Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Am 14.09.2011 01:20, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges: Hi, On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote: snip calculation of lead shielding Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source, as it may be used only to trigger the process? There is no other way than shielding or increasing the distance. Rossi could inside use a shield that is moved electrically or by heat (bimetal). Or he could control the distance to the gamma source. If it is a very small point source the /local/ intensity of radiation could be changed by factor 10^2 or 10^3. Peter The above is incorrect. A 2 cm thick lead shield will only reduce Co-60 gammas by 75%. I = I0 * exp (-0.694 * x) So we want I/Io = 0.01 to achieve 1/100 reduction factor. I/I0 = exp (-0.694 * x) 0.01 = exp (-0.694 * x) ln(0.01) = -0.694*x x = ln(0.01)/(-0.694) = 6.63 It takes 6.6 cm of lead to divide Co-60 gamma intensity by 100. Similarly, it takes about 10 cm of lead (on all sides) to attenuate CO60 gammas by a factor of 1/1000. Maybe I am in error. I understand it this way: A shield cannot alter the wavelength and so it cannot alter the photon energy respective frequency. Only the amount or density of gamma photons can be changed by photon absorption. Now, lets assume the gamma radiator has a volume of 1mm. Then the photon density in 100mm distance must be 4 times weaker as the density directly measured in 0.5 mm distance at the surface of the gamma source. (Inverse square law as in optics) Even without shield we can get a large attentuation factor purely from distance, if the diameter of the source is small. So if the gamma source is in direct contact with nickel, the photon density must be 100 times larger than in 10 mm distance. Is this wrong? Another thought: I think Rossi is naive and will loose if he think he can commercialize a discovery of this magnitude and eternal history changing importance and keep it secret. This is impossible to do, he must go the scientific route, not the commercial route. Also his fans and investors are naive to believe this. As soon as it is totally and unmistakenly clear, this is a nuclear reaction that produces large amounts of energy, law will stop him. And international scientific research will start. You cannot discover the stone of philosophers and commercialize this and keep it secret, this is impossible. This must be done in a scientific way. As soon as large amounts of energy are produced, it must be also scientifically investigated, if this can be abused to build bombs and so on. Rossi says no, this is not possible, but as long as it is a secret he cannot proof it is without dangers. I think no government can tolerate something like this going on and reaching very large dimensions unsupervised. The unknown potential of danger is too high. Only if his customer is NASA or another large scientific and trusted organisation he could have luck selling this. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Am 14.09.2011 02:17, schrieb Man on Bridges: Hi, On 14-9-2011 1:20, Horace Heffner wrote: snip calculation Just a thought. Let's suppose Rossi is using a gamma radiation source as a catalyzer. Is it then possible to determine the source (catalyzer) of the gamma source, if the following parameters are known? 1. Maximum allowed gamma radiation level which passes safety certification. 2. Maximum lead shielding thickness used around the reactor. No this is not possible if the spatial dimension and size of the gamma source is unknown. The only possibility is to measure the spectrum of gamma radiation. And as verification it would be great if someone could do a gamma spectrum/intensity scan close to the Rossi reactor. Rossi doesnt allow to measure the spectrum. Bianchini was not allowed to measure it.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Am 14.09.2011 08:20, schrieb Peter Heckert: As soon as it is totally and unmistakenly clear, this is a nuclear reaction that produces large amounts of energy, law will stop him. And international scientific research will start. You cannot discover the stone of philosophers and commercialize this and keep it secret, this is impossible. This must be done in a scientific way. As soon as large amounts of energy are produced, it must be also scientifically investigated, if this can be abused to build bombs and so on. Rossi says no, this is not possible, but as long as it is a secret he cannot proof it is without dangers. I think no government can tolerate something like this going on and reaching very large dimensions unsupervised. The unknown potential of danger is too high. Only if his customer is NASA or another large scientific and trusted organisation he could have luck selling this. It will also be impossible to sell this internationally and keep it secret. How to get around customs controls? Rossi was involved in gold smuggle, if it is true, what they write. If he wants to sell internationally then he must produce in these countries where he sells. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:20 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 14.09.2011 01:20, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges: Hi, On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote: snip calculation of lead shielding Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source, as it may be used only to trigger the process? There is no other way than shielding or increasing the distance. Rossi could inside use a shield that is moved electrically or by heat (bimetal). Or he could control the distance to the gamma source. If it is a very small point source the /local/ intensity of radiation could be changed by factor 10^2 or 10^3. Peter The above is incorrect. A 2 cm thick lead shield will only reduce Co-60 gammas by 75%. I = I0 * exp (-0.694 * x) So we want I/Io = 0.01 to achieve 1/100 reduction factor. I/I0 = exp (-0.694 * x) 0.01 = exp (-0.694 * x) ln(0.01) = -0.694*x x = ln(0.01)/(-0.694) = 6.63 It takes 6.6 cm of lead to divide Co-60 gamma intensity by 100. Similarly, it takes about 10 cm of lead (on all sides) to attenuate CO60 gammas by a factor of 1/1000. Maybe I am in error. The error I am pointing out is that it does not matter at all how small the source inside the device is - assuming it is centrally located. It could be microscopic, or a couple cm in diameter and this would make no difference at all to the gamma flux measured at the surface of the Rossi device. If the source were even the size of one atom, vs a few mm, or cm, it would make no difference to the intensity measured at the surface of the Rossi device. The intensity is proportional to surface area divided by total counts per minute. The size of the source inside the device is of no consequence provided it is centrally located. Rossi used two counters right up against the device, primarily in coincidence mode, but they would saturate at the count rate expected, so coincindece mode would be irrelevant. Celani measured radiation right near the device before turn on as near background, using two different types of counters. It is not possible to put enough lead in the device to suppress the 1.33 MeV gammas from cobalt to even a non-lethal level - provided there is enough cobalt to sustain a 15 kW reaction at one gamma per LENR reaction. Celani also measured the counts a few meters away. A few meters away, where Celani also measured, is not enough to suppress the counts to background. If a 2 cm thick lead shielded source has even a very modest amount of Co-60 then detectors nearby will detect the gammas - at all times. I showed it would take at least 6x10^11 gammas a second to account for a 12 kW LENR reaction, even assuming 10 MeV per reaction, which is high. Even if Rossi could stuff his source behind a blanket of 6.6 cm of lead on all sides, giving a device radius of 13 cm, leaving no room for water or fuel, that would only reduce the count by a factor of 100, thus outside the reactor a 6x10^9 count per minute (cpm) source would be manifest. At a distance of 6.6 meters, the flux would be reduced by a factor of 6.6/660 = 10^-4, or to 6x10^5 cpm. Celani could not miss this. I understand it this way: A shield cannot alter the wavelength and so it cannot alter the photon energy respective frequency. Yes. Only the amount or density of gamma photons can be changed by photon absorption. That is in practical terms true. Some of the gammas cause positron emission which results in a lower energy gamma, but at CO60 energy levels this is not important. Now, lets assume the gamma radiator has a volume of 1mm. Then the photon density in 100mm distance must be 4 times weaker as the density directly measured in 0.5 mm distance at the surface of the gamma source. (Inverse square law as in optics) This is where the conceptual error occurs. The source is not measured at its radius. It is measured at the radius of the Rossi device, and further. Even without shield we can get a large attentuation factor purely from distance, if the diameter of the source is small. This is irrelevant because the distances at which measurement actually occurred are fixed. So if the gamma source is in direct contact with nickel, the photon density must be 100 times larger than in 10 mm distance. Is this wrong? You are mixing apples and oranges. There is a difference between how the radiation affects the Ni and determining the amount of radiation by counting outside the device. If the Co60 were a nano-sized particle it would provide a high intensity radiation to nano-sized nickel particles at nano-distances from it, but not to all the fuel. A point source does not provide a means to irradiate the entire fuel at the point source flux level. What counts in irradiating the fuel is achieving as nearly as possible a 1-1
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Am 14.09.2011 10:08, schrieb Horace Heffner: It is not possible to put enough lead in the device to suppress the 1.33 MeV gammas from cobalt to even a non-lethal level - provided there is enough cobalt to sustain a 15 kW reaction at one gamma per LENR reaction. Yes this is correct. But this is not what I wanted to say. I think there could be a very small gamma source inside, possibly cobalt 60, with a power of milliwatts or microwatts. This gamma radiation could excite the nickel atom and bring it into resonance in a novel, yet unknown way and could trigger the LENR reaction. May be its only used to start the reaction and then shielded, this could explain the gamma burst at startup. I dont think the reactor itself produces gamma rays in the kilowatt range. Widom Larsen theory says, that not gamma rays are produced, because the gamma photons -if there are any- are downshifted to infrared. Piantelli and Focardi in their papers reported either gamma radiation or energy production mutually exclusive, never both at the same time. And so far I understand, they had no shielding, and so they had no high power gamma radiation. No LENR researcher has yet reported hard gamma radiation or has died from gamma radiation so far I know, but many have reported huge amounts of energy. So, why should the Rossi device produce gamma radiation? My theory was, there might be gamma rays, that act as a catalyzer to start and possibly to sustain the LENR reaction,but I cannot believe, the gamma rays are the reason for the thermal energy. This cannot be, as you have correctly explained and this was never before observed in other LENR experiments. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
In my opinion steam enthalpy is both necessary and sufficient. This is an industrial test not a scientific one. The question is if these two new surprisingly short tests are more reliable and convincing than the former 7 ones. to generate heat and to be a new energy source are not identical. Peter On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3264362.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/** nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3264361.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com The experiment report is very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3264365.ece/** BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+**September+7+%28pdf%29http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r Various problems with other runs fixed. A long run will be even more interesting.Situation is now complex due to no thermal equilibrium being established. Constant dynamics require *measuring* cumulative energy in vs out. Hopefully some kind of calorimetry will be done on the output, and cumulative energy in vs energy out will be measured via kWh meter and independent calorimetry on the steam/water output. It would be nice if everyone could use the standard thermodynamics definition of steam quality or vapor quality. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Vapor_qualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Dear Horace, Yes our points of view are quite similar. These 2 tests can be characterized as partially aborted, unfortunately.Or as an other disfunctionality starting with early DOING AND NOT DOING in the same time, is the house's specialty. Engineers are taught If you do something, do it well and finish it -at the end. Or do not do it.at all. Taught at the school and by Life. Peter On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I am having trouble making sense of your comments. I'll cover the interpretations I have. To be of any commercial value total energy out has to be greater than total energy in for a prolonged period. If not, might as well use a good commercial electric boiler. After all these years discussing the foibles of calorimetry it should be obvious that you can not measure energy out vs energy in for a highly dynamic thermal and electrical system by taking occasional momentary power readings. My comments regarding steam quality is merely aimed at definitions apparently being used by some, i.e. that it involves entrained water droplets only, and not flowing or spurting water. That is strictly about word use, not the actual physics applied. The test was interesting, but not totally convincing, even to Mats Lewan. I only saw a report of one test for this device: http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r I get the impression more is to come. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 14, 2011, at 1:18 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: In my opinion steam enthalpy is both necessary and sufficient. This is an industrial test not a scientific one. The question is if these two new surprisingly short tests are more reliable and convincing than the former 7 ones. to generate heat and to be a new energy source are not identical. Peter On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/**nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/** article3264362.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/** nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/**article3264361.ecehttp://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com The experiment report is very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/**incoming/article3264365.ece/** BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+**September+7+%28pdf%29http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r Various problems with other runs fixed. A long run will be even more interesting.Situation is now complex due to no thermal equilibrium being established. Constant dynamics require *measuring* cumulative energy in vs out. Hopefully some kind of calorimetry will be done on the output, and cumulative energy in vs energy out will be measured via kWh meter and independent calorimetry on the steam/water output. It would be nice if everyone could use the standard thermodynamics definition of steam quality or vapor quality. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Vapor_qualityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Bologna April 19, 2011 Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.1 grams - after: 13652.6 grams Total loaded: 0.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 25 bar Bologna April 28, 2011 Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.2 grams - after: 13652.9 grams Total loaded: 0.3 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 12 bar Bologna September 7, 2011 Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams of hydrogen between April and September. Does this make sense? How much H2 is typically inside the bottle? How ist the weight measured? Does the weight force of the hydrogen-hose go into the result? Am 14.09.2011 11:05, schrieb Horace Heffner: On Sep 13, 2011, at 10:55 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece b) Here is Rossi' s 1 Megawatt plant: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com The experiment report is very interesting: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 http://tinyurl.com/3lqn52r Various problems with other runs fixed. A long run will be even more interesting.Situation is now complex due to no thermal equilibrium being established. Constant dynamics require *measuring* cumulative energy in vs out. Hopefully some kind of calorimetry will be done on the output, and cumulative energy in vs energy out will be measured via kWh meter and independent calorimetry on the steam/water output. It would be nice if everyone could use the standard thermodynamics definition of steam quality or vapor quality. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
These test results are indeed difficult to explain. I have one question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course. However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature at local pressure. Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain 130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small, just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating, because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC. But, this seems more plausible 1MW production plant. I think that later development can boost individual module output power at least few orders of magnitude. It should be possible, if sufficient cooling is arranged, that there is 1 GW power plant fitted to the similar sized container. Anyways, my confidence for E-Cat has increased somewhat due to this new experiment. This really is starting to look commercially viable prototype. This would also decrease the main problem with Rossi that he chose very irrational method for bringing this cat out of the closed. He really seems to be ready to go directly into market without spending lots of public resources for RD. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi, On 14-9-2011 12:05, Peter Heckert wrote: Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams of hydrogen between April and September. Does this make sense? Well the following table is what the conditions might have been of the bottle; Presumed the contents of the bottle is 150 liter and the constant for this specific case is assumed 40; other numbers work as well, as long as the data in all fields in the same column for Volume and Constant is kept all the same. I leave it up to you to decide if this is feasible. DatePressureVolume Boyle Temp Bottle P*V/T P*V/c (bar) (liter) (deg. K)(deg. C) April 19, 2011 85 150 40 318,75 45,6 April 28, 2011 85 150 40 318,75 45,6 September 7, 2011 60 150 40 225 -48,15 The difference in 42 grams is easily explained; Rossi has done several other tests in the period between April 28 and September 7, in fact between April 19 and April 28 most likely also a test was performed by Rossi, due to the difference of 0.3 grams. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:logical jiu-jitsu, continuation
Am 14.09.2011 07:08, schrieb Peter Gluck: The 1 MW plant with 333 cats meowing in a chorus is a blasphemy against the Goddess of Engineering who demands simple but reliable tests with individual E-cats, according to the very logic of the things and to the pragmatical common sense. Many engineers are primarily salesman. If you take the standpoint of the marketing goddess, then you see he does the right thing. If the 1 MW plant is open and running and at youtube then the press should become interested and he should get a free promotion effect that is worth one million dollars by itself ;-) Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams of hydrogen between April and September. Does this make sense? How much H2 is typically inside the bottle? It is probably leaking a little. I have not seen the hardware, but based on Rossi's other devices, I doubt it is as gas-tight as something like a laboratory-grade Swagelok connector. Also, it is hard to measure such small amounts of gas accurately. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29, I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik These test results are indeed difficult to explain. I have one question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course. However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature at local pressure. Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain 130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small, just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating, because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC. But, this seems more plausible 1MW production plant. I think that later development can boost individual module output power at least few orders of magnitude. It should be possible, if sufficient cooling is arranged, that there is 1 GW power plant fitted to the similar sized container. Anyways, my confidence for E-Cat has increased somewhat due to this new experiment. This really is starting to look commercially viable prototype. This would also decrease the main problem with Rossi that he chose very irrational method for bringing this cat out of the closed. He really seems to be ready to go directly into market without spending lots of public resources for RD. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hi, On 14-9-2011 15:05, Joe Catania wrote: I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain. It seems you misunderstood the term filling. It means filling the Rossi rector and NOT the Hydrogen bottle. These numbers apply to the Hydrogen bottle only and not the Rossi reactor. So filling in this case means removing or better said using from the bottle of Hydrogen. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Good catch. Yes I've commented about how I dtested this method of weighing before. I seem to have forgotten how he did it but I can see it is prone to inaccuracy. He only fills it to 20 bars. He'd have to buy me many dinners to convince me of this. All in all the rest of the report is sloppy or full on inconsistencies. A seemingly bad temperature measurement shows up. He admits to water overflow. He guesses about the 130 degree temperature. The curreny number seems to bounce around from 11A to .11A even when the power is off but most glaringly he attributes what is clearly thermal inertia to CF in so many words! - Original Message - From: Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Hi, On 14-9-2011 15:05, Joe Catania wrote: I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain. It seems you misunderstood the term filling. It means filling the Rossi rector and NOT the Hydrogen bottle. These numbers apply to the Hydrogen bottle only and not the Rossi reactor. So filling in this case means removing or better said using from the bottle of Hydrogen. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece This video confirms my previous assumption above, that new E-Cat is operating approximately 170 kPa overpressure. Also it confirms that roughly 5 kW excess heat was produced. I have not yet made accurate analysis for calorimetry, but I think that we have now even better data than previously and we can calculate total enthalpy by at least one significant number. This video also disproofs wet steam hypothesis as steam and hot water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's atomization of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should be according normal steam physics. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece This video confirms my previous assumption above, that new E-Cat is operating approximately 170 kPa overpressure. Also it confirms that roughly 5 kW excess heat was produced. I have not yet made accurate analysis for calorimetry, but I think that we have now even better data than previously and we can calculate total enthalpy by at least one significant number. This video also disproofs wet steam hypothesis as steam and hot water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's atomization of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should be according normal steam physics. –Jouni
[Vo]:NyTeknik September 14, 2011 articles: titles and URLs
[LENR-CANR.org News Item] Rossi eCat device demonstrated in self-sustaining mode September 14, 2011 NyTeknik published three articles and two videos about the Rossi device: *See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode* Article and video http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece *Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011* Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 Abstract: The Rossi device was run for just over half an hour without external energy input. Ny Teknik assisted recently in a test where the ‘E-cat’ invented by Andrea Rossi was run in self-sustained mode. *Here’s Rossi’s one megawatt plant* Article and video http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264361.ece Abstract: Here it is: the plant that according to inventor Andrea Rossi will produce one megawatt of thermal energy via an unknown reaction in his ‘energy catalyzer’. The plant is now being shipped to the United States. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy thermal inertia being the cause. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Any mass has a certain gradient described in temp/time for thermal gain or loss. I think Jed was specifying the period where the temperature rebounded higher than it existed while being heated by input power. That seems anomalous to me made more curious by the initial drop in temp when the input power is initially removed - the extra temp would seem to indicate the reaction has reinitiated without the resistive heating. My posit is that the active heating has opposite effects on the reaction cavities where the dominant heat is being generated by nominal nano scale cavities while there also exist some hot spots of sub nano geometry that are held from runaway by the pulse width modulation - I suspect that these pockets can finally start to run away when the PWM is removed and quickly grow to the point where they start to reignite the larger cavities in place of the PWM. This would also explain Rossi's concern about damage - not only to the pico cavities melting down and losing the ability to operate closed loop but also over stimulating the larger cavities to plastic hot conditions where the stiction forces would alleviate the Casimir geometries.[melting closed or growing perpendicular whiskers] Fran From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy thermal inertia being the cause. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwellmailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.commailto:zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Amazing persistence with consistence by Rossi and unskilled observers, as yet again a flawed demo that provides partial and inadequate evidence and information for settling the issue of whether there is indeed any excess heat or other anomalies... Naturally, a pragmatic skeptic will consider how the electric heater would be the source of the temperature fluctuations... There needs to be detailed information about the location of the thermister, the actual mass and geometry of the interior of the device, and tests to determine its thermal mass and average heat capacity -- also heat capacity may vary with flow rate, temperature, and pressure -- if the heater heats a local region with substantial mass to temperatures much higher than the 130 deg C (water, steam, both?) outside the local region, then with electric power shut off, that heat in the hot local region will continue to flow into the wider region where the water flows, increasing its temperature a few degrees... so not a heat after death LENR miracle, but just complex thermal inertia... As Spock often noted, human behavior is constantly facinating in the variety of its strangeness...
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
No. Admittedly the temperature drop at powerdown may or may not be valid. In fact if there's any magnetic field associated with the heating coils there could be some EMF from shutting it down. It would seem to be an anomaly if we assume it was measuring anything with thermal mass. Just notice that the next valid reading is at the level it was before power off. There does seem to be some inaccuracy (or at least variation) in the thermometry. For instance the anomalous drop in T1 to 21.4 at 21:10. Aside from a couple of obvious glitches there is nothing thyere that dosen't suggest the temperature decay expected from thermal inertia causes. In fact it is not possible to rule out thermal inertia at all as it must exist. It's as likely that the gravitational field suddenly ceased to exist as thermal inertia was eliminated. In any case even if this was a demo of anomalous heat the explanation certainly wouldn't be CF. There's no way to justify that. In my opinion more study needs to be done on the heating core. - Original Message - From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:32 PM Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Any mass has a certain gradient described in temp/time for thermal gain or loss. I think Jed was specifying the period where the temperature rebounded higher than it existed while being heated by input power. That seems anomalous to me made more curious by the initial drop in temp when the input power is initially removed - the extra temp would seem to indicate the reaction has reinitiated without the resistive heating. My posit is that the active heating has opposite effects on the reaction cavities where the dominant heat is being generated by nominal nano scale cavities while there also exist some hot spots of sub nano geometry that are held from runaway by the pulse width modulation - I suspect that these pockets can finally start to run away when the PWM is removed and quickly grow to the point where they start to reignite the larger cavities in place of the PWM. This would also explain Rossi's concern about damage - not only to the pico cavities melting down and losing the ability to operate closed loop but also over stimulating the larger cavities to plastic hot conditions where the stiction forces would alleviate the Casimir geometries.[melting closed or growing perpendicular whiskers] Fran From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:11 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy thermal inertia being the cause. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long? At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the expected amount. At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was with electric power input. By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C. Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 05:00 AM 9/14/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: These test results are indeed difficult to explain. And (regrettably) incomplete. We know that the power to the resistor was being cycled on and off, but not the actual duty ratio! Water came out -- but we don't know its temperature. I have one question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course. However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature at local pressure. I plugged a couple of values into my calculator just to see the shape of things (I used the total input water flow, and a 100% power duty cycle). First, presuming it boiled at atmospheric pressure, and was then superheated to 130 http://tinyurl.com/ecat-lewan-sep-superheated This is what would happen if it boiled at 130 and produced steam quality of 0.5 (all the overflow water) http://tinyurl.com/ecat-lewan-sep-boil130 The chimney could act as a pressure-reducer. Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain 130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small, just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating, because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC. I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an online calculator) It's hard to explain a temperature increase by thermal storage.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Mr. Catania, What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2 degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been previously recorded to have been dropping. BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a fool is no way to go about winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the thermal inertia situation than you. Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of this forum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
The data after power off are not consistent with a temperature increase from before power off. In fact there is a steady decline from before power of which is completely consitent with thermal inertia. The thermal inertia is of course more than a two minute effect in this E-Cat as examination of the heat-up data and post power-down data confirm. Also this is inline w/ estimates of the mass of metal in E-Cat. You're confused if you think you see anomalous production after power-off. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Mr. Catania, What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2 degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been previously recorded to have been dropping. BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a fool is no way to go about winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the thermal inertia situation than you. Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of this forum. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. That data is from: *Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011* Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in this report. We could have used that in previous reports. As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after all. I am still working through this report. Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment attached to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies and magnetic fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple performance, the people observing the experiment would have seen that happen immediately when the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this could not explain the temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off. Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow rate (rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermal inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The highest temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was turned off. I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell. - Jed
[Vo]:Duty cycle was 100% in latter part of test
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: And (regrettably) incomplete. We know that the power to the resistor was being cycled on and off, but not the actual duty ratio! The duty cycle is 100% after 19:40. It says: 19:40Power was increased to the maximum value, “9.” [blue box control], and power was at this point constantly switched on. . . . I take that to mean a 100% duty cycle. We can ask Lewan if you suspect it means anything else. See the note for 19:10. Input AC current was 11.6 A. Over-all AC voltage was 218 volts. DC voltage was zero. 2.5 kW. Lewan uses 2.6 kW. Water came out -- but we don't know its temperature. Well, it would have boiled away a lot more if it was much hotter than 100°C. You can see it steaming but it would have burst into a lot of steam if it had been superheated. Ask Lewan if you have questions. Don't bother him with trivial stuff. Read everything carefully before you ask. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hello again, Mr. Catania, I realize I'm just as guilty of using this term as you, but IMO the continued use of the phrase, thermal inertia to explain the interesting thermal temperature changes tends to confuse the issue more than it helps. Technically speaking, what's happening here has little to do with inertia, certainly not in a mechanical sense. Inertia implies that there are Newtonian/mechanical forces at play. What we are trying to assess here are the effects of Thermal Propagation - how heat transfers (migrates) throughout Rossi's eCat configuration. A more objective study of query would be to perform a Finite Element Method simulation of the thermal effects in order to observe how temperatures are alleged to propagate through Rossi's eCats. Obviously, the computer model would have to be based on the physical properties of Rossi's eCats as accurately as possible. Alas, I suspect there are none on this forum that might possess the dimensional/physical specifications of Rossi's eCats, or the technical know-how on how to run the appropriate FEM s/w. As for me, I have performed thousands of FEMM, (Finite Element Method Magnetic) simulations, but never on the effects of thermal migration. Alas, I can't be of much assistance. With that said, I have read your comments several times. Your first sentence starts out stating: The data after power off are not consistent with a temperature increase from before power off. You continue with additional comments that confuse me even more. Perhaps your command of the English language is not terribly good. I know I'm dyslexic at times, so I try to give allowances the literary grammatical eccentricities of others. All I know is that I have yet to understand what you are trying to say. I do know that you end by saying I'm ...confused if [I] think [I] see anomalous production after power off. That part I get. ;-) Indeed, perhaps I am confused, Mr. Catania. But then, perhaps the confusion is at the other end. Time will tell. I'm content to wait it out and see what develops. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Here my Analysis: At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure. Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open? Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure reduction valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it closes when the pressure sinks. This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure. Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated: (This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure) 1 bar - 120.2° 1.5 bar - 127.4° 2.0 bar - 133.5° 2.5 bar - 138.9° Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it has a temperature of 120°. Wenn it flows out it will vaporize partially and produce steam. This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose: The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade. When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand to air (over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the steam will cool down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the output water flow at the steam outlet. So far my qualitative steam temperature pressure analysis. There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
2011/9/14 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: 50% fluid water 2.5% drops 47.5% vapour This must be noted that these estimations are when temperature was ca. 118 °C or 90 kPa overpressure. After that temperature rose to 133°C and overpressure to 170 kPa. Therefore 60-80% of water was evaporated and E-Cat did work exactly as it should work. Actually I am somewhat puzzled that indeed E-Cat is working such a perfect way that Rossi can push output power so close to the maximum of the enthalpy absorption ability of cooling water. This is either sure sign that technology is very commercially mature or it is a hoax. It is no more just a lab prototype, but commercially ready prototype. I was glad to see that he DOES have a simple water trap in the outlet hose, which separates the fluid water. I wonder if there is now enough evidence for the steam quality people to see that even after such high pressure difference hot water and steam are clearly separated. I wonder how history will remember this steam quality chapter, when prominent people (such as Krivit and Ekström) were violently discussing about steam quality without knowing what steam quality actually means. When Rossi opens the outlet the pressure of the water and steam is clearly greater than atmospheric. Indeed, for me it is very consistent pressure difference that of in autoclave although I have never dared to open the valve that fast as they did. I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an online calculator) Actually the diameter of the orifice where the hose is attached is probably the tightest place. And of course for steam backpressure, the tightest place is what counts most. The diameter of the orifice is considerably less than the inner diameter of the hose. I would estimate it to be 5-10 mm. This should be consistent with ca. 1.0°C / 3.2 kPa overpressure and the steam volume that was produced ca. 2 kW total power. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. That data is from: Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011 Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in this report. We could have used that in previous reports. As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after all. I am still working through this report. Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment attached to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies and magnetic fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple performance, the people observing the experiment would have seen that happen immediately when the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this could not explain the temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off. Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow rate (rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermal inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The highest temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was turned off. I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell. - Jed
[Vo]:The pump was left running during the self-sustaining event
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why? There is no way they would stop the pump! The temperature would climb and it would blow up. I do not see what you mean. (I don't hear what you mean.) In the video, starting around 5:00 they turn off the power. I hear the pump still running. The pump sound is gone at 6:10 in the video, which is after the test concludes, just before they open the reactor. The log shows that was real-time 23:10. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The pump was left running during the self-sustaining event
I wrote: I do not see what you mean. (I don't hear what you mean.) In the video, starting around 5:00 they turn off the power. I hear the pump still running. I mean the video minute 5, which occurred at 23:10 real-time. The pump sound continues until the video jumps ahead to real-time 23:10. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure. Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open? This troubled me too and I found it unexplainable until I thought that the valve, valve stem and metal were probably hot from having been previously heated by heater core. If their temperature had'nt dropped below 100C there could be considerable flahing to steam upon exit of water through the valve. - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck: a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Here my Analysis: At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure. Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open? Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure reduction valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it closes when the pressure sinks. This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure. Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated: (This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure) 1 bar - 120.2° 1.5 bar - 127.4° 2.0 bar - 133.5° 2.5 bar - 138.9° Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it has a temperature of 120°. Wenn it flows out it will vaporize partially and produce steam. This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose: The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade. When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand to air (over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the steam will cool down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the output water flow at the steam outlet. So far my qualitative steam temperature pressure analysis. There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
They admit themselves that steam quality could be as low as 59%. The pressure in the E-Cat is probably near atmospheric. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik 2011/9/14 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: 50% fluid water 2.5% drops 47.5% vapour This must be noted that these estimations are when temperature was ca. 118 °C or 90 kPa overpressure. After that temperature rose to 133°C and overpressure to 170 kPa. Therefore 60-80% of water was evaporated and E-Cat did work exactly as it should work. Actually I am somewhat puzzled that indeed E-Cat is working such a perfect way that Rossi can push output power so close to the maximum of the enthalpy absorption ability of cooling water. This is either sure sign that technology is very commercially mature or it is a hoax. It is no more just a lab prototype, but commercially ready prototype. I was glad to see that he DOES have a simple water trap in the outlet hose, which separates the fluid water. I wonder if there is now enough evidence for the steam quality people to see that even after such high pressure difference hot water and steam are clearly separated. I wonder how history will remember this steam quality chapter, when prominent people (such as Krivit and Ekström) were violently discussing about steam quality without knowing what steam quality actually means. When Rossi opens the outlet the pressure of the water and steam is clearly greater than atmospheric. Indeed, for me it is very consistent pressure difference that of in autoclave although I have never dared to open the valve that fast as they did. I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an online calculator) Actually the diameter of the orifice where the hose is attached is probably the tightest place. And of course for steam backpressure, the tightest place is what counts most. The diameter of the orifice is considerably less than the inner diameter of the hose. I would estimate it to be 5-10 mm. This should be consistent with ca. 1.0°C / 3.2 kPa overpressure and the steam volume that was produced ca. 2 kW total power. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The pump was left running during the self-sustaining event
Pump was stopped at 23:10 - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 3:04 PM Subject: [Vo]:The pump was left running during the self-sustaining event Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the pump and why? There is no way they would stop the pump! The temperature would climb and it would blow up. I do not see what you mean. (I don't hear what you mean.) In the video, starting around 5:00 they turn off the power. I hear the pump still running. The pump sound is gone at 6:10 in the video, which is after the test concludes, just before they open the reactor. The log shows that was real-time 23:10. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The pump was left running during the self-sustaining event
Am 14.09.2011 21:09, schrieb Jed Rothwell: I wrote: I do not see what you mean. (I don't hear what you mean.) In the video, starting around 5:00 they turn off the power. I hear the pump still running. I mean the video minute 5, which occurred at 23:10 real-time. The pump sound continues until the video jumps ahead to real-time 23:10. Yes, I have seen it now. I was in error, sorry. Peter
[Vo]:Video time synced to real time
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I mean the video minute 5, which occurred at 23:10 real-time. The pump sound continues until the video jumps ahead to real-time 23:10. Yes, I have seen it now. I was in error, sorry. I got it wrong, too. Minute 5 is real-time 23:35. It is a shame they did not time-stamp the video. By the way, the graph on the last page shows the temperature rising after the cut off at 22:35. I assume these points are averaged and smoothed. The lines represent: blue Serie1 Ambient room temperature red Serie2 Inlet water temperature green Serie3 Outlet temperature Let's coordinate video and real-time: Video time 0:15 Gas is already added, pump is on. Resistor is at maximum power, 9 (as shown in video time 1:40). So this is after 19:40 real-time. Continuous video taken. Video time 3:42 Computer screen shows outlet vapor 129.10°C. Lewan says the test has continued for a couple of hours. He says: We started at 6:30 pm and now it is is 10:20. (22:20) Okay, that pegs the time. Transition at video time 4:13. Shows steam. Some water. Transition at video 4:40. Lewan says Okay, now it is 10:30 (22:30) Heating is shown at full power, 9, continuous duty cycle. Video time 4:50. Power is turned down to 0. Lewan: Now at 10:30 we switch off the electrical resistance. Amperage drops from 11 to to 0.1 A. Continuous video. Video time 5:50, one minute after power cut off. Computer screen shown. No change in outlet temperature, which is 133.50°C, computer time 22:38. So, cooling is not instantaneous; the power supply did not affect the thermocouples. The log shows the temperature is 123.0°C. This is probably a typo. Will ask Lewan. Video time 6:04. Video transition. Lewan: Now it is 10:10. (He must mean 11:10 pm; i.e. 23:10) We have been going a half an hour without any electrical energy. (Actually, 35 minutes.) Video 6:45 valve open. Hot water and steam come out. Video 8:07. End.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece [snip] This video also disproofs wet steam hypothesis as steam and hot water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's atomization of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should be according normal steam physics. –Jouni The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. It would have been interesting to see the hose pulled off the older E- cats. I have no doubt whatsoever water poured out of them and out the hose. I see my calculations and assertions thoroughly vindicated. The hose was pulled off as I suggested and water gushed out along with the steam. I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to actually do calorimetry on the output? Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. What is likely indirectly being measured by the thermometer is the build-up of temperature in the large masses of lead, and copper, etc. within the insulation. I expect the thermometer is probably still in a metal well. The only difference this time is the thermal resistance is much lower between that well and the large metal thermal mass. Before the thermal wicking into the thermometer well easily could have accounted for a few °C, now it likely accounts for 30°C. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
2011/9/14 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to actually do calorimetry on the output? I will do it soon. Actually I am right now writing it. There are plenty of ways to do calorimetry. Not all ways are written in the engineer's manual. Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. Untrue. It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. What is likely indirectly being measured by the thermometer is the build-up of temperature in the large masses of lead, and copper, etc. within the insulation. Water contains most of the thermal mass, therefore metal temperature is the same as water temperature. I suggest for you to toy around with autoclave. E-Cat behaves here exactly like autoclave. Pay especially attention when they opened the pressure valve and released 121°C water out of the E-Cat. If you have ever operated autoclave you will find this feeling very familiar. There is just something fascinating in high pressure steam. –Jouni
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
JC stated: (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's internal temperature on startup. Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of '5' and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power. Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
2011/9/14 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. Indeed that temperature graph is suggesting that thermal inertia could explain the behavior. This would work, if there is no inlet water pumped. But as there is pumped about 5 kg of inlet water into E-Cat during the self-sustaining mode, this would require that there is metallic thermal mass something like in order of one ton. Of course as there is lots of water, requirements are not that high, but still thermal inertia cannot explain the behavior of E-Cat not, by two orders of magnitude. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 09:52 AM 9/14/2011, Rich Murray wrote: Richard M. Any relation, I wonder? September 14th, 2011 at 3:33 AM Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi, If you could spare a bit of time, I have a few questions. 1)Could you please inform us as to the reactor core volume of the new E-Cat modules? Have they increased in size from 50 cubic centimeter modules? If so, what is their size and volume? AR: 1- same density as before 2) Will the home or domestic units you mention utilize the same reactor cores as the units in the one megawatt system? AR: 2- no info about this is available 3) Will the self sustaining home or domestic units have to utilize an input every 30 minutes, or will they be able to run continually without input? AR: 3- automatic operation 4) In the system featured by NyTeknik (very impressive by the way), is all the liquid water coming out from the system condensed steam that has cooled down while traveling down the tube? If so, the output energy is on the high side of Nytekniks estimates. AR: 4- yes Congratulations on the success you are having with the E-Cat! I hope you obtain the funding you need so the expenses will not have to come out of your own pocket.
[Vo]:Lewan report corrected
A new version of this report has been uploaded: *Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011* Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 The new version says QUOTE: 22:35 Power to the resistance was cut off. Input AC current was 0.11 A. Over-all AC voltage was 232 volts. DC voltage was zero. AC current through the resistance was 0.11 A. T2=29.0°C, T3=133.0°C. (*Typo corrected Sept 14*). 22:40 T2=28.9°C, T3=133.7°C. 22:50 T2=28.8°C, T3=131.2°C. END QUOTE There is a slight temperature rise at 22:40. Could be significant. I would like to see second-by-second data after the power cut off. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 01:55 PM 9/14/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: We know that the Setting is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states power was at this point constantly switched on, then a setting of 9 is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLCs are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of 5 is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. Lewan did report that at setting 5 the ON and OFF times were equal. So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Lewan did report that at setting 5 the ON and OFF times were equal. So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess. Lewan wrote that PLC/9 is full cycle. Also, that is a single digit decimal display. It don't go any higher than 9. Nine is it. Back in the day it would have gone all hexadecimal on you: 9, A, B, C, D, E, F. The programmers would smile knowingly and the civilians would wonder what the heck that was doing in a numeric display. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:29 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 14.09.2011 10:08, schrieb Horace Heffner: It is not possible to put enough lead in the device to suppress the 1.33 MeV gammas from cobalt to even a non-lethal level - provided there is enough cobalt to sustain a 15 kW reaction at one gamma per LENR reaction. Yes this is correct. But this is not what I wanted to say. OK. My comments were based on assumptions I made from what you wrote. Just to raise the level of understanding, here is the basis of my comments, with some paraphrasing. You said you felt the energy levels of gammas from cobalt decay to nickel may be significant to catalyzing a nickel LENR reaction. This to me implies a 1-1 relation of the stimulating gammas to the stimulated nickel. It implies each stimulating gamma is absorbed by the Ni nucleus it stimulates. I suggested that an upper limit to Ni-H LENR energies is about 10 MeV per LENR reaction. This means a 1.33 MeV photon interacts with a Ni nucleus, or Ni plus hydrogen ensemble, and catalyses a reaction that produces 10 MeV. The gammas to which I referred were 1.33 MeV catalytic gammas, not LENR produced gammas. I did not suggest the reaction produced gammas, or that they would be involved in Celani's pre-test background level measurements. I do, however, think there is reason to expect Ni-H LENR reactions to produce gammas, even as measured momentarily by Celani after the experiment started. BTW, it is notable that there could have been a shielded gamma source located, and momentarily unshielded, in the room Rossi was in. Celani's report says Rossi walked in right after Cealani's gamma measurement was pegged. The source Celani measured would not have had to have been in the device itself. Celani did say there were unexplained anomalies in the readings as he moved around the room he was in. I think there could be a very small gamma source inside, possibly cobalt 60, with a power of milliwatts or microwatts. This gamma radiation could excite the nickel atom and bring it into resonance in a novel, yet unknown way and could trigger the LENR reaction. Well, that is the assumption I made in my calculations - that one gamma stimulates one nickel nucleus. The gamm in the process disappears though. It can not go forth and cause more such reactions. Therefore there is a 1-1 relation. There would be a requirement for a kW of catalytic gammas to create around 10 kW of LENR energy output under that assumption. May be its only used to start the reaction and then shielded, this could explain the gamma burst at startup. Here I have some admitted personal biases. I have posted some suggested reasons why gamma bursts might exists during start-up and shut-down, but that is way outside this discussion. I dont think the reactor itself produces gamma rays in the kilowatt range. Well, if the reactor is producing kW levels of free energy heat then that energy has to come from somewhere. If is coming from LENR then the source is likely nuclear. If the energy produced is photonic, and comes from the nucleus, then it is by definition called gamma radiation, even if in the low energy range for x-rays. Widom Larsen theory says, that not gamma rays are produced, because the gamma photons -if there are any- are downshifted to infrared. It is notable that their patent provided no test data to show there is actually any screening effect: http://tinyurl.com/47al74f If such a screening effect existed it should be comparatively easy (as CF experiments go) to demonstrate it. Here's what I think of WL theory: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg38261.html So ... you can see I bring my own bias to the conversation. Piantelli and Focardi in their papers reported either gamma radiation or energy production mutually exclusive, never both at the same time. And so far I understand, they had no shielding, and so they had no high power gamma radiation. This is indeed characteristic of LENR - no or nominal levels of high energy gammas. Low energy gammas and EUV are another thing entirely, but that is outside the scope of our conversation. No LENR researcher has yet reported hard gamma radiation or has died from gamma radiation so far I know, but many have reported huge amounts of energy. So, why should the Rossi device produce gamma radiation? It was measure by Celani. Rossi clearly has something that differs much from prior work - if it is as reported. My theory was, there might be gamma rays, that act as a catalyzer to start and possibly to sustain the LENR reaction,but I cannot believe, the gamma rays are the reason for the thermal energy. Yes, high energy gammas can not be the reason for the excess (ou) thermal energy - if it actually exists, which is still very much in doubt. This cannot be, as you have correctly
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better understand that from first principles not from a typo. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik September 14, 2011 articles: titles and URLs
Noisy, innit? Of course, you could hide a Fermi Pile in that big box now. ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/14 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to actually do calorimetry on the output? I will do it soon. Actually I am right now writing it. There are plenty of ways to do calorimetry. Not all ways are written in the engineer's manual. [snip] –Jouni Interesting! You are associated with Rossi? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik September 14, 2011 articles: titles and URLs
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Noisy, innit? Of course, you could hide a Fermi Pile in that big box now. ;-) Well, maybe if you used Plutonium. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's internal temperature on startup. Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of '5' and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power. Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Wrong, nothing like that mass is necessary. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik 2011/9/14 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. Indeed that temperature graph is suggesting that thermal inertia could explain the behavior. This would work, if there is no inlet water pumped. But as there is pumped about 5 kg of inlet water into E-Cat during the self-sustaining mode, this would require that there is metallic thermal mass something like in order of one ton. Of course as there is lots of water, requirements are not that high, but still thermal inertia cannot explain the behavior of E-Cat not, by two orders of magnitude. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On 2011-09-14 23:18, Jed Rothwell wrote: Lewan wrote that PLC/9 is full cycle. Also, that is a single digit decimal display. It don't go any higher than 9. Nine is it. Back in the day it would have gone all hexadecimal on you: 9, A, B, C, D, E, F. The programmers would smile knowingly and the civilians would wonder what the heck that was doing in a numeric display. By the way, that PLC works in 1/20 steps, not 1/10. Half steps are denoted by dotted numbers. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Lewan report corrected
Could be significant. LOL. With the glitches and inaccuracies I see in this data I doubt anything that small could be considered significant. I doubt there is even hydriding occuring. Thermal inertis explains it. Definitely I won;t let you ascribe a 0.7C for 5 min glitch to CF. That would be impossible to justify at this point as it would with even a pronounced anomaly. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:02 PM Subject: [Vo]:Lewan report corrected A new version of this report has been uploaded: Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011 Analysis of calorimetry http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 The new version says QUOTE: 22:35 Power to the resistance was cut off. Input AC current was 0.11 A. Over-all AC voltage was 232 volts. DC voltage was zero. AC current through the resistance was 0.11 A. T2=29.0°C, T3=133.0°C. (Typo corrected Sept 14). 22:40 T2=28.9°C, T3=133.7°C. 22:50 T2=28.8°C, T3=131.2°C. END QUOTE There is a slight temperature rise at 22:40. Could be significant. I would like to see second-by-second data after the power cut off. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
They probably go from 80 to 100% in going from 8 to 9. So its obvious that thermal inertia would take it out about 2hrs. - Original Message - From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:07 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik At 01:55 PM 9/14/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. Lewan did report that at setting 5 the ON and OFF times were equal. So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From Catania: For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better understand that from first principles not from a typo. From: Jed Rothwell Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. It has been a constant observation of mine that when Mr. Rothwell's has suspected a potential mistake or perhaps a typo in published data he has been quick to express his suspicions. Jed often quickly seeks to correct previous assumptions, even if it contradicts previous assessments he may have made. Meanwhile, I noticed that Mr. Catania's response to Mr. Rothwell's retraction appears to hinge on assuming a position of superiority by challenging Jed - such that Jed had better understand the first principals. The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. I could say something about that, such as: we are only human. Some more than others. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere in his analysis. I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond. Maybe he is Sun Tzu reincarnated? At least *that* would understandable. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
What was personally communicated to me by JR is, of course, beyond SVJ's ken. You seem to keen to overllok data which shows up the obvious flaw in your CF bias. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik From Catania: For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better understand that from first principles not from a typo. From: Jed Rothwell Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min. See my message Video time synced to real time. I will confirm this with Lewan. It has been a constant observation of mine that when Mr. Rothwell's has suspected a potential mistake or perhaps a typo in published data he has been quick to express his suspicions. Jed often quickly seeks to correct previous assumptions, even if it contradicts previous assessments he may have made. Meanwhile, I noticed that Mr. Catania's response to Mr. Rothwell's retraction appears to hinge on assuming a position of superiority by challenging Jed - such that Jed had better understand the first principals. The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. I could say something about that, such as: we are only human. Some more than others. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. If you have nothing to say why refer me to Sun Tzu. Are you saying he does have something to say? - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere in his analysis. I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond. Maybe he is Sun Tzu reincarnated? At least *that* would understandable. T
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
When Aristotle explains in general terms what he tries to do in his philosophical works, he says he is looking for first principles (or origins; archai): In every systematic inquiry (methodos) where there are first principles, or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way to the elements. It is clear, then, that in the science of nature as elsewhere, we should try first to determine questions about the first principles. The naturally proper direction of our road is from things better known and clearer to us, to things that are clearer and better known by nature; for the things known to us are not the same as the things known unconditionally (haplôs). Hence it is necessary for us to progress, following this procedure, from the things that are less clear by nature, but clearer to us, towards things that are clearer and better known by nature. (Phys. 184a10-21) - Original Message - From: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. If you have nothing to say why refer me to Sun Tzu. Are you saying he does have something to say? - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes. It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere in his analysis. I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond. Maybe he is Sun Tzu reincarnated? At least *that* would understandable. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi e-cat catalyzer, Gamma rays
Hi Horrace e.a., On 14-9-2011 23:40, Horace Heffner wrote: In any case, I think there is no reasonable possibility of a Co60 source of any possible significance being hidden behind the 2 cm lead shielding. However, there are various other radioactive materials that very well might be hidden behind a few cm of lead, and which might indeed be catalytic - especially beta producers. This brings me back to why I brought these questions forward. Let's suppose Rossi is using somekind of radiation source (not necessarily Co60) as a catalyzer. Is it then possible to determine the catalyzer, if the following parameters are known? 1. Maximum allowed radiation level which passes safety certification. 2. Maximum lead shielding thickness used around the reactor. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. I have read the Art of War three times in my career of three decades and learned much each time. Regarding SVJ's ken, his art is his self awareness and his objectivity. His Art is impressive. You also impress me. Impressions fill the spectrum. T
[Vo]:Bologna + Upsala RD
From JONP Andrea Rossi September 14th, 2011 at 4:19 PM Dear AB: Bologna: already in operation the RD, at its initial steps. Uppsala: sooner than expected you will have news. Warm Regards, A.R. mic
[Vo]:Stranded Astronaut Newtonian Loophole
Hi Fran, Thank you for your many well-thought out responses. Recently, however, I think you have been making the underlying faulty assumption that equal and opposite forces cannot indirectly result in a continuous net force on an objects. Remember (Was it Huckleberry Finn?) I reckon there's more than one way to skin a cat ? Please, consider this point without worrying about anything but the mechanical logic of this analogy. Stranded Astronaut Newtonian Loophole A first astronaut that has accidentally cut his tether and is drifting away from his vehicle; initially, he is stranded because has no reaction-mass to expel, so he cannot get back to the ship without help. Two of his friends, upon seeing his dilemma, throw identical hammers at him at the same instant, equally hard from opposite directions in an effort to directly push him either back to his vehicle or back to the Space Station. Unfortunately, he catches both hammers, so no net force is imparted to him, and his friends don't have any thing else to throw at him; so is he still stranded? Of course not! He now has reaction mass. Furthermore, even though the hammers imparted equal and opposite forces, even though there truly is no net imparted-force, he is now free to expel them both in any direction he wants. Even though no net momentum is imparted by the equal and opposite forces of the hammers being stopped by the stranded astronaut, net energy is being imparted to the system, from outside of the system; because, it turns out that our stranded astronaut is too lazy to expend his own energy; instead, he allowed the colliding hammers to compress a spring as they struck him; so now, he has a spring-loaded launch mechanism that he can release in any desired direction; therefore, he is not using internal energy or mass that he had to bring with him, yet he can accelerate in any direction. Furthermore, in principle, he can be continuously supplied with new reaction-mass to expel. Do you acknowledge that it doesn't necessarily matter if the Quantum Flux Hammers from all directions equally. What actually matters is whether the materials can respond asymmetrically to this non-net-momentum transfer of energy! If you accept that the electromagnetic Q Flux hammers away on all sides of all materials equally, then why are you so certain that the astronauts method, or something like it cannot be made to work. From: scott...@hotmail.com To: Subject: R decay rates changed by high voltage? Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:32:17 -0700 What do you make of this? US patent number #5,076,971. Barker places radioactive elements inside the sphere of aVan de Graaff generator, runs it at a negative potential for severalminutes/hours/days -- and finds that the rate of radioactive decayis extremely enhanced -- with some relationship to the magnitude ofthe negative potential. The principal investigator undertook a series of experiments to testthe Barker effect and the Keller Catalytic Process in changing therate of radioactive decay of heavy elements (elements heavier thanlead, such as radium, thorium, or uranium, all of which areradioactive). Barker claims that subjecting radioactive materials tohigh electrostatic potentials (50,000 volts to 500,000 volts) canincrease or decrease the rate of radioactive decay, with shortexposures of the high voltage capable of inducing erratic decay rateswhich slowly return to normal over a period of weeks. Keller claimsthat subjecting radioactive materials to the high heat and fusingreaction of a chemical process (Keller Catalytic Process) caneliminate the radioactivity completely.-- Michael Mandeville http://www.aa.net/~mwm/dexmrad1.html
[Vo]: FYI: testing new nanomaterial for hydrogen storage
FYI: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-nanomaterial-hydrogen-storage.html Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute are working to optimize a promising new nanomaterial called nanoblades for use in hydrogen storage. During their testing of the new material, they have discovered that it can store and release hydrogen extremely fast and at low temperatures compared to similar materials. Another important aspect of the new material is that it is also rechargeable. These attributes could make it ideal for use in onboard hydrogen storage for next-generation hydrogen or fuel cell vehicles.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
If the input water is municipal water, then it contains minerals, which will deposit out as boiler scale within the device, changing its temperature flow characteristics and internal geometry -- for instance, partially blocking and thus constricting the smallest outlet diameter, increasing the resistance to water flow, increasing the internal water/steam pressure within the device, causing increases of temperatures both of water and also of the heater resistor deep within the device, along with the mass of metals, storing increased heat energy in materials at various locations and temperatures -- if the heating resistor starts to deteriorate from overheating and corrosion, developing cracks, then it can short out the input electric voltage, electrolyzing the water into H2 and O2 bubbles, and causing many other complex electrochemical reactions with the impurities and dissolved metals in the water at various locations, temperatures, and pressures within the witch's cauldron -- eventually runaway short circuits can destroy the heater resistor and explode the device...
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 6 11 19:20 7 10 19:30 8 10 19:40 9 10 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Its a first principle. - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted without proof. If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference? - Original Message - From: Finlay MacNab To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik Excellent observation! If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point. As it is you have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. Congratulations! I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing. Please describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various materials. Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device during its operation. 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself! Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how thermal inertia can explain the rossi device. Please use equations and data to back up your claims. If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and distracting from more interesting discussion. -- Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik JC stated: “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)” Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal temperature on startup… Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes! Here is the time progression for resistance heater power… Timestamp PLC Setting DeltaTime (minutes) - --- -- 18:59 5 0 19:10 611 19:20 710 19:30 810 19:40 910 We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?) Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase. -Mark From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.
[Vo]:The September E-Cat
New self-sustaining test was far superior to previous E-Cat tests. It gave us very good quality data and also the steam quality issue was finally resolved hopefully even for the most hard headed critics. Test clearly shows that steam quality was ca. 99-98% as it is the case with all water boilers. There is no such thing as low quality steam relevant with E-Cat, because it does not exist in close to normal pressures. But steam and hot water are separate entities. This is shown very clearly when the outlet hose was removed and hot water was collected into bucket. High quality steam (ca. 99-98%) escaped, but liquid water content was flown gently into bucket. This was also very good reminder how easy it is to do calorimetry from steam. Just separate hot water content and steam from each other. Total enthalpy can be measured easily just by sparging steam/hot water into cool water bucket and measure the temperature change. This gives the enthalpy nice and cleanly. As steam temperature is directly proportional with total enthalpy, we can then find out easily the proper relationship of steam temperature and enthalpy, thus we see the heating power of E-Cat directly from the temperature of steam. And Rossi knows this this relationship exactly. In the recent test, we can find out that water inflow rate was ca. 11 kg/h and there was hot water collected 5-6 kg/h. Too bad that we have only one data point here and we have some uncertainty with water flow rate, because it was not constant but was perhaps correlated with internal steam pressure of E-Cat. However we can safely say that approximately half of the water was evaporated and half was in liquid form. This was only the case when the boiling temperature was ca. 118°C and pressure thus 190 kPa. Later steam temperature rose into 133.7°C and thus pressure exceeded 300 kPa. This indicates that more than 80% of inlet water was evaporated. This shows that Rossi can control and understands his reactor very well, because he can push E-Cat to the limits of the cooling power of water. If there had been any more heat production, it would have vaporized all the water and that means that there is nothing that cools down the reactor core. We can say that almost all inlet water was evaporated, and peak heating power was 6-7 kW, when the pressure was around 300 kPa. It is difficult to establish good error margins because we do not have all the details, especially inlet water flow rate might be problematic, because it should not be constant. That is because the pump pumps water with overpressure of 300 kPa (IIRC). If it needs to do work against up to 200 kPa steam overpressure, then flow rate should decrease inversely proportional to the heating power of E-Cat. When the peristaltic pump was calibrated without backpressure, it pumped water 15.8 kg/h. When there was not steam pressure inside E-Cat, water was pumped ca. 13 kg/h and when steam pressure was rising due to boiling, water pumping level was reduced to 11 kg/h. This should be consistent with the fact that peristaltic pump pumps water only with pressure of something like 300 kPa and if there is significant overpressure inside E-Cat, pump is slowing down. We should have a graph that shows the water inflow speed during the whole experiment if we are to establish exact calorimetry. Therefore I would estimate that errormargins are ±1kW. What means that they are quite significant. I am somewhat disappointed, because I thought that we could go even higher accuracy. But the uncertainty of inlet water flow was too great to make any more accurate estimation. Also only one datapoint at 118°C did not help with accuracy. What must be noted from Mats Lewan’s report that it is gross mistake to think that E-Cat operates in close to normal pressure. No, it is not possible, because superheated steam and liquid water cannot coexist. Also the specific heat of superheated steam is low, therefore it cannot maintain smooth temperature graph. Also visual evidence from the video of high pressure steam is more than clear. Indeed E-Cat does operate in high pressure and I am surprised that he still sticks with this false assumption. Lewan also did error with the idea that liquid water overflowing would indicate that opening for exit hose is large. No, it does not tell that, because pump pumps water with 300 kPa (IIRC) pressure, therefore it can push liquid water through a hole that is just few millimeters in diameter. Overpressure seems to be hard peace for many, perhaps because Galantini “measured the pressure inside E-Cat” to be same as room pressure, although he misread his instrument and did not understand that his instrument does indeed measure the room pressure, not the pressure where humidity probe reside. From previous versions, the diameter of steam exit orifice has considerably shrunk. As similar power range E-Cat produced in December experiment 10 kPa overpressure, now new E-Cat produced 20 fold higher overpressure. As the power of
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
The following post seems to be utterly out of touch with reality, a total fantasy. It is shocking to read. I don't know whether to respond or not. The claims made for months that all the water was being converted to steam has been utterly crushed! Krivit was clearly right on his seven points. More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. The water trap was clearly undersized by more than two orders of magnitude! It was less than useless! That I assume was because it was never dreamed the flow of water would be so large. What an embarrassment that must be. The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer than the water that pulses out with it is irrelevant. It is a red herring issue, a distraction from the glaring truth, a distraction from attention on the months of wrong headed excuses for not doing calorimetry on the output, and failure to *do* anything useful, other than talk, to see if the claims being made were true. So is the issue of the definition of steam quality. The important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being converted to steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the prior calorimetry claims were. Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self deception. Further, the E-cat mass has been greatly increased, and the max input power increased. The heat after death from mundane causes will now obviously be much longer. The thermal mass is larger, and the thermal resistance from the outside of the lead to the water is much larger. It will make for a dandy magic show, and much more discussion, but will make actual evaluation of the value of the device much more difficult. None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. Since the public is being kept in the dark, the months of fluffy bluster does, however, tip the scales more strongly toward a negative verdict. What a pity and waste of valuable time this is for Rossi if there really is something extraordinary going on in the E-cat. Hopefully the 1 MW unit test will provide economical steam for a very long period. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: New self-sustaining test was far superior to previous E-Cat tests. It gave us very good quality data and also the steam quality issue was finally resolved hopefully even for the most hard headed critics. Test clearly shows that steam quality was ca. 99-98% as it is the case with all water boilers. There is no such thing as low quality steam relevant with E-Cat, because it does not exist in close to normal pressures. But steam and hot water are separate entities. This is shown very clearly when the outlet hose was removed and hot water was collected into bucket. High quality steam (ca. 99-98%) escaped, but liquid water content was flown gently into bucket. This was also very good reminder how easy it is to do calorimetry from steam. Just separate hot water content and steam from each other. Total enthalpy can be measured easily just by sparging steam/hot water into cool water bucket and measure the temperature change. This gives the enthalpy nice and cleanly. As steam temperature is directly proportional with total enthalpy, we can then find out easily the proper relationship of steam temperature and enthalpy, thus we see the heating power of E-Cat directly from the temperature of steam. And Rossi knows this this relationship exactly. In the recent test, we can find out that water inflow rate was ca. 11 kg/h and there was hot water collected 5-6 kg/h. Too bad that we have only one data point here and we have some uncertainty with water flow rate, because it was not constant but was perhaps correlated with internal steam pressure of E-Cat. However we can safely say that approximately half of the water was evaporated and half was in liquid form. This was only the case when the boiling temperature was ca. 118°C and pressure thus 190 kPa. Later steam temperature rose into 133.7°C and thus pressure exceeded 300 kPa. This indicates that more than 80% of inlet water was evaporated. This shows that Rossi can control and understands his reactor very well, because he can push E-Cat to the limits of the cooling power of water. If there had been any more heat production, it would have
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
2011/9/15 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: The claims made for months that all the water was being converted to steam has been utterly crushed! Krivit was clearly right on his seven points. True, but his seven points had nothing to do with Rossi, but it was all to do with Levi and Galantini, who measured completely irrelevant variables, because they did not understand what was necessary to measure. Rossi knew exactly how much energy E-Cat was producing. And as I have studied it, I also know quite accurately total energy produced by all demonstrations. Here is some homework for you to do: Here are two graphs. Just from these graphs (ignore Test2), could you please work out the numbers and calculate what is the total heating power of E-Cat within these time intervals. Assume that 16:55 E-Cat is full of cool water, and water inflow rate is ca. 15 kg/h. A) from 16:55 (power turned on) 17:25 (first kink in the graph) B) from 17:25 to 17:35 (diminishing derivative) C) from 17:35 to 17:50 (second kink in the graph) D) from 17:50 to 18:00 (the beginning of flat temperature) E) from 18:00 to 18:05 (kink in the flat temperature line, power off) F) from 18:05 to 18:20 (sudden temperature drop) Some questions to ponder. Why temperature rise was constant during the A-period? Why temperature graph was saw like during timeperiod C? What was the temperature during period E? And why did temperature drop drastically after the end of time perioid F? Power graph (Test1) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwEjduFixI/E1M/lv4Osmoyro4/s1600/report5.png and corresponding steam/water temperature graph http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/E1E/TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg If you can answer these questions, please do. If you cannot answer these question, please do not claim that your criticism is anyway rational. More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. This is Mats Lewan's and only Mats Lewan's idea. Rossi does not think so. And it would not make any sense to ANY engineer anyway, because such a state where all water is converted into steam is not physically stable state of the system. System is no in equilibrium. This only shows that you do not understand much about engineering. Frankly I am disappointed your ad hominem filled and extremely insulting message, as it is only based on your lack of understanding what was happening in the Bologna. But one hint for you that do not look what Mats Lewan said, but look only raw data what he provided. Then calculate yourself, if you can. Of course you need to be creative, what might be problem for you, because no-one has has not cooked the data so that it is easy to digest. The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer than the water that pulses out with it is irrelevant. True but, this just shows, that you and Krivit does no nothing about the steam physics, because you are misusing concepts and you are inventing new definitions for physical concepts. The important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being converted to steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the prior calorimetry claims were. That does not have nothing to do with Rossi, because those silly claims were made by Galantini, Levi, et al. scientists, who did not know anything what they were doing. Galantini even misread his instrument as he thought that it measured the pressure where the probe is inside. This clearly shows, that he did not know anything what he was doing. You are mixing the claims made by Rossi and the claims made by independent scientists. Rossi has not done any claims, but he has just left independent scientists to measurements as they please. Too bad that they did not have much idea about calorimetry. But as I am looking you, Horace, they were not in bad company because neither does you have much creative ideas how to make calorimetry. E.g. your criticism about steam sparging test, was clearly shown to you that it is not from this world, but it was your misunderstanding of proper methods. Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self deception. What do you mean by equilibrium? If you are referring that all water is evaporated, there is no such thing. Only stable state of equilibrium is when E-Cat is producing less heat than cooling water can absorb. If you know anything about boiling water reactor technology (you may make a case study with Fukushima BWRs) then you should know, that there is always liquid water present. This is the basics of any steam technology and this has been always the case with E-Cats. The fact that you do not know too much about BWRs and calorimetry does not
