Re: [Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
Jed Here the "flow meter" http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0LCgn_05ZGY/TWGehaAfm-I/E5w/Ew3nHhdHUDQ/s1600/E-Cat110211.jpg It's a simple house utility water meter like this http://shop.compracomodo.it/materiale-idraulico-professionale/moduli-utenza-satelliti-utenza-contatori-di-calore-contatori-di-acqua-calda-contatori-di-acqua-fredda/contatore-acqua-a-getto-singolo-per-acqua-fredda-30-c-e-acqua-calda-90-c-da-1-2-a-3-4-quadrante-bagnato-.html They mounted above a camera connected to the laptop taking pictures at some interval. This meter has in the middle a kind of star. Its spinning speed shows the water flow. Visually you can only rougly extimate the flow rate. They misured the average flow storing the meter reading at some interval time. With such setup it's very hard to extimate the istantaneous flow rate. It depends how ofthen they read the count of water consumed and this could be done only after because in this way the computer captures only images, not values that can be calculated right away. It's not very unlikely that, if for any reason the water pressure temporarly dropped, they could think of an unexplanable power peak. 2011/8/24 Jouni Valkonen > 2011/8/23 Jed Rothwell : > > Along similar lines, the tests with steam do not produce such easily > > understood, irrefutable results. But the weakness of these tests does not > > call into question the flowing water test. > > It is kind of sad that Levi refuses to admit that he did poor > measurements with steam tests, because he was not familiar with them > and did not realize that when measuring total enthalpy from water > boiler, water inflow rate and "steam quality"(sic) measurements are > irrelevant. Only thing what is necessary for measuring enthalpy is to > put the outlet hose into barrel of cool water. > > If he had realized this, then there would not be any arguments left. > But it was Levi's mistake, it is unfortunate, but it was a mistake. > But this mistake by Levi, also disproofs all criticism by Ekström, > Krivit, etc., because Levi (et al.) had all the might to do it right > way, but they failed with the experimental setup and continued to > measure irrelevant variables such as water inflow rate. Therefore Levi > is not the only one whom to blame. > > Also 18 hour test had wrong approach to the experimental setup. It > would have been much easier to measure the enthalpy from steam and hot > water. Only requirement was to have large enough cooling water > reservoir that can be replaced on flight. With this kind of setup, > water inflow rate would be irrelevant and it can be variable and only > thing what is necessary to measure is the ΔT of cooling reservoir. > > I think that Levi might have good reasons not to publish all the > details, if data is not very good. This is not surprising, as his > method was very crude and it did not allow good measurements. But I > think that his argument about the difficulties of making it properly > is out of the proportions, because we are not making detailed analysis > of Ni-H cold fusion, but only are measuring anomalous heat. This is > very simple to do. > > Levi did it wrong way and he should just admit it. It is not shame do > it wrong, because people usually are not experts in every field. E.g. > even for me to gain adequate knowledge to be an expert on this field, > required to write many messages to Joshua and others. But this is > called learning. And also gambling with very high stakes, because if > E-Cat is a hoax, I have wasted lots of my brain power to nonsense. I > definitely did not want to become the first class steam quality expert > only for nothing! > > –Jouni > >
Re: [Vo]:my first earthquake
I felt it too in Western PA. Some observations; it was a back and forth motion with a period of about .6 seconds. I have felt the rumbling of trains, truck, and cranes, These have a higher frequency that is more of a rumbling, about 10 hertz or so. The earth quake produced no plaster cracks, brick wall cracks or the like. I must have had a long wavelength and the local distortions were minimal. It moved very fast for a low frequency wave so the wavelength must have been miles in length. Some reported an up and down motion first before the shaking. I did not detect an up and down motion. This was a first time for me also. Frank Z -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 10:45 am Subject: [Vo]:my first earthquake Didn’t think I would ever feel an earthquake in NJ but my entire office was shaking and I thought my peers were just having a go at me by rocking cabinets on either side of my cube. If that 5.8 was centered all the way down near Richmond I can’t imagine how it still felt so strong up here.
Re: [Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
2011/8/23 Jed Rothwell : > Along similar lines, the tests with steam do not produce such easily > understood, irrefutable results. But the weakness of these tests does not > call into question the flowing water test. It is kind of sad that Levi refuses to admit that he did poor measurements with steam tests, because he was not familiar with them and did not realize that when measuring total enthalpy from water boiler, water inflow rate and "steam quality"(sic) measurements are irrelevant. Only thing what is necessary for measuring enthalpy is to put the outlet hose into barrel of cool water. If he had realized this, then there would not be any arguments left. But it was Levi's mistake, it is unfortunate, but it was a mistake. But this mistake by Levi, also disproofs all criticism by Ekström, Krivit, etc., because Levi (et al.) had all the might to do it right way, but they failed with the experimental setup and continued to measure irrelevant variables such as water inflow rate. Therefore Levi is not the only one whom to blame. Also 18 hour test had wrong approach to the experimental setup. It would have been much easier to measure the enthalpy from steam and hot water. Only requirement was to have large enough cooling water reservoir that can be replaced on flight. With this kind of setup, water inflow rate would be irrelevant and it can be variable and only thing what is necessary to measure is the ΔT of cooling reservoir. I think that Levi might have good reasons not to publish all the details, if data is not very good. This is not surprising, as his method was very crude and it did not allow good measurements. But I think that his argument about the difficulties of making it properly is out of the proportions, because we are not making detailed analysis of Ni-H cold fusion, but only are measuring anomalous heat. This is very simple to do. Levi did it wrong way and he should just admit it. It is not shame do it wrong, because people usually are not experts in every field. E.g. even for me to gain adequate knowledge to be an expert on this field, required to write many messages to Joshua and others. But this is called learning. And also gambling with very high stakes, because if E-Cat is a hoax, I have wasted lots of my brain power to nonsense. I definitely did not want to become the first class steam quality expert only for nothing! –Jouni
[Vo]: Rare particle decay could mean new physics...
PhysOrg excerpt below, paper is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2304v1 An incredibly rare sub-atomic particle decay might not be quite as rare as previously predicted, say Cornell researchers. This discovery, culled from a vast data set at the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF), is a clue for physicists trying to catch glimpses of how the universe began. "The work, which is generating buzz because of its possible implications for the existence of new physics, has been submitted to Physical Review Letters by an international team of scientists, among them Julia Thom-Levy, Cornell assistant professor of physics, and graduate student Walter Hopkins. The paper is available on arXiv. Thom-Levy studies the decay of particles formed in high-energy collisions, with particular focus on a class of particles called strange B-mesons that consist of a beauty quark bound to a strange quark. The Standard Model of Physics predicts the rate of strange B-mesons decaying into a pair of oppositely charged muons as exceedingly rare, with only a few decays out of 350 trillion collisions expected. In the new data from Fermilab's Tevatron particle accelerator, the researchers found four of these decays for every one expected. While the upward fluctuation could be a statistical fluke, it is attracting widespread attention in the field because it might possibly indicate the presence of new particles and lead to an entirely new model of physics." -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Rossi's hose may be longer but the 25W/m cooling rate is much to small to explain Levi's statement that 50% of the steam is condensing in the hose. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates On Aug 23, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan Fletcher wrote: a.. Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- at 3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.) This is operating as a TUBE Boiler. Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of the top? I am sure this is the case. You can see that from the temperatures as well. You can not tell there is overflowing from the temperature traces, as far as I can see. The outlet temperature (the red curve) remains flat, stabilizing at the boiling temperature at that elevation of about 94.5 degrees. The temperature in the lower part of the boiler becomes unstable when cold water is pumped in, but this does not indicate whether water is overflowing at the top or not. This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan. How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the E-Cat? I think Rossi's hose is much longer than Cantwell's so it gives off more heat and holds more condensed water. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Mattia Rizzi wrote: In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w ? (lewan in april) Again, you can see it (removed from water) at 3:17 to 3:37, 20 seconds. And in this video you can hear that there is some (liquid water) since is very noisy. I believe I saw a longer one somewhere. Will ask Lewan. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w ? (lewan in april) Again, you can see it (removed from water) at 3:17 to 3:37, 20 seconds. And in this video you can hear that there is some (liquid water) since is very noisy. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:51 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates Mattia Rizzi wrote: In krivit’s video the bucket is removed for around 30seconds, not few minutes. From 11:10 to 11:20 and from 11:26 to 11:46 (SEE KRIVIT’S VIDEO) That is correct, but I saw a longer video from Lewan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Mattia Rizzi wrote: And the water flow can’t be 7 liter/h since the pump is pumping every 2.5-3 seconds, so the true water flow is lower than 3 liter/h LMI P18 pump has a maximum flow of 12 l/h at 100 strikes/minutes. With 25 strikes/minute is (maximum) 3 l/h. It can be lower than 3 liter/h. As I have pointed out several times, the flow was confirmed with a weight scale, so evidently that is incorrect. You cannot argue with instruments. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Mattia Rizzi wrote: In krivit’s video the bucket is removed for around 30seconds, not few minutes. From 11:10 to 11:20 and from 11:26 to 11:46 (SEE KRIVIT’S VIDEO) That is correct, but I saw a longer video from Lewan. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Rossi Steam Quality Updates
In krivit’s video the bucket is removed for around 30seconds, not few minutes. From 11:10 to 11:20 and from 11:26 to 11:46 (SEE KRIVIT’S VIDEO) And the water flow can’t be 7 liter/h since the pump is pumping every 2.5-3 seconds, so the true water flow is lower than 3 liter/h LMI P18 pump has a maximum flow of 12 l/h at 100 strikes/minutes. With 25 strikes/minute is (maximum) 3 l/h. It can be lower than 3 liter/h. From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates Horace Heffner wrote: This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan. How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the E-Cat? In some of the videos he showed the hose removed from the bucket for a few minutes with steam emerging. There were no periodic slugs of water (or "percolating") during this time. As Alan Fletcher points out, at 7 L/h and only 800 W there should be percolating every 7 s or so, and at 5 L/h it should happen roughly every 30 s, assuming it works like the Cantwell simulation. Even if these numbers are off, there would be some percolation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Horace Heffner wrote: > This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan. > > > How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the > E-Cat? > In some of the videos he showed the hose removed from the bucket for a few minutes with steam emerging. There were no periodic slugs of water (or "percolating") during this time. As Alan Fletcher points out, at 7 L/h and only 800 W there should be percolating every 7 s or so, and at 5 L/h it should happen roughly every 30 s, assuming it works like the Cantwell simulation. Even if these numbers are off, there would be some percolation. - Jed
[Vo]:I was impressed by Levi in the video interview
I have been nonplussed by Levi the last few months, because I was expecting he would provide more details about the February 2011 18-hour test with flowing water. I still wish he would do that. As I said, I wish he would tell me the made and model of the flow meter. I asked; he did not respond. In this video he did confirm there was one and it registered just under 1 L/s, which is what I reported. Despite my previous complaints, I was impressed by Levi and I understand better what his goal in doing the test was, and why he does not want to publish it. There were several revealing statements, confirming what I have long suspected. For example, Levi described Rossi as being frightened by the ~130 kW heat burst. Only a fool would not be frightened by that, and Rossi is no fool. This confirms that the machine was not fully under control, despite what Rossi said. Krivit's long report gave the impression that Levi has disavowed these results and he will never publish more details for that reason. The video shows that is not at all what Levi meant, but I can understand why Krivit got that impression. I think he does not appreciate how European academic scientists express themselves. Anyway, Krivit deserves our thanks for uploading the video, giving us a chance to see original sources to form our own opinions. Krivit spent much of the interview trying to make it seem Levi had done something unethical by talking to reporters about his observations. I think the implication is that if the test is not good enough to publish, he should not talk about it to reporters. I think that is ridiculous. There is no such standard, and there should not be one. This is a preliminary 1-day evaluation. It is serious work, done carefully and properly. As Levi said, it is essential to do this kind of test before you commit to a full-scale project. A full-scale project takes months and hundreds of thousands of dollars. A full-scale test would include calibration with an electric heater, and test runs with blank cells, such as nickel powder and air instead of hydrogen. It would call for measuring particles, radiation, helium and so on, to show correlations (assuming there are any). It would call for many repeated test runs, some lasting for weeks. You have to do that much work for a typical journal paper. Such papers do not describe one-off experiments or events. They describe months or years of effort. It is reasonable that journals demand this. It is also reasonable that NyTeknik and other serious mass media accept brief reports of preliminary work and one-off tests. Both have value. Imagine a computer software expert spends a day working with a new program, and forms a careful evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. It would be perfectly reasonable for that expert to tell a trade-journal reporter her opinion of the product. It would not be reasonable to demand that the expert present a fully-worked out plan for the next release of the product. There is a difference between the expert forming an opinion (something you can do in a day) and doing a complete redesign (which takes months). In off-line discussions someone suggested to me that Levi should done a better version of the 18-hour test, with improved instrumentation, rather than a full-scale experiment. I wish he would. But this test was fine. It was 100% convincing. Sure, RTDs are better than thermocouples but when you are measuring 5°C temperature difference the improved quality makes no difference. For the purposes of this test, a conventional $50 analog flow meter is every bit as good as a $10,000 ultra-precise meter. The criticism of the instruments and techniques here have been grossly exaggerated. As far as I recall, there has not been a single valid problem cited here or anywhere else. On the contrary the criticism has been notably unhinged, even by the standards of cold fusion. For example: I believe it was Beene suggested the measurements might be off by a factor of 1,000 for unstated reasons. Lomax claims that only time-sequenced data is valid even when the observers observed there were no significant changes in the temperature and flow rates for long periods. If all you see are minor fluctuations on the thermocouple digital output, that is exactly what a computer would see too. Most thermocouples have a slow response time. Trillions of individual reactions may be occurring inside the cell every second. When you measure heat from these reactions with a flow of ~1 L/s of water, individual reactions and temperature spikes they are blurred out, leaving only a stable temperature. At these flow rates I can't imagine how else it could work. In any case, if you want a graph of time-sequenced data go ahead and make one yourself. Draw a line at 5°C, add in random fluctuations of ~0.2°C, and label it "Temperature difference." You will see what a computer log of data from these thermocouples would produce. The best computer in the world will not capture more than th
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
On Aug 23, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan Fletcher wrote: Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- at 3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.) This is operating as a TUBE Boiler. Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of the top? I am sure this is the case. You can see that from the temperatures as well. You can not tell there is overflowing from the temperature traces, as far as I can see. The outlet temperature (the red curve) remains flat, stabilizing at the boiling temperature at that elevation of about 94.5 degrees. The temperature in the lower part of the boiler becomes unstable when cold water is pumped in, but this does not indicate whether water is overflowing at the top or not. This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan. How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the E-Cat? I think Rossi's hose is much longer than Cantwell's so it gives off more heat and holds more condensed water. - Jed Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:my first earthquake
Didn't think I would ever feel an earthquake in NJ but my entire office was shaking and I thought my peers were just having a go at me by rocking cabinets on either side of my cube. If that 5.8 was centered all the way down near Richmond I can't imagine how it still felt so strong up here.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
I disagree that what happens in the horizontal tube is nor relevant. If steam bubbles up through cold water rather than hot makes much difference. Also if 2g of water is turned into dry steam the volume of steam is ~ 3.5L. 3.5L per second of gas bubbling through a small volume of liquid will be able to entrain most of the liquid and carry it out of the E-Cat. This takes very little energy. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates At 05:43 AM 8/23/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Some consolidated and clarified text follows. ... I'm heading out for a couple of days, so I don't have time to check your method or numbers (assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of: Isn't that a bit low? You still need to take into account the fact that the output in mode 1 is VD (Vapour+Drops), and in modes 2 and 3 it's FVD(Fluid+Vapour+Drops) In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about 50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect, should be more apparent. The "percolator" effect is a bit confusing, because it depends on a) a build-up of water and b) enough steam to blow the accumulated water up the tube (in the flow regimes I'd call it a "slug" of water.) From your separate post, I'd put in a transparent outlet and collect fluid water at two points. Schematically (you need a non-proportional font here) hose (sloping) Chimney ==#=#== Gas (Vapor+Drops) ---> sparge || T || T || || || || | || | | || | |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| || || ** ** Overflow Fluid Condensed Fluid The hose should slope, with NO valleys/kinks that could collect water. "T" is a T-junction (possibly with a tap). Would be good to have a thermometer here, too. Catch the Overflow fluid and condensed fluid separately. You could sparge the final output. (With Jed's method sparge into a tank with a lower water height than the traps I've shown.) >Joe Catania > Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:21 -0700 >I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant for this type of experiment. >Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good >comparison with this aspect of Rossi's device. What happens in the horizontal tube is only of academic interest. The vertival tube is the most important for considering flow regimes. > Jouni Valkonen > Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:52:49 -0700 > Alan, you should explain more. I fail completely see your point, how does it > confirm your hypothesis? See my reply to Jed. > Or at least you cannot make any calculations from > your idea of "dryout", *I* can't calculate the dryout points at the moment ... but others HAVE for different situations. > therefore it seems to be rather irrelevant concept. If everything had been done right it wouldn't be necessary. My aim here is to "eliminate" the left-half of NASA's Temp-Enthalpy diagram. > You also are misusing physical concepts. E-Cat produces always high quality steam and hot water, but never low quality steam. You can only make low quality steam by cooling rapidly high pressure steam and these conditions might happen in steam turbines. But E-Cat is working roughly at constant pressure (3.3kPa pressure difference is insignificant), therefore the steam quality is there always ca. 98% (±0.015). That 98% is true for a kettle boiler, but I don't think it IS for a TUBE boiler. You can't NOT boil a kettle, but you can cut off a tube at any suitable point. (In nukes, to AVOID dryout = burnout).
[Vo]: God (particle) might not exist?!
This excerpt from PhysOrg.com.. My money is on the possibility that they won't find it, and with other developments like LENR, the high-energy physics community will need to rethink their precious theories! The Paradigms are a Changin'. -Mark == Just last month, physicists announced at a European conference that a big atom-smasher experiment had shown tantalizing hints of the Higgs-Boson, as the search to identify the particle enters the final stretch with results expected late next year. Sometimes described as the "God particle" because it is such a mystery yet such a potent force of nature, the Higgs-Boson -- if it exists -- represents the final piece of the Standard Model of physics. "At this moment we don't see any evidence for the Higgs in the lower mass region where it is likely to be," said physicist Howard Gordon, deputy US ATLAS operations program manager. "I think it is true that the hints that we saw in July are not as significant -- they weren't very significant in July -- but they have gotten less significant now," Gordon told AFP. However, physicists are not ready to rule out the possibility that it exists, and atom-smasher experiments must still sift through an immense amount of data at the low-end of the spectrum, he said. "Basically the data has increased by about a factor of two since the report from the European Physical Society meeting in July because the Large Hadron Collider is producing lots of data," Gordon said. "I think it has always been a possibility that the Higgs would not be there but I don't think we are ready to say that at this moment." A statement summarizing the latest data, released at a conference in Mumbai, India, said the LHC's "ATLAS and CMS experiments excluded with 95 percent certainty the existence of a Higgs over most of the mass region from 145 to 466 GeV." CERN research director Sergio Bertolucci whether the particle exists or not, scientists expect to know more by next year. "Discoveries are almost assured within the next 12 months. If the Higgs exists, the LHC experiments will soon find it. If it does not, its absence will point the way to new physics," said Bertolucci. ==
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
At 05:43 AM 8/23/2011, Horace Heffner wrote: Some consolidated and clarified text follows. ... I'm heading out for a couple of days, so I don't have time to check your method or numbers (assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of: Isn't that a bit low? You still need to take into account the fact that the output in mode 1 is VD (Vapour+Drops), and in modes 2 and 3 it's FVD(Fluid+Vapour+Drops) In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about 50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect, should be more apparent. The "percolator" effect is a bit confusing, because it depends on a) a build-up of water and b) enough steam to blow the accumulated water up the tube (in the flow regimes I'd call it a "slug" of water.) From your separate post, I'd put in a transparent outlet and collect fluid water at two points. Schematically (you need a non-proportional font here) hose (sloping) Chimney ==#=#== Gas (Vapor+Drops) ---> sparge || T || T || || || || | || | | || | |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| |W||W| || || ** ** Overflow Fluid Condensed Fluid The hose should slope, with NO valleys/kinks that could collect water. "T" is a T-junction (possibly with a tap). Would be good to have a thermometer here, too. Catch the Overflow fluid and condensed fluid separately. You could sparge the final output. (With Jed's method sparge into a tank with a lower water height than the traps I've shown.) >Joe Catania > Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:21 -0700 >I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant for this type of experiment. >Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good >comparison with this aspect of Rossi's device. What happens in the horizontal tube is only of academic interest. The vertival tube is the most important for considering flow regimes. > Jouni Valkonen > Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:52:49 -0700 > Alan, you should explain more. I fail completely see your point, how does it > confirm your hypothesis? See my reply to Jed. > Or at least you cannot make any calculations from > your idea of "dryout", *I* can't calculate the dryout points at the moment ... but others HAVE for different situations. > therefore it seems to be rather irrelevant concept. If everything had been done right it wouldn't be necessary. My aim here is to "eliminate" the left-half of NASA's Temp-Enthalpy diagram. > You also are misusing physical concepts. E-Cat produces always high quality steam and hot water, but never low quality steam. You can only make low quality steam by cooling rapidly high pressure steam and these conditions might happen in steam turbines. But E-Cat is working roughly at constant pressure (3.3kPa pressure difference is insignificant), therefore the steam quality is there always ca. 98% (±0.015). That 98% is true for a kettle boiler, but I don't think it IS for a TUBE boiler. You can't NOT boil a kettle, but you can cut off a tube at any suitable point. (In nukes, to AVOID dryout = burnout).
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Alan Fletcher wrote: > >- Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- at >3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.) > > This is operating as a TUBE Boiler. > > Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of the top? I am sure this is the case. You can see that from the temperatures as well. This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan. I think Rossi's hose is much longer than Cantwell's so it gives off more heat and holds more condensed water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Cantwell should attempt steam quality measurements on his device. This should include continuous measurement of steam velocity at exit which can be done with a fairly inexpensive probe. - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've been having some off-vortex action with this. Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick Cantwell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo (It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface of the tubes, not inside). It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis. It appears to me a significant deficiency with this experiment is similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations, namely, it is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially at the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some that the water is due entirely to steam condensation which occurs in the hose. This may not be the case. Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See: http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure water, See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html A smaller (actually probably inconsequential since the experiments were run to equilibrium conditions), problem might be that Rossi's more recent demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large diameter boiler area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical section, just the opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's experiment. A short rise narrow tube should be more capable of supporting a percolator effect - which dumps liquid water into the hose, i.e. comes to equilibrium flows faster. It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid. No overflow or percolator effects should be present because the device, at equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top. Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and water condensation in the hose, should be exactly the same. It is not. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes. Now to take a more quantitative look at this. At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass flow. At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow. In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase (second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw (assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of: Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase (second experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of: Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the water. In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the water. In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s. In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s. In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R: R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R: R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about 50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect, should be more apparent. Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that all the water is converted to steam. The controller in the Rossi device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it, assuming no power storage in the device. The input power was measured as constant. If the controller maintains a constant power demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to resistors in the controller itself. It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown in the E-cat. If the controller periodically reduces power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent power of the device dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped out of the E- cat and down the hose. Demonstrating steam production is obviously best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to boiling water in the
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
Some consolidated and clarified text follows. It appears a significant deficiency of Rick Cantwells experiment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo is similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations; namely, it is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially at the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some individuals that the output water is due entirely to steam condensation which occurs in the hose. This may not be the case. Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See: http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure water, See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html A smaller problem (probably inconsequential since the experiments were run to equilibrium conditions) might be that Rossi's more recent demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large diameter boiler area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical section, just the opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's experiment. A short rise narrow tube should be more capable of supporting a percolator effect - which dumps liquid water into the hose, i.e. should come to equilibrium flows faster. It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid. No overflow or percolator effects should be present because the device, at equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top. Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and thus water condensation in the hose, should be greatest in mode 1, because no energy is being used to heat the water once equilibrium is reached in mode 1. More steam production should result in more condensation in the hose. Much less condensation happens in mode 1 than in modes 2 and 3. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes. Now to take a more quantitative look at this. At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass flow. At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow. In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase (second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw (assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of: Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase (third experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of: Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the water. In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the water. In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s. In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s. In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R: R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R: R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about 50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect, should be more apparent. Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that all the water is converted to steam. The controller in the Rossi device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it, assuming no power storage in the device. The input power was measured as constant. If the controller maintains a constant power demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to resistors in the controller itself. It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown in the E-cat controller. If the controller periodically reduces power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent output power of the E-cat dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped out of the E-cat and down the hose. Demonstrating steam production is obviously best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to actually boiling water, as opposed to heating water, in the E-cat. To perpetrate a fraud using a device like the one demonstrated by Rick Cantwell, but using a controller, an operator would have to know when maximum power were being supplied by the controller, perhaps by sound, or have to have a manual switch to change modes. This is not to sa
Re: [Vo]:New energy storage device could recharge electric vehicles in minutes, Li ions in graphene filled plates: PhysOrg.com 2011.08.19: Rich Murray 2011.08.22
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Rich Murray wrote: > "The energy storage device could prove extremely useful for > electric vehicles, where it could reduce the recharge time from hours > to less than a minute." As long as you have a MegaWatt power substation at your disposal. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
On Aug 22, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Regarding the video, Rick does good work. - Jed Yes, indeed! However, it appears he forgot to wear his lab coat! 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
I just now wrote: "It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown in the E-cat." This should have said: "It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown in the E-cat controller." Sigh. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
I just now wrote: "Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and water condensation in the hose, should be exactly the same. It is not. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes." This should have said:"Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and thus water condensation in the hose, should be greatest in mode 1, because no energy is being used to heat the water once equilibrium is reached in mode 1. More steam production should result in more condensation in the hose. Much less condensation happens in mode 1 than in modes 2 and 3. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes." Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates
On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I've been having some off-vortex action with this. Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick Cantwell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo (It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface of the tubes, not inside). It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis. It appears to me a significant deficiency with this experiment is similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations, namely, it is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially at the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some that the water is due entirely to steam condensation which occurs in the hose. This may not be the case. Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See: http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure water, See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html A smaller (actually probably inconsequential since the experiments were run to equilibrium conditions), problem might be that Rossi's more recent demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large diameter boiler area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical section, just the opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's experiment. A short rise narrow tube should be more capable of supporting a percolator effect - which dumps liquid water into the hose, i.e. comes to equilibrium flows faster. It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid. No overflow or percolator effects should be present because the device, at equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top. Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and water condensation in the hose, should be exactly the same. It is not. Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes. Now to take a more quantitative look at this. At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass flow. At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow. In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase (second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw (assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of: Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase (second experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of: Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the water. In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the water. In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s. In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s. In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R: R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R: R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about 50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect, should be more apparent. Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that all the water is converted to steam. The controller in the Rossi device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it, assuming no power storage in the device. The input power was measured as constant. If the controller maintains a constant power demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to resistors in the controller itself. It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown in the E-cat. If the controller periodically reduces power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent power of the device dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped out of the E- cat and down the hose. Demonstrating steam production is obviously best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to boiling water in the E-cat. To perpetrate a fraud using a device like the one demonstrated by Rick Cantwell, but using a controller, an operator would have to know when maximum power were being supplied by the controller, perhaps by sound, or hav
