimed input was enough to exceed boiling; in the two Lewan tests, it was enough to get within a few degrees of boiling, and in the January test, with the max flow rate of the pump, the input was enough to exceed boiling. You can throw away all of the enthalpy from a phase change to steam and the results are STILL massively positive. No. They're certainly not. In the one case, where the input was not enough to reach boiling, the required power was all of 300W. That's not massive in this kind of experiment. And in that experiment, the power was not monitored. And we have evidence of Rossi with his hands on the power control. So why on earth do you care about this?!? I cannot understand this mindset. Because without it, all the observations can be easily explained by smallish misrepresentations, and/or some chemical heat in the ecat. It is as if you watch Orville Wright fly for 20 minutes and then you say the flight was invalid because they used a derrick to launch. You can't just make up arbitrary comparisons. It is more like if Wright was airborne for 5 seconds out of the derrick, and claimed he was flying. Even if you are right, it proves NOTHING. It means NOTHING. All these other assertions about how Rossi's steam tests and flowing water tests might be wrong and how Rossi, Levi, Krivit cannot read a digital weight scale are blather and a stupid waste of time. If it is so obvious, why are so many people still skeptical? Why is it necessary for you to spend time arguing, if it's so obvious. The thing is, if the claims were real, it would be very easy to make it obvious. Rossi has not done this. Anyone who has done tests of this nature will know that the temperature of 101°C proves there was steam No one is denying there was steam. It's a question of how much steam, and how much water. and you can add in the heat of vaporization to get a reasonable approximation, the way Rossi did in Krivit's video. No. He assumed the steam was dry, which is almost certainly wrong. It is probably no more than 5 or 10% steam by mass. If the meter was wrong or there was some other fundamental problem, the second test with flowing water would proved decisively that there was no heat. As I said, if the claims were real, he could prove it more obviously, like with flowing water, and no phase change. So, why was the really decisive demo done in private? Furthermore, Defkalion has spent millions developing this technology, and the Greek Ministry has already subjected their prototypes to testing. The machines passed the first round of tests. So there is no question this technology is real. There is a mountain of evidence proving that. You are quibbling with one tiny part of that evidence. Right. The only part that has been made public. If Defkalion is so far along, why are they showing the public second rate demos? You are wasting your time fretting about this!!! It makes NO DAMN DIFFERENCE. Relax. It does make a difference. The question of wet and dry steam makes a factor of 7 or 8 difference in the required power. That's a DAMN DIFFERENCE.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi responds to movie professor and Peter Ekstrom's analysis
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com 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. Rossi has completely lost it. 1. He compares his hose to a radiator, but a steam radiator at 100C emits heat at about 240 BTU/(hr*ft^2); see e.g. http://www.colonialsupply.com/resources/radiator.htm, or many other sites that talk about steam radiators. That converts to about 750 W/m^2 or .075 W/cm^2, about 14 times lower than he claims for rubber at 80 or 90C. (And what is it with Wh/h instead of the simpler synonym W?) 2. A 3-m hose, 2.5 cm in diameter, has a surface area of 3*pi*.025 m^2 = 0.235 m^2 = 2350 cm^2. His value is twice this. This seems unlikely, but not completely implausible, if the hose is really 4.5 m long, and really 3.5 cm (almost 1.5) in diameter. 3. Has he ever been near a 5 kW heater, used in heating machine shops and the like? The claim that hose emits 5 kW is too implausible for words. 4. In the video, Rossi says to Krivit, there is some condensation, but not much. Here he says there is complete condensation. 5. The pressure in the ecat cannot be room pressure, or the fluid would not flow out of the ecat into the room. (I wrote this a week ago, but did not realize it was off-list.)
Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion-the Economist Magazine + CNET ??
In reply to Alan J Fletcher's message of Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:23:13 -0700: Hi, [snip] Based upon conversion of only Ni62 Ni64 to Cu63 Cu65 respectively, an electrical energy value of 5 cents / kWh (@30% conversion efficiency), I calculate a Ni value of $2085/kg. The current price of Ni is USD23.1 / kg, or about 1% of the value of the energy it represents, implying that this use of the metal would support a Nickel price 100 times higher than the current price. Two additional points: 1) Less than 5% of the Nickel would actually be used, leaving the rest for normal uses of the metal. 2) If all our energy were to be obtained form this source, then the demand for the metal would outstrip current production rates about 3 fold. 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 ?? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear friends, I have just posted INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462 at Ego Out- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/informavores-sunday-no-462.html An excellent issue- a proof the the World is interesting and active and the Web is a great place but dangerous - hic leones... Ni-H LENR increasingly interesting, first of all due to the good engineers from Defkalion (as Jed Rothwell has said today too) Interesting developments... I found this report particularly interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Source Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies. DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD. RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. more So, chow down guilt free for the Fourth, Americans. And let's hope for oil independence day for the world. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: *1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.* If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. Someone should inform Storms that at atmospheric pressure, steam is much less dense than water, so that 3.4% of water by mass corresponds to 98 % steam by volume. If steam takes up 98% of the volume, it doesn't seem likely that the chimney would fill with water, and the steam would bubble through it. Maybe Krivit would be willing to help Storms understand the difference between the mass fraction and the volume fraction. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with observation. Condensation of the steam in the hose would of course require dissipating the heat through the hose. Regardless of what may be happening in the chimney, I'm inclined to agree that if the flow rate is 1.9 mL/s, and if the power is 750 or 800W, there would be very little, if any, steam visible at the end of the hose, because it seems reasonable that the hose could dissipate 150W to 200 W. However, the small amount of steam that is visible does not need a nuclear reaction to explain it. A small amount of chemical heat in the ecat, or an easily plausible factor of two misrepresentation in the power or the flow rate could easily account for what is observed. *2. The steam contains water droplets, i.e, was not dry.* Power to heat water to 100° = 592 watt Power to vaporize all water = 1.94 * 2270 = 4404 watt Total = 4997 watt if all water is vaporized Excess power = 4249 watt The only way steam is wet is when water drops are present. If too many drops are present, they fall as rain (precipitate). It is simply impossible to have a large number of drops present. A 5% figure is chosen as an example here ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html) because this is a plausible amount. The 5% figure was chosen because that is typical of boilers, where the water is heated directly, and the mist is formed from the bubbling water. It is not by any stretch an indication of the maximum amount of mist that is possible in steam. The situation in the ecat is very different. The water is forced through at a fixed rate, and so when some steam forms, it moves through the conduit along with the flowing water, but at a much higher speed, depending on the tube diameter. Imagine 98 or 99% of the volume occupied by gas, and 1% by liquid as it flows through. A picture of falling rain doesn't really fit with that. For small tubes, this sort of 2-phase flow may result in annular flow, where a thin film of liquid flows along the walls, and the steam flows along the center. For smaller tubes, you get an annular/mist flow, and this can happen when the steam makes up as little as 1 or 2% of the water by mass (Inoue et al., Influence of two-phase flow characteristics on critical heat flux in low pressure, Exp. Thermal and Fluid Science 19 (1999) 172.) We don't know what's in that chimney. It could be a kind of nozzle, that sprays the remaining liquid into the chimney as a mist, which is then carried by the much more voluminous steam through the hose. Or it could simply be a coiled tube with a small diameter to promote the formation of mist. Or there might even be an ultrasonic nebulizer in there. It doesn't really matter. The simple point is that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with Rossi's claim of 5 kW (4.2 from the ecat), but is not inconsistent with a mixture of steam and mist corresponding to a lower flow rate, or higher power input. You know, if the steam were dry, there would have to be a transition from liquid water flowing out of the hose to dry steam, in which the steam quality would go continuously from 0% to 100% dry. And this transition should take quite long; on the order of tens of minutes. If Rossi were confident of his results, he would show this transition, so we could all see what the intermediate situations look like, and how they differ from dry steam. And he wouldn't get so nervous holding the hose up to keep water from coming out. Nevertheless, the conclusion would be the same even if 20% water drops were present. But not if the the fluid consisted of 98% liquid drops, or 95% or even
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? I don't trust that he would report it honestly. Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. So far, there is no indication that Krivit checked the flow rate. Even if he did, I don't trust that Rossi didn't rig it. Remember, he declined your offer to bring your own meters to check it out. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. Most research is subject to independent replication. Rossi's isn't. Even expensive experiments that can't be easily replicated, are subject to far more detailed scrutiny by a far broader spectrum of observers and participants. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No. It really can't. If it could, the manufacturer would promote it that way, because steam quality measurement is big business. But they don't. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. You are substituting hero worship for critical thought. So far, Rossi's record is zero for two. That doesn't sound brilliant to me. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's past indiscretions relates directly to his scientific credibility. His failure to deliver on his claims makes him less believable. If he had murdered someone in a fit of rage or vengeance, that would not bear on his scientific abilities. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. So they say... There is doubt they are real. I doubt they are real. Others do to. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. But the reports from Levy, and E and K are all poor quality. Pathetic quality, really. And they are scientists. Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. The significant doubts about steam quality (which makes a factor of 7 or 8 in the claimed power, not 20 or 1000), about flow rates, and claims of heat input have not been seriously addressed or contradicted. And they could be easily, if the claims were real. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. The temperature was reached as soon as boiling began. You cannot go discontinuously from below boiling to dry steam. The ecat has to heat up. Like it does before boiling is reached.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. I don't believe Galantini is an expert in those meters. And anyway, academics can be wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. No. They make no claim about measuring steam quality. This is your fantasy. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Storms is wrong.
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462
Thanks Terry, I was convinced about what this study says- with some timidity Peter On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: My dear friends, I have just posted INFORMAVORE's SUNDAY No. 462 at Ego Out- http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/07/informavores-sunday-no-462.html An excellent issue- a proof the the World is interesting and active and the Web is a great place but dangerous - hic leones... Ni-H LENR increasingly interesting, first of all due to the good engineers from Defkalion (as Jed Rothwell has said today too) Interesting developments... I found this report particularly interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648 Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Source Children's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies. DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD. RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. more So, chow down guilt free for the Fourth, Americans. And let's hope for oil independence day for the world. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by definition. Molecules of water must achieve sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the intermolecular forces of liquid water. Statistically, some molecules are able to achieve this at room temperature; so, water will evaporate. Immediately upon leaving the surface of water; however, those molecules begin to lose kinetic energy to the surrounding air and begin to condense. If they leave with only sufficient KE to depart the surface, ie 100 C, they will begin to condense immediately. However, molecules do not go walkabout together from the surface. If it's steam, it's dry. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I . . . The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . That text appears to be scrambled or incomplete. Not sure what 176 Text Code . . . is. In the first test, Galantini used a Delta Ohm monitor to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is a model HD37AB1347 IAQ with a high temperature HP474AC SICRAM sensor. See: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The brochure and the experts that Lewan and I have contacted say this instrument measures the enthalpy of steam. I expect they are right and the people who say otherwise here are wrong. I have no further comments on this issue. - Jed
[Vo]:Test
Cannot connect to Vortex. - Transcript of session follows - flist: Couldn't chdir to /userspace/smartlist 550 5.3.0 |flist vortex-l... Cannot open input
Re: [Vo]:Test
I have seen your message peter On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Cannot connect to Vortex. - Transcript of session follows - flist: Couldn't chdir to /userspace/smartlist 550 5.3.0 |flist vortex-l... Cannot open input -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Comment from Defkalion forum -- plaintext version
I am having trouble getting messages through. Here is one converted to plaintext. Here is an interesting comment from the forum. I think the direct link is: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=148p=2609#p2609 I am going to go through all of the moderator's comments and assemble and FAQ similar to the one we made for Rossi. I will also make a new Special Collection for information on Defkalion and the eCat, because they are eating up the News section. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dave wrote: I have a few questions for defkalion: 1) Do you use glycol as the main heating loop and water as the secondary when testing the Hyperions? 2) Have you measured the input and output temperature as well as flow rate for the glycol loop to determine the output heat energy? 3) Is there a phase change in any of the coolants when you run you tests? 4) Do you run a test on the Hyperions after they are assembled that includes a thermal run away condition? Here I refer to output power being generated while no input power is applied. 5) Is it possible for you to display to us the test data from a typical power out/ power in run? I really would like to be able to calculate the power out / power in for a unit being tested in your factory. 6) Will each Hyperion unit have its own calibration chart? What type of information will be supplied on these charts? Please forgive me if you have answered these questions in other threads. There is a great number of posts being made and I have a difficult time locating the ones from which I need information. Thank you for any response you may present. DEFKALION MODERATOR RESPONSE -- Here are the answeres to your questions: 1) Glycol (up to 195C) or other coolants for higher temperatures are in the main closed heating loop cooling the reactor(s). Typically we test Hyperions with external U-tube multi-pass or plate external heat exchangers where, in most cases, water is in the secondary circuit. 2) Yes. We have answered already on the method and specs from the embedded ultrasonic flow meter devises and thermometers we use as standard in all Hyperions for calorimeter as part of the internal heat management system, controled by their electronics. 3)We test Hyperions adjusted never to reach boiling point of any coolant in use. There is change of phase when using certain melting salts as coolants for high demanding applications that require temperature close to Hyperion's max output (414C): at 60-85C such coolants change phase from solid to liquid having boiling point higher than 1000C. 4) Quality and stress testing protocols on products are more demanding than checking only this. The answer to your question is yes. 5) We will provide such graph and data with the specs sheets of products before any release to the market. Then you can do your math having all the rest of the information you will need to check. 6) Yes, there are more than one calibration charts for each product kept in product support database. These include calibration results of every subsystem or component related with its functionality, stability and safety, not just general calibration on performance. Thank you for your questions and your patience
Re: [Vo]:Test
Vortex was down for most of yesterday. I am subscribed to the Eskimo yahoo list. If any member ever wants to find out what's doin' with Vortex list, you may send me a email directly. Also, you can also check the archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/ to see if Eskimo is echoing the messages to the archive. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by definition. Where is this definition given? There are very clear, well-defined, concepts related to steam, dry steam, wet steam, and steam quality. A simple google search will help you understand them. Steam is water vapor at 100C. If there are suspended or entrained droplets of liquid, the steam is said to be wet; if not, dry. Steam quality represents the mass fraction of the fluid that is in the vapor state: 100% quality means there no liquid droplets present; 50% quality means that 50% of the water by mass is liquid, and 50% by mass is vapor. 0% quality means all liquid. Of course, 0% quality is just liquid if there are no other gases present, so no one would consider it steam. But note that 1% quality steam is already 94% steam by volume, and so all the liquid could conceivably be suspended as a fine mist in the gaseous steam. Especially if the steam is moving at a high speed. Molecules of water must achieve sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the intermolecular forces of liquid water. Statistically, some molecules are able to achieve this at room temperature; so, water will evaporate. Immediately upon leaving the surface of water; however, those molecules begin to lose kinetic energy to the surrounding air and begin to condense. Condensation occurs at the surface when favorable collisions from other water molecules, and favorable lack of collisions from the gas molecules allows them to break the bonds. The kinetic energy of the molecules can be less than the average at 100C. Once evaporated, the molecules can exist as a gas well below the boiling point. Condensation requires favorable collisions (glancing) with other water molecules (or droplets) so that the short range attractive force has time to bind them together. Condensation occurs continuously (considering the vapor molecules collectively), but so does evaporation, so at equilibrium, there is always some water vapor. If they leave with only sufficient KE to depart the surface, ie 100 C, they will begin to condense immediately. A single molecule of water does not condense, so it is not clear what this means. The vapor, as I said, is continuously condensing. A single molecule has a certain half-life as a gas. However, molecules do not go walkabout together from the surface. Are you saying droplets cannot be formed directly from liquid? In a boiler, which is what you seem to be talking about, steam is formed under water, so there are bubbles, which rise to the surface, and produce small splashes. This turbulence produces droplets in a range of sizes. The smaller ones are carried into the air along with the rising water vapor (steam). Typically, in a boiler, the steam is about 5% liquid by mass, according to the site Storms linked to. Entrained liquid is very bad for pipes, and has been compared to sand colliding with the surfaces and fittings. That's why the question steam quality is extremely important. In a cool mister, there is no steam at all. Fine droplets are simply carried into the air. We don't know what happens in the ecat, but one possibility is that a small mass fraction of the water is vaporized, it occupies a large fraction of the volume, and entrains the liquid as a fine mist. Try to imagine what would come out of that hose if the ecat (in the Krivit test) were producing 1.5 kW. (Say it were replaced with an electric heater with exactly 1.5 kW power.) In that case, 600 W would raise the temperature to boiling, leaving 900W to produce steam. That's only enough to vaporize about 20% of the liquid by mass. You must therefore get a mixture of liquid and gas flowing. The gas would occupy about 99.7% of the volume in the conduit (before condensation). The liquid would occupy about 3 parts in 1000 of the volume. What would you expect to see coming out of the hose? Whatever it is, it's what people call low quality steam; also: wet steam. If it's steam, it's dry. Wrong. Steam can be wet.
[Vo]:Cold Fusion-new interview with Professor Hagelstein
Greetings Vortex-L: Re: Hagelstein I haven t seen this cold fusion post before on Vortex. Also the ecat of Professor Rossi is cited at the bottom of the page: http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1872category=Science Respectfully, Ron Kita , Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam
[Vo]:Of interest to experimenters
http://www.qsinano.com/new/qsi_nano_nickel_ni_5_oct_09.pdf attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Yes Sir. From that article: but such wet-steam conditions have to be limited to avoid excessive turbine blade erosion See also the article vapor quality on wikipedia, in particular the section of steam quality, where you find: The genesis of the idea of vapor quality was derived from the origins of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics, where an important application was the steam engine. Low quality steam would contain a high moisture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisture percentage and therefore damage components more easily[*citation neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed *]. High quality steam would not corrodehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrode the steam engine. Steam engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine use water vapor (steam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam) to drive pistons which create work. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by *steam quality* (steam dryness), the proportion of saturatedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(chemistry) steam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_quality#cite_note-3 i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Steam can be wet. Live with it. Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam: steam [steem] –noun 1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, this is why wikipedia talks about machines. Steam is dry.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam: steam [steem] –noun 1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor. Water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor can have droplets suspended in it. That makes it wet steam. Towel: A piece of absorbent cloth. Wet towel: A piece of absorbent cloth with water droplets supported in it. A wet towel is still a towel. Moreover, from the American Heritage Dictionary: Steam: 1 a. The vapor phase of water b. A mist of cooling water vapor. and from dictionary.com: Steam: [...] 3. the mist formed when the gas or vapor from boiling water condenses in the air. Steam can be wet. Live with it. And yes, it is semantics. So both your semantics and your physics are wrong. The criticism of the ecat, independent of your semantic problems, is that what comes out of it is not pure vapor, but a mixture of vapor and liquid, and therefore represents about 7 or 8 times less power than claimed.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, No, it can exist under a variety of condtions. Steam is dry. Some steam is dry. Some steam is wet. You just admitted steam can be wet above.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at 100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid state without at least some kind of squirting be constantly be pouring out of the house.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Why should it change as it leaves the hose? Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at 100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid state without at least some kind of squirting be constantly be pouring out of the house. I don't know about the 15% limit, but I suspect you're right that in the hose, some suspended liquid would probably settle out. But at one or two g/s flow, this does not have to represent much squirting. That's barely more than a dripping faucet, and seems pretty consistent with what Lewan showed in his video, in which he collected (according to him) about half the input flow as a liquid. No particular squirting was visible. It's also consistent with the Krivit test, in which Rossi held the hose vertically for too short a period for 2 g/s flow of liquid to come out of the hose.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets that are carried into the air by the vapor. Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? Many people seem to claim that the water was not turned to a gas in order to leave the reactor.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets that are carried into the air by the vapor. Steam can be wet. Live with it. OMG Cude! You are so full of it! Have you ever studied any science? T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method. Oh, it splashed out of the reactor!! Why did I not think of that? No wait! The molecules grew cilia and it walked out of the reactor! /sarcasm The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas. Indeed it will be condensed and visible just above the surface of the water; but, it was converted to a gas first. T
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method. The water, in whatever state, is forced through by a pump. That's a mechanical method. The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas. Or it leaves as a mist of very small water droplets entrained in the vapor. Remember, if only 2% of the water by mass is converted to vapor, then the vapor occupies 97% of the volume. Again, what would you expect to see if the ecat delivered 1.5 kW of power? The output would have to be a mixture of liquid and vapor to conserve energy.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Ahem. From the very article you reference, A gas can only contain a certain amount of steam (the quantity varies with temperature and pressure). When a gas has absorbed its maximum amount it is said to be in vapor-liquid equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor-liquid_equilibrium [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#cite_note-0 and if more water is added it is described as 'wet steam'.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
This is why one should look at the general appearance of a 2 fluid flow to draw a conclusion.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I was always taught that, technically speaking, steam is an invisible gas. However, most of us quite naturally tend to only notice the clouds of water vapor condensing out from the invisible steam as it cools. We tend to incorrectly associate, in the visual sense, those tiny suspended condensed droplets of water as steam. I continue to make this visualization mistake all the time even today, as do most of us, simply because it's convenient to do so, even though technically speaking I know it's inaccurate. To be honest I think the latest semantics battle over the definition of what steam really is, is now in danger of turning into silly pointless argument - is the steam wet or is it dry. Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being expelled directly FROM WITHIN the end of black hose from Rossi's e-cat test. In other words I gather you are arguing from the premise that the steam already contained suspended droplets of condense water within the black hose, and through guilt by association, there must have also been condensed water vapor within the chimney of the e-cat prior to the water-gas mixture exiting into the black hose. Is this an accurate assumption on my part? As for me, I was under the impression (an impression that admittedly could be wrong) that those who looked closely at the end of the black hose noticed that the first signs of condensation of tiny suspended water droplets were observed to have formed OUTSIDE of the end of hose... let's say, maybe, about quarter of an inch or so from the tip. Can someone tell me if this is this an accurate assumption on my part or not? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I wrote: and where does that released latent heat GO? To which Jeff replied: It goes into colder water entering the ecat So, let me get this straight... The above statement is what you think is the most likely 'sink' for the heat energy released when a number of vapor particles give off some of that heat energy and condense into a microscopic (suspended) droplet? I think even JC would have a problem with that one... -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms It goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery. 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Feedback, formally - Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 01:38 PM 7/4/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: [with some personal history, which I very much appreciate, there are valuable lessons for all of us in this, so I sincerely thank Steven for sharing this, there is some historical pain there.) As to Driscoll -- and myself-- some of us like to write about what we know, even if what we know is, sometimes, in the overall scheme of things, not so important. When we write what we know, and it is attacked, we may persist, standing up for what we know. You were right, Steven, to stand up for your error, until it became visible to you. I'd fault the person you worked with for not respecting and caring about you sufficiently to show you your error, and my guess is that this person didn't actually know what your error was, but was simply assuming that there must be an error, since what you were claiming was, he believed, impossible. While that's a somewhat reasonable position, and he wasn't obligated to do your homework for you, he could have been far less of an asshole about it. And you might have, indeed, have opened up your work, gotten some independent criticism, etc. As soon as anyone is stuck on Being Right, they are dead meat as far as science and transformation is concerned. It's been a major realization for me, the diffence between Being Right and standing for what I see or think or choose. With the former, I'm convinced that You are Wrong, or even Everyone Else is Wrong. Sucks, eh? But if I take a stand, I stand to learn something, I don't have to be right to take a stand, I merely need to be honest, this is what I think, and I'm not moved by a bunch of assholes -- or even nice, smiling people -- telling me that I'm Wrong. Please, show me the error. If you can't, you don't inspire confidence in your knowledge that I'm Wrong. Sure, it can take time. Real investigation takes patience, and maybe you don't have time right now. Okay, later. Let's make a date! No time for idiots like me? Thanks for sharing, and you are welcome to jump in the lake! I'll ask someone else, someone with more caring and patience.
Re: [Vo]:Feedback, formally - Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Off topic: Steven, I sent you an email, did you receive it?
[Vo]: Survey based on Steam Phase diagram...
Take a look at Fig. 2.2.3 (about 2/3rds of the way down the page) on this website: http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-he at-transfer/what-is-steam.asp There is a very clear explanation below the Figure... This is the best reference and explanation I've seen so far... * For all those who care to chime in, I'd like to know where you think the E-Cat is operating along the A-B-C-D line segments? Or NOT on any of those segments... * -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Feedback, formally - Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Off topic: Steven, I sent you an email, did you receive it? Daniel, If you sent it to my gmail account... no I don't have it. If you sent it to a non-gmail address I won't get it till I get home. I don't tend to access my personal accounts at work. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Hello, To get an indication if all the water running through the ecat has been fully evaporated it would only be necessary to add a dye (e.g red colour) to the cold water in the tank. If the water in the black hose is completely clear it would be prove that all the water has been evaporated. The water in the black hose would then be distillated water and not overflow. Peter van Noorden - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms I was always taught that, technically speaking, steam is an invisible gas. However, most of us quite naturally tend to only notice the clouds of water vapor condensing out from the invisible steam as it cools. We tend to incorrectly associate, in the visual sense, those tiny suspended condensed droplets of water as steam. I continue to make this visualization mistake all the time even today, as do most of us, simply because it's convenient to do so, even though technically speaking I know it's inaccurate. To be honest I think the latest semantics battle over the definition of what steam really is, is now in danger of turning into silly pointless argument - is the steam wet or is it dry. Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being expelled directly FROM WITHIN the end of black hose from Rossi's e-cat test. In other words I gather you are arguing from the premise that the steam already contained suspended droplets of condense water within the black hose, and through guilt by association, there must have also been condensed water vapor within the chimney of the e-cat prior to the water-gas mixture exiting into the black hose. Is this an accurate assumption on my part? As for me, I was under the impression (an impression that admittedly could be wrong) that those who looked closely at the end of the black hose noticed that the first signs of condensation of tiny suspended water droplets were observed to have formed OUTSIDE of the end of hose... let's say, maybe, about quarter of an inch or so from the tip. Can someone tell me if this is this an accurate assumption on my part or not? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being expelled directly FROM WITHIN the end of black hose from Rossi's e-cat test. I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat (corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose. And that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with 4 or 5 kW of steam enthalpy. It's far less even than what you get out of a 2 kW steam cleaner shown on youtube and referenced here previously. Instead, I would judge the output to be more consistent with a few hundred watts of power (1 kW tops) over and above the power needed to heat the water. This is not based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under water (not much). The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling point. Rossi has simply not provided any credible evidence of dry steam. He has not reported any measurement that actually depends on the dryness of the steam (like the output flow rate) to give observers any confidence in his claims. His claims would be more believable without demos than they are with the shabby demos he has done so far.
Re: [Vo]: Survey based on Steam Phase diagram...
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Take a look at Fig. 2.2.3 (about 2/3rds of the way down the page) on this website: http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-he at-transfer/what-is-steam.asp There is a very clear explanation below the Figure... This is the best reference and explanation I've seen so far... * For all those who care to chime in, I'd like to know where you think the E-Cat is operating along the A-B-C-D line segments? Or NOT on any of those segments... * That is a nice account. The diagram (2.2.3) is schematic, and the ABCD path represents constant pressure, so presumably it could represent atmospheric pressure. The diagram illustrates nicely why the constant temperature observed means the ecat is operating between points B and C, and that the enthalpy changes by a factor of about 8 over that range (depending on the starting temperature of the water). Rossi is clearly claiming the ecat operates at point C, and skeptics like me are saying it is probably operating closer to point B. Note that none of the quantitative measures that Rossi reports distinguishes between these two extreme possibilities. The appearance of the steam at the output, seems more consistent to me with something close to B, rather than close to C, but we should not have to rely on that. It's a really poor (or really clever, depending on your purpose) experimental design that does not measure (let alone monitor) anything relevant during an 8-fold increase in enthalpy, like the output flow rate, or the temperature inside the ecat.
[Vo]:Larger 3.45 MW Defkalion reactor described
See: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=205p=2762 Here is a message I posted which I believe clarifies the description. The gist of this is -- Defkalion will build large reactors made up of smaller ones ganged together, but the output from the smaller reactors will be much higher than the 1 MW ganged-up reactor that Rossi is working on, so there will be fewer small reactors in the array, and the entire array will produce more power than Rossi's large reactor. - Jed Defkalion GT wrote: Hyperion products at kW range will be released and certified with maximum 30kW output in a multi reactor configuration. Arrays of such kW range products in a 20feet container, all in parallel configuration, can output a maximum (at the moment) of 3,45MW(th). That description is a little confusing. Based on the White Paper and other responses here, let me see if I can restate this to be sure we understand: The core Hyperion reactor will be certified for 30 kW output maximum. These reactors will be ganged together in a multi-reactor configuration, connected in parallel. This array of multiple reactors will be placed in a standard 20-foot container. In this configuration, maximum output will be 3.45 MW (thermal), with about 100 reactors ganged together. [Note that Europeans use a comma where U.S. and Japanese use a period decimal point.]
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
From Josh: I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat (corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose. And that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with 4 or 5 kW of steam enthalpy. It's far less even than what you get out of a 2 kW steam cleaner shown on youtube and referenced here previously. Instead, I would judge the output to be more consistent with a few hundred watts of power (1 kW tops) over and above the power needed to heat the water. This is not based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under water (not much). You give technical reasons for why you have arrived at your conclusions, but I don't feel you have answered the specifics of my original question. I will therefore rephrase it: Do you know if the gas being expelled from the black hose showed any signs of having started to condense into water droplets PRIOR to exiting the end of the hose? IOW, was the observed gas totally invisible at the end of the black hose, or was some condensation (mist) observed directly exiting the hose. My understanding was that the gas was completely invisible at the end of the black hose. Observers subsequently noticed that water vapor (condensation) began to form away from the hose... perhaps a quarter of an inch or so. However, my assumption might be incorrect. I'm hoping someone can clarify the matter. The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling point. This particular issue has been argued excessively in the Vortex Forum. I gather not everyone agrees with your interpretation. As for me, I remember my own high school chemistry labs. I recall heating solutions of unspecified liquids in order to convert them into gas. As various solutions transformed into a gas they would immediately leave the boiling flask. What was interesting about this experiment was the fact that the temperature of the remaining liquid ALWAYS remained consistent or at the same level of the respective boiling point. Obviously, the liquid that had just been converted into a gas and had immediately left couldn't possibly be any hotter that the respective temperature of the remaining liquid, especially if it was not contained like in a pressure cooker. It's my understanding that Rossi's e-cat is not designed to retain water under pressure as if it is a pressure cooker. The expelled water is going to be pretty darn close to 100 C no matter how hot the Rossi reaction might be. The only difference would be that the hotter the Rossi Reaction might get, the quicker the various solutions will convert to gas based on their respective boiling points. But it won't make the water turned into a gas any hotter. It will just increase the volume of liquid begin converted into a gas. Is it the conversion rate what is being disputed? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Josh: This is not based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under water (not much). You give technical reasons for why you have arrived at your conclusions, but I don't feel you have answered the specifics of my original question. I will therefore rephrase it: Do you know if the gas being expelled from the black hose showed any signs of having started to condense into water droplets PRIOR to exiting the end of the hose? I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. I don't think the water droplets are formed by condensation; I think they are formed by turbulence in the ecat or the chimney. I think only a small mass fraction of the water ever changes phase. If the expelled steam is invisible at the end of the hose, there is still far too little of it to account for 2 g/s flow rate. There must be liquid somewhere. I don't think it is invisible, but if it is, then maybe the mist settles out before it reaches the end of the hose, and flows out slowly (without filling the hose to block the steam). It's only a couple of mL per second. With the hose vertical, maybe only the steam comes out. That may be why Rossi gets nervous; he realizes that water is collecting in the hose, and after some time it will start to block the steam, and then there will be sputtering. The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling point. This particular issue has been argued excessively in the Vortex Forum. I gather not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. As for me, I remember my own high school chemistry labs. I recall heating solutions of unspecified liquids in order to convert them into gas. As various solutions transformed into a gas they would immediately leave the boiling flask. What was interesting about this experiment was the fact that the temperature of the remaining liquid ALWAYS remained consistent or at the same level of the respective boiling point. Obviously, the liquid that had just been converted into a gas and had immediately left couldn't possibly be any hotter that the respective temperature of the remaining liquid, especially if it was not contained like in a pressure cooker. Yes, and to repeat, these experiments all heat the liquid directly, not the gas. In the ecat, if all the water is converted to steam in the ecat, then the steam would be heated directly, and as shown in that figure, there is nothing stopping it from getting hotter. It's my understanding that Rossi's e-cat is not designed to retain water under pressure as if it is a pressure cooker. The expelled water is going to be pretty darn close to 100 C no matter how hot the Rossi reaction might be. No. This was Rothwell's problem for a long time too. You don't need elevated pressure to heat steam above the boiling point. Air is at atmospheric pressure and it is about 200C above its boiling point. And when you pass air past hot elements in your furnace, it gets hotter still. Gas can be heated at constant (atmospheric) pressure. No problem. This misconception is an indication that our education system is failing us. And if you don't like the figure I mentioned, look at any phase diagram to see that gas can exist above the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. The only difference would be that the hotter the Rossi Reaction might get, the quicker the various solutions will convert to gas based on their respective boiling points. If the liquid is converted to gas quicker, that means earlier in the ecat, then the gas will have to pass the heated walls of the ecat, and will therefore get hotter. But it won't make the water turned into a gas any hotter. It will just increase the volume of liquid begin converted into a gas. If it is *all* being converted into a gas, how can it increase the volume that is converted? It can't, and the only way energy can be conserved is for the gas to get hotter (or for more heat to radiate through the insulation).
[Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
Let me summarize some things here regarding electric power generation with the Defkalion reactors. This information is scattered around. Some is from my memory. Defkalion has made a number of comments in the White Paper and on their forum regarding the prospects for electric power generation. They have been testing their reactors with several small generators. I think their plan is to certify the reactors will work with several brands, and then have the customer or OEM supply the generator separately. In other words Defkalion will not manufacture electric generators. A wise decision; they have enough on their plate already. They mentioned several specific brands and types of small generators they have tested, but I can't find those specifics at the moment. In all reactors, they use a primary loop with one liquid that stays in liquid phase, and a heat exchanger for the working liquid or gas to be heated. With glycol the maximum temperature they can reach is 190°C. Carnot efficiency is not very good at that temperature, so my guess is that these reactors will be used primarily for heating, including process steam. They have tested other liquids for higher temperature applications. I don't know what these other liquids are, but one of them reaches 414°C. This is considerably hotter than the primary loop in most fission reactors. Carnot efficiency is fine at this temperature. The said the lowest input to output ratio they have observed is 1:19. I think 1:30 is what they usually achieve, but don't hold me to that. They achieve these ratios every time, on demand. It takes about 4 minutes for the reactors to go to maximum power. It is clear that with these temperatures, input to output ratios, and speed, generating electricity efficiently and making the thing fully self-sustaining will be a trivial problem. It is only a matter of engineering as physicists say. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right... No evidence at all for excess heat production...
Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
I only found this substance with a boiling point of 414C: http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/TR/tris(2-ethylhexyl)trimellitate.html http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=18725 Synonyms: 1,2,4-benzenetricarboxylic acid tris(2-ethylhexyl) ester, trioctyl trimellitate, tri-2-ethylhexyl trimellitate, TOTM, Hatcol 200, Kodaflex TOTM, Monosizer W710L, Morflex 510, Staflex TOTM, Trimex T 08 It has almost the same density of water.
Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
I wrote: It takes about 4 minutes for the reactors to go to maximum power. I meant from stand-by mode. I don't know how long it takes from being fully off. A cold fusion power reactor would be left in stand-by mode I think. There is no need to turn it all the way off to save fuel, obviously. You might want to turn it off to reduce wear and tear on the glycol pump and other components. The 4 minutes was quoted in their blog, by the spokesperson. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. Dry steam will most certainly increase in temperature *IF* it can hang around long enough in a super heated environment to absorb additional heat. That is the question. To be honest I can't make heads or tails of the diagram, this after staring at it and reading the accompanying explanations several times. The information it attempts to reveal (which presumably was laid out in a simplified manner) was not diagramed in a way that I can translate. Obviously, that is my misfortune. But no matter. This is not rocket science we are dealing with here. Nevertheless, I agree with the premise that if water droplets still exist, and if those droplets are suspended throughout the H2O gas, it will prevent the combination from increasing above 100C, assuming we are at sea level. That's pretty much what my high school chemistry lab session proved to me. It was a fun experiment. However, I repeat. A key point in all of this conjecture is the fact for the 100% dry H2O gas to increase in temperature much above 100 C, it has to hang around long enough within a super heated environment in order to absorb additional heat energy. I am under the impression that the water that was being heated in Rossi's demo e-cat was NOT under any pressure, meaning it is not maintained within a contained environment. Therefore, the newly converted gas, which BTW is constantly expanding, quickly exits the heated reactor chamber. Once the H2O leaves the confines of heated reactor chamber (which it will quickly do) it no longer has a chance to increase much above the 100 C temp it had initially acquired. Therefore how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
On 2011-07-06 02:43, Jed Rothwell wrote: They have tested other liquids for higher temperature applications. I don't know what these other liquids are, but one of them reaches 414°C. Who says that it has to be a pressure of 1 bar? For example at 35 bar the boiling point of ethylene glycol could be raised to about 410 °C (although self-ignition might start being a problem at lower temperatures as pressure is increased). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
The Kirvit video *might* be explained in terms of the Tarallo Water Diversion Fake: http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.php Harry From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Electric generator configuration described [Copy 2]
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: They have tested other liquids for higher temperature applications. I don't know what these other liquids are, but one of them reaches 414°C. Who says that it has to be a pressure of 1 bar? For example at 35 bar the boiling point of ethylene glycol could be raised to about 410 °C They said it was a different liquid. They may have said what it is, but I do not recall and I cannot find the message. I have been having some trouble accessing their forum, and the search feature does not work well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.comwrote: From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. Dry steam will most certainly increase in temperature *IF* it can hang around long enough in a super heated environment to absorb additional heat. That is the question. It's simpler than that. It's a matter of conservation of energy. If the power increases slightly above what is necessary to boil all the water to produce dry steam, then unless the additional heat finds its way through the insulation, the only way to remove that heat is by heating the steam to a higher temperature. At equilibrium, power in must equal power out. Probably some combination happens, but removing the heat by heating the vapor is certainly more efficient than dissipating the heat through the insulation. If you think it doesn't hang around long enough when the power just exceeds dry steam, then the fluid is not removing heat fast enough, and so the ecat will get hotter. That means the water will boil a little earlier, and the steam has to pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and at a higher temperature. Very soon, the water boils away early enough, and the ecat is hot enough so that the gas *is* able to remove the additional power, and a new equilibrium is established with the steam coming out at a higher temperature. Then the power in once again equals power out. However, I repeat. A key point in all of this conjecture is the fact for the 100% dry H2O gas to increase in temperature much above 100 C, it has to hang around long enough within a super heated environment in order to absorb additional heat energy. Yes, but it must get hotter if power in is to equal power out. I am under the impression that the water that was being heated in Rossi's demo e-cat was NOT under any pressure, meaning it is not maintained within a contained environment. Once again, pressure is not necessary. Therefore, the newly converted gas, which BTW is constantly expanding, quickly exits the heated reactor chamber. Yes, and indoor air quickly leaves a furnace element, but it still gets hotter. Once the H2O leaves the confines of heated reactor chamber (which it will quickly do) it no longer has a chance to increase much above the 100 C temp it had initially acquired. Obviously not. It must get heated before it leaves the cell. Therefore how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. How can it not? If the power-in exceeds the power needed for dry steam, as it probably would occasionally if there were ordinary fluctuations in the ecat output of the sort described in the secret 18-hour experiment, then the power-out must also increase. And the only way for the power out to increase, if the steam is already dry, is for it to get hotter.
Re: [Vo]:Feedback, formally - Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd, I agree with your proposal for sharing one's honest assessments, while always being open to consider evidence and reason on both sides of the issue -- in my case, I never require courteous sharings from others, only from myself... In mutual service, Rich
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I think one has to take into consideration the specific heat... think of the water as a big 'heat capacitor', and although it is at the boiling point (BP) at point 'B' on the graph, it absorbs a shitload more heat energy by the time it gets to point 'C' on the graph, imparting more and more kinetic energy to both the liquid and vapor water molecules, which reduces the likelihood of finding any liquid water in the steam. Joshua's insistance that the temperature of the steam MUST be well above BP is ASSUMING that the capacitor is full, and there's no where else for the heat to go but into the vapor molecules. What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the heat-capacitor? It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature. From the measurements and statements made by the Rossi camp, I would bet that the E-Cat is operating at SLIGHTLY to the LEFT of point 'C'... where there's enough kinetic energy in the steam to maintain it at less than 1.5% liquid water (by mass) in the chimney, but still able to absorb some modest heat fluctuations from the reactor without significantly changing the temperature of the steam in the chimney -- i.e., what fluctuations that do occur in the reactor heat output are dampened by the heat storage capacity of the water / steam capacitor. Thus, ***IF*** the reactor's heat output is stable enough, it could achieve what they are saying... Anybody have any insights as to how stable the heat output of the reactor is? Does it fluctuate by 10 watts, 100 watts or 1000 watts? And over what time period? -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.comwrote: From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. Dry steam will most certainly increase in temperature *IF* it can hang around long enough in a super heated environment to absorb additional heat. That is the question. It's simpler than that. It's a matter of conservation of energy. If the power increases slightly above what is necessary to boil all the water to produce dry steam, then unless the additional heat finds its way through the insulation, the only way to remove that heat is by heating the steam to a higher temperature. At equilibrium, power in must equal power out. Probably some combination happens, but removing the heat by heating the vapor is certainly more efficient than dissipating the heat through the insulation. If you think it doesn't hang around long enough when the power just exceeds dry steam, then the fluid is not removing heat fast enough, and so the ecat will get hotter. That means the water will boil a little earlier, and the steam has to pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and at a higher temperature. Very soon, the water boils away early enough, and the ecat is hot enough so that the gas *is* able to remove the additional power, and a new equilibrium is established with the steam coming out at a higher temperature. Then the power in once again equals power out. However, I repeat. A key point in all of this conjecture is the fact for the 100% dry H2O gas to increase in temperature much above 100 C, it has to hang around long enough within a super heated environment in order to absorb additional heat energy. Yes, but it must get hotter if power in is to equal power out. I am under the impression that the water that was being heated in Rossi's demo e-cat was NOT under any pressure, meaning it is not maintained within a contained environment. Once again, pressure is not necessary. Therefore, the newly converted gas, which BTW is constantly expanding, quickly exits the heated reactor chamber. Yes, and indoor air quickly leaves a furnace element, but it still gets hotter. Once the H2O leaves the confines of heated reactor chamber (which it will quickly do) it no longer has a chance to increase much above the 100 C temp it had initially acquired. Obviously not. It must get heated before it leaves the cell. Therefore how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. How can it not? If the power-in exceeds the power needed for dry steam, as it probably would occasionally if there were ordinary fluctuations in the ecat output of the sort
Re: [Vo]: Survey based on Steam Phase diagram...
Assuming the boiling is always happening at the same pressure, you can extend the horizontal line B-C to the temperature axis and treat that as the temperature of boiling. Wet steam is present only AT the temperature of boiling. As long as the temperature of the vapour is just above the boiling temperature then you can be sure it is dry steam, even if it is only a tenth of degree above the boiling temperature. Harry From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 3:47:37 PM Subject: [Vo]: Survey based on Steam Phase diagram... Take a look at Fig. 2.2.3 (about 2/3rds of the way down the page) on this website: http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-engineering-tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-he at-transfer/what-is-steam.asp There is a very clear explanation below the Figure... This is the best reference and explanation I've seen so far... * For all those who care to chime in, I'd like to know where you think the E-Cat is operating along the A-B-C-D line segments? Or NOT on any of those segments... * -Mark
[Vo]:Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer
Check out the video linked on the following page. It's awesome! What do all of you think? Hitler Panics Over Rossi's Energy Catalyzer A parody compiled by Hank Mills has Hitler bemoaning: If cold fusion technology hits the market place the oil industry will lose BILLIONS of dollars in profits! Hot fusion research will come to an end too! All the funding will be lost! How can we convince people to keep using fossil fuels if cheap, clean, and abundant energy from cold fusion is available? http://pesn.com/2011/07/05/9501863_Hitler_Panics_Over_Rossi_E-Cat/
[Vo]:The Dipole Blockaid error resend
I think that heavy Rydberg matter dipole shielding of the nickel nuclei allow protons to penetrate the nuclear coulomb barrier of nickel atoms. In Rydberg matter, this dipole shielding goes as the 7th power of the number of atoms in the Rydberg matter assemblages. This polarization of Rydberg matter is clearly huge and can easily overcome the coulomb potential in the nickel atoms. In Rydberg matter, all the dipole moments of all the constituent atoms are coordinated and identical. Furthermore, the coherent nature of Rydberg matter range from just a single atom to large numbers in excess of 100 based upon the temperature and pressure of the hydrogen envelope; the higher the pressure and temperature, the greater on the average is the number of member atoms in the Rydberg matter assemblages. In other words, the higher the temperature of this hydrogen envelope, the greater is the number of coherent atoms that join the Rydberg matter assemblages. You may have not considered how nuclear reactions affect atoms in a large assemblage of coherent and entangled atoms. In such a collection, what happens to one member of such a coherent collection happens to them all. It may well be that an averaging effect takes place where the nuclear energy output of one atom is averaged over a hundred or more atoms in the coherent collection. Nuclear reactions inside a quantum condensate have yet to be studied. Look at this reference: http://cold-atoms.physics.lsa.umich.edu/projects/dipoleblockade/blockade.html From this reference, the dipole blockade of the 80 atom Rydberg matter assemblages is .3 microns. Any nickel atom within this blockade distance is subject to intense dipole masking in addition to being forced into coherence with the Rydberg assemblages. Rydberg matter sits on top of the nano-powder and completely negates coulomb repulsion of the nuclei of these nickel atoms that they cover. However, when Rydberg coherence is not yet fully established or is breaking down, gamma radiation production will occur, not being completely negated by atomic coherence. This happens when the temperature and/or the pressure of the hydrogen envelope is lowering or low. This is where the gamma radiation bursts from the Rossi reactor sometimes come from.
