Re: [Vo]:My rejected submission to physicsforum cached by google
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:49 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > Hi Hamdi, > > They are obviously trying to keep out the crackpots. However what they are > apparently too short sighted to see, is that all breakthroughs are done by > "crackpots", at least until they are proven correct, at which point they become > "geniuses". ;) After some digging I found that physicsforum.com placed LENR on their banned topics list in February 2013, see here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/nasas-page-on-lenr.673383/ And here: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/ > Cold fusion and LENR The next one is interesting: > EMDrive and other reactionless drives: Articles suggesting that NASA, the Chinese government, or some other governmental actor is working on such a technology frequently appear in the popular press. These claims have been extensively debunked and are not acceptable references under the Physics Forums rules. Their list of banned topics does not include continental drift. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:A bibliography of the Electrically Exploded Conductor Phenomenon
Works for me. There, I shortened it: http://tinyurl.com/lyxu8f9 On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I was using chrome, so I tried FF and then IE, and still it can't resolve the domain. On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That doesn't work for me. Look carefully at your browser. It is probably saving the file. Or it is asking you if you want to save it. Chrome does not open it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:arXiv:1306.6364 Comments on the report Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: So they want a custom-made camera with raw output from the sensor!? I doubt it. The way I read this point was that they wanted the raw data feed from the IR camera rather than the analyzed data which presumably was the output of software on the laptop. It's still very unreasonable. It would mean that all the hard, camera-specific calibration work Optris their software does would have been thrown away, to be replaced by something Levi et al. would do at great expense for a result with much lower confidence. First of all, the experimenters would need access to that raw data. Unless the Optris software allows the user to save some sort of raw data they would have to talk to the camera themselves, possibly requiring significant software development. Custom software means higher potential for error -- and deception. Then there is a lot of work between displaying pretty images and getting proper measurements. Every camera has to be individually calibrated. You need to know the transmittance of the optics and the response of the sensor. You need to properly set the amplifier parameters; corrections for dark current have to be applied. Non-uniform pixel response and optical effects such as vignetting have to be dealt with. Then you need to get rid of any remaining non-linearities and hope the instrument doesn't drift too much from the calibration curves you obtained at great expense. By the way, thermal sensors also need precise temperature control and continuous calibration against their own temperature, so it's not just static calibration. Levi et al. would have been real fools to attempt anything like that. Skeptics would have a field day. Calling the use of a known, calibrated instrument an unnecessary detour and suggesting instead a do-it-yourself temperature retrieval is quite strange (to put it mildly.) Basically they're like someone who is complaining because an electronic weighing scale has been used to measure a vertical force; they would rather have the experimenter read the resistance of the strain gauge directly instead of relying on the manufacturer-certified output of the instrument. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:arXiv:1306.6364 Comments on the report Indications of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder
Ericsson Pomp wrote: To our understanding, the sensor of the IR camera actually provides an electrical signal proportional to the emitted power in its region of sensitivity. It would seem to us that this signal, in combination with the wavelength response of the sensor, should have been reported and used for the derivation of the total emitted power. It would seem that going via an inferred surface temperature of the emitting object is an unnecessary detour. So they want a custom-made camera with raw output from the sensor!? Had this been done, wouldn't they have written something like: The use of the raw electrical signal from the sensor instead of the manufacturer-calibrated temperature represents a new situation and introduces additional unknowns that make the estimation of the output power unreliable. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Jed wrote: This device is worth trillions of dollars to industrial corporations worldwide. Such secrets cannot be kept under wraps forever. True, but then I found this sentence in your book: The bottom line is that the energy sector, which is the largest industry in the world — a $2.8 trillion behemoth — will shrink to $1.3 billion, one-fourth the size of the bubblegum business. With stakes that high, shouldn't we expect LENR researchers to get offers they can't refuse? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Quoting from a previous mail: Consider two circuits connected by a pair of wires. Assuming circuits do not accumulate charge nor radiate, whatever current goes in must eventually go out, therefore it is sufficient to specify the instantaneous current I(t) in one wire. If we take one of the wires as a voltage reference then let U(t) be the instantaneous voltage difference between the two. The instantaneous power exchanged between the two circuits circuits is then P(t) = U(t) * I(t). Assuming again that the system is stationary, each quantity has a DC component and an AC component: U(t) = U_DC + U_AC(t) and I(t) = I_DC + I_AC(t). It then follows that P(t) = (U_DC + U_AC(t))*(I_DC + I_AC(t)) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + U_AC(t) * I_DC + U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) We have a power meter that measures voltage and current separately to calculate instantaneous power. If it cannot measure DC currents NOR voltages, the meter will only be using U_AC(t) and I_AC(t) and the estimated power will be P_est_1(t) = U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) and the error will be P(t) - P_est_1(t) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + I_DC * U_AC(t). But U_DC * I_AC(t) and I_DC * U_AC(t) have no net integrals over time, so the error is: U_DC * I_DC. In other words DC times AC cross-products do not contribute net power. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
Allow me to summarize the DC injection hypothesis: - It is theoretically possible to add DC to provide ~3kW of power that would be invisible to the PCE-830. However: - Given the size of the wires, I guess that amperage would need to be below 50 A. Otherwise the wires would heat up too much and this would show on the thermal camera. - This means that a DC offset of 60 V is required for 3kW injection. - This means that the scammer must be confident that any instrument or device connected would tolerate a 60V DC offset. This is a large offset. As the DC resistance of the primary winding of transformers is small compared to their reactance at 50 Hz, the extra DC would probably destroy any attached transformers. - The use of any electrical instrument capable of detecting DC would need to be prohibited. A 5$ multimeter can detect DC. So do oscilloscopes, or Fluke power analyzers. These would have to be prohibited. - Any significant DC current will produce a significant DC magnetic field nearby. Such a field is easily detectable by most recent smartphones or a simple compass. - Temporarily switching the extra DC power off when DC-capable instrumentation is used wouldn't be possible, as the temperature would drop rapidly and this would immediately show on the IR video / temp curve. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:18 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Even if fraud is highly unlikely, didn't Essen make a technically erroneous claim? Essen does seem to infer that the symmetry of the displayed waveform implies no DC offset, which would be a false conclusion IF the instrument's alleged DC-insensitivity is established; at this point it's only some blogger's single sentence report of what a (sales guy?) claimed to him. A proper characterization of the instrument would be needed. Now Essen et al's wording is sufficiently vague that they might have checked for DC offsets using other means. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Face-Palm moment: Essen et al did it again! [Abd's open letter]
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This discussion makes no sense to me. As far as I know, when you add DC to AC power, you get a DC bias. See: Yes and no, it all depends on the input stage of the PCE-830. But the DC scam doesn't make sense and here's why. Let's assume that Mats Lewan did talk to a guy from PCE Instruments Ltd and that the PCE-830 is indeed insensitive to DC voltages. Nothing extraordinary here. Putting aside the fact that Rossi is being called a scammer with no proof, it remains that it would really be fearless of him to expect to fool high-caliber technical people sent by a utility trade association using a middle school DC trick. But maybe he's an experimented scammer and has contingency plans. Let's assume there is at least ONE honest person in the experimenters group. That one honest person might very possibly want to bring a $20 DC-sensitive multimeter. That's a very reasonable demand. So Rossi would have needed, at the very least, a means to switch the DC off when a honest experimenter measures DC voltages. (Or even if he doesn't, he might see DC voltages anyway while switching between modes on his instrument.) He also needs a team of knowledgeable people to keep an eye on the honest experimenter and flick the switch if needed. If they turn the DC off, the temperature would drop rapidly and this would show on the IR video and the recorded time-temperature curve. That would look quite suspicious. As soon as we connected the multimeter, the power output of the e-Cat device dropped drastically. You don't want that in the report. So he would need some kind of emergency excuse. We detected radiation and had to shut down the reactor! Still suspicious, but alright... Nothing like that in the report, so the honest experimenter must have been talked out of checking the lines with a multimeter. Or maybe they put something in his wine. Now let's say that Rossi did all that. Let's assume Rossi knew beforehand the exact make and model of the power analyzer(s) the experimenters were going to use. He buys or borrows an identical unit (with identical probes and all) and determines that it can withstand a DC offset of, say, 300 volts for many hours without any problems. As Rossi needs to inject around maybe 3 kW there goes 10 amps. He gets a three-phase-to-DC converter and adds that between two phases with a remote switch in the middle. He makes sure the cables are thick enough, although ten amps is an ordinary amount and should be alright for the cables seen in the pictures. So far so good. Oh wait... he also has to make sure that no one has a compass, or a magnetometer... A 10 A current can easily be sensed from close range with a compass. No compasses as they may reveal an industrial trade secret. Alright. But a lot of smartphones have digital compasses and this is well-known. As an experienced scammer that hasn't been caught yet, Rossi must be paying a lot of attention to small details like this. So he somehow made sure that no one came with a smartphone having a magnetometer. How did he spell out his conditions to Elforsk? He probably left a message like this: Hi this is Andrea Rossi, I'm returning your call. I agree to the experiment but I want no multimeters; power analyzers allowed but I must pre-approve the model; I can already tell you that the PCE-830 is approved but Fluke analyzers are not approved; no oscilloscopes; no iPhone or Android devices; no compasses; no DAQ boards; no spectrum analyzers; no Hall effect probes. Thermal cameras are OK. Radiation sensors are OK. Nothing else. Now if Levi, Foschi, Hartman, Höistad, Petterson, Tegnér and Essén have agreed to such conditions then they were either complicit or are collectively stupid. As they are distinguished technical people, they must have been in bed with Rossi. In other words it's a conspiracy. As we don't even have specific motives for most of the experimenters, we must assume money. What amount of money would convince persons like these to risk their liberty, reputations and nice, comfy careers or retirements? I don't have much experience in organized crime but I would say $100k per head would be a minimum and I'm probably being very conservative. So to buy a majority of experimenters Rossi must have sunk something close to $500k for this report. So we have two competing hypotheses: - Rossi spent half a million dollars and bought a majority of the experimenters, who agreed to Rossi's stringent conditions. They kept an eye on the innocent one(s) so that Rossi can conduct his little DC trick; oh and these experimenters include people sent by Elforsk, a Swedish utility company. - The e-Cat burns nickel à la LENR and produces a few kilowatts of excess power. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:12 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not exactly sure of where you are going with this discussion. When I use the term RMS source voltage, I am referring to the RMS value of the source itself at its fundamental frequency which is the only drive signal present. Dave, We're not talking of the same things it seems. Let's try to clear the confusion. The input from the socket is a sine wave during the test and was looked at visually by the same guy, so it does not make sense to consider DC voltage present. How was it looked at, though? Oscilloscope inputs have an option to select between AC and DC coupling. If you use AC coupling, you will still see a nice sine wave but you will be blind to DC offsets. An oscilloscope wasn't used; a three-phased power meter was. We don't know if the voltage input of the three-phase meter is DC or AC. DC voltage is not seen nor present at this point according to the written information supplied by one of the testers. Yes, it's true that we got a comment later in the discussion saying that, but it's not written black on white in the report. Apparently it wasn't enough for Cude et al. since they kept talking about DC trickery, which is why I'm addressing the issue. Now there have been two proposed modes of trickery: (1) Diode trickery: Is it possible to fool the power meter by using non-linear loads such as diodes? (2) Mains trickery: Is it possible to fool the power meter by manipulating the tree-phased power? You are saying that (1) is difficult and I agree. I believe I've shown that (2) (using low-frequency signals) is possible only if the power meter is insensitive to DC voltages. It is still highly implausible for practical and sociological reasons. It would be great to know that the power meter IS sensitive to DC voltages as that would rule out (2) in a bullet-proof way. As for HF cheating (i.e. 100 kHz)... it would take quite an RF genius to figure out a way of passing 3 kW unnoticed over a couple of random mains wires without starting a fire, damaging equipment nor giving RF burns to anyone. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
Dave we're basically agreeing on everything and I'm confident that the experimenters properly checked for DC, however I know how the skeptical minds work and unless they put it clearly in writing (e.g. in the report) there will be some small lingering doubt. To summarize: 1) Diode rectification tricks - provided the mains source is AC, this will be caught by the power meter. A sine wave has no net integral over time. 2) HF power injection - not possible, at the power levels required it would bleed everywhere and cause equipment malfunction or damage. 3) DC injection - foolish and dangerous, but seems to be the only possible way, with a big IF. (3) would still be foolish because the experimenters can very easily check for DC at any time, and they did (but it's not in the report, unfortunately). A 10-year old can check for DC. But it wasn't continuously checked, so cudeologists could say that they switched DC off while they had a multimeter hooked. My point is then that even (3) IS IMPOSSIBLE IF the power meter can sense DC voltages. That holds true even if the experimenters hadn't checked for DC, because it would require very high currents. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:AC/DC, power, etc.
David Roberson wrote: I have not seen an indication that that power meter senses DC directly. The DC that flows into of from the source supply does not need to be sensed in order to calculate the power being delivered from that source. I realize that this seems contrary to common sense, but there is mathematical support as well as spice model demonstration of this behavior. I can directly measure all of the power being given to the series diode and load resistor by the AC sine wave source by multiplying the RMS source voltage times the RMS fundamental current magnitude and taking into account the phase shift between them. All other harmonics and DC make no difference to the determination. When you say RMS source voltage, that sounds like you're including DC. It's a bit confusing. I'm talking of the ability of the power meter to sense DC voltages. We agree that the current probes used don't provide DC current, however AFAIK it is perfectly possible that the power meter can read DC ***VOLTAGES***. Consider two circuits connected by a pair of wires. Assuming circuits do not accumulate charge nor radiate, whatever current goes in must eventually go out, therefore it is sufficient to specify the instantaneous current I(t) in one wire. If we take one of the wires as a voltage reference then let U(t) be the instantaneous voltage difference between the two. The instantaneous power exchanged between the two circuits circuits is then P(t) = U(t) * I(t). Assuming again that the system is stationary, each quantity has a DC component and an AC component: U(t) = U_DC + U_AC(t) and I(t) = I_DC + I_AC(t). It then follows that P(t) = (U_DC + U_AC(t))*(I_DC + I_AC(t)) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + U_AC(t) * I_DC + U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) We have a power meter that measures voltage and current separately to calculate instantaneous power. If it cannot measure DC currents NOR voltages, the meter will only be using U_AC(t) and I_AC(t) and the estimated power will be P_est_1(t) = U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) and the error will be P(t) - P_est_1(t) = U_DC * I_DC + U_DC * I_AC(t) + I_DC * U_AC(t). If the power meter can measure DC voltages but not currents, the estimated power will be P_est_2(t) = U_DC * I_AC(t) + U_AC(t) * I_AC(t) and the error will be P(t) - P_est_2(t) = U_DC * I_DC + I_DC * U_AC(t). If the power meter cannot see DC voltages then a DC voltage can be injected between the two wires; this will produce a DC current which won't be seen either. For example if we assume the coils are purely resistive then a power component P_DC = U_DC^2 / R will be provided to the e-Cat but invisible. If the power meter can see DC voltages, then the goal of the scammer is to make P(t) bigger than P_est_2(t) that is to maximize I_DC*(U_DC + U_AC(t)). U_AC(t) is fixed by the mains which can be assumed to be a perfect voltage source. Hence a DC current must flow, which requires a DC voltage. But in addition to power, U_DC is also observed. Any significant offset voltage would be detected. So we need a fake-Cat that has sufficiently low DC offset to not cause alarm. As the voltage amplitude is on the order of 300 volts, a few volts could be written off as measurement error or leakage. Let's say up to 10 V DC could be injected without raising suspicions. If we need to produce 2-3 kW, this means by R_DC=U^2/P that R_DC=33 mohm. In that case the current will be 300 amperes. I don't think that's feasible given that the wires would dissipate a lot of heat and be caught on the thermal cameras — unless they are room temperature superconductors (maybe that's Rossi's next scam?). So Rossi can't cheat if DC *voltages* can be measured. Now I haven't double-checked the above, so consider this preliminary, but it's very first principles and I'm sure any mistake I made will be caught by the official or unofficial EEs lurking here. But it seems that: * If the power analyzer is blind to DC *voltages*, then DC voltages can be injected but the scammer will have to watch the experimenters 24/7 to make sure that the phantom DC is switched off if someone connects something else... like a $20 multimeter. And high DC voltages are much more dangerous than AC voltages. * If the power analyzer is *not* blind to DC *voltages* then cheating seems to be impossible because very high currents would be needed, causing wire heating that would be caught by the thermal cameras, strong magnetic fields on wires and other poltergeist effects. That's why we need to know if the power analyzer senses DC voltages. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
I can talk crazy too, here's my 5¢. In addition to the powerful energy lobbies, I believe CF would unlock new physics, and that means new weapons. Now that could be kind-of-OK if developing those new weapons requires nation-state-level funding for decades, but if it allows any Joe McTerrorist to assemble a 50 kton CF bomb from a few physical equations and two bags of nickel shavings then it might just be better to keep the cold fusion genie in the bottle while the New World Order figures out how to pacify the population. In other words, world peace and thus mandatory Google Glasses and QR codes tattooed on our foreheads might be prerequisites for letting CF develop. But it seems like we need cheap energy for world peace to begin with. So maybe Rossi didn't die in a car accident early in the game because his device is not readily weaponizable... -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Having tried to edit something on the wiki E-CAT page and having it immediately deleted, I ended up writing this on the Topic Talk page. It probably won't do any good but if enough people do this (anyone can) They say there are 1000- 7000 hits per day on the E-CAT page. Just a quick semi-relevant comment. There is a LENR group on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/lenr and Reddit provides a Wiki facility for subreddits (= Reddit groups). I don't know how sympathethic the owners of that subreddit (e.g. the LENR subreddit moderators) are to the cause, but you can create your own subreddit and edit its Wiki as you see fit. I have used Reddit's Wiki facilities and while they are not as extensive as those of Wikipedia they are good enough. Reddit is also very good for having discussions thanks to its voting system that keeps trolls and spammers at bay while still giving everyone a chance to voice their opinion (using a combination of throttling and votes.) It also allows anonymous discussion which is good for controversial, career-endangering fields such as LENR. I love the mailing list format as its dependence on third-party infrastructure is minimal and replaceable but it's a bit too easy for opponents to flood and derail discussions. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Wiki on E-CAT
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:57 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Berke Durak, My interest was to get Wiki to correct their entry. Not clear to me how Reddit can help that. The idea is that pro-LENR people could collaboratively work on a wiki where they have editorial control, whose contents would compete with Wikipedia on search engine results, eventually forcing Wikipedia (and society) to be more willing to accept the relevant information. Unlike other wikis, the Reddit wikis are tightly coupled with the rest of the subreddit where discussions and link-sharing can take place. It would thus be more community-forming, and its exposure to the younger generation is high. Edits on Wikipedia proper could also be coordinated from there. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: DC Meter Cheat Spice Model to be Replicated
Dave, Can the power analyzer sense DC voltages? I haven't been able to figure this out from the manual or the datasheet, but I'm sure someone who has actual experience with three-phase power measurements should be able to answer that question. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:On deception. 3rd EE
Does anyone know if the power analyzer sees DC *VOLTAGES*? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
the dummy test they were able to directly hook their equipment to the wires going to the reactor since the proprietary industrial trade secret waveform wasn't applied. This makes sense, since the PCE-830 power analyser can capture waveforms. And in March it's single phase ac. There's no reason they need high power dc. Please stop pretending you know the details of the system and the trade-offs and design goals of Rossi et al. In all cases, three-phase power makes good sense for an industrial system, especially if it is meant to generate power. So, in the end you admit that it's not needed for this purpose, and that it's a bother. Why bother? I explained that. It forces the use of a specific mains line that will not be used for anything else. It increases the complexity, which gives much opportunity for deception. And it makes much higher power available, in case he wants to make it glow. What? I'm not admitting anything. Unlike you I don't know pretend to know how their system works. Triphase is legit and not suspicious, that's all I'm saying. Your claim that it only makes sense as a scamming aid remains unsupported. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:On deception
To deceive an electronics guy, one may use a chemistry trick. To deceive a chemist, one may use software tricks. To deceive a computer scientist, one may use a physics trick. But using an electricity trick to deceive a group of experts sent by a power industry association is stupid. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Gibbs: Rossi's A Fraud! No, He's Not! Yes, He Is! No, He Isn't!
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That is completely wrong. In experimental science you never need to explain how something works in order to confirm it is real. You just need to replicate it and show there is no error in the instruments or techniques. The map = Theory The territory = Experiments It's not on the map = No good theory If it's not on the map, it can't exist! (Our map makers are very good.) = It doesn't fit physics thus it's pseudo-science! (Our scientists are very good.) -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: I don't buy it. The reactor is a sealed faraday cage, so it's not going to care about ripple or dc vs ac. It's just a thermal interface. The reactor might require or might be incompatible with low-frequency AC magnetic fields, which can go through 3 mm of steel, especially AISI 310 steel which has very low magnetic permeability. (Faraday cages bounce off electromagnetic signals (balanced E + B) but not necessarily penetrating magnetic signals.) In addition we are told the instantaneous power was about 930 W. If unfiltered, full-wave rectified AC was used then in 10 ms, that 930 W will supply or fail to supply about 10 J. As this is metal here and not water the thermal masses are pretty low: for the steel casing which has a thermal mass of about .15 J/K this would mean a change of 1.5 degree, 100 times per second. With a diffusivity of .36 m2/s this 100 Hz thermal signal would certainly reach the core. Who knows if the core minds a 100 Hz thermal+magnetic purr? But in any case, in the dummy run, they measured the power to the ecat so that suggests it's an ordinary ac signal. Anyway, a box powered by ordinary mains can produce any signal shape they want. They wouldn't go to 3-phase just to skimp on diodes and capacitors. The 3-phase looks more like obfuscation to me. Again, if they need to have precise PWM without a large 100 Hz ripple, they will have to produce high-power DC, and they will want it to be reliable. It's not just a matter of skimping on capacitors. The lifetime of aluminum electrolytic is very sensitive to heat. If you run them hot (~ 80C) they will last less than a year... and that's if you're lucky. And given the amperages, they will run hot. Also we are talking of controlling devices having a multi-kilowatt output, and putting these devices together to produce megawatt outputs. This means that there will be lots of heat. It makes sense to think that Rossi wants a modular e-Cat with a built-in controller. So the controller has to withstand high temperatures. And we know what happens when the power is uncontrolled. If he uses electrolytics, and those fail, they may wreak havoc into the control loop and the reactor might overheat and melt. If you don't want that kind of thing in a kettle, you certainly don't want it in a cold fusion (or whatever this is) device. In other words, this device needs a very robust controller that can withstand high temperatures, and needs to have a multi-year lifetime. Electrolytic capacitors seem unsuitable. As a side node, the use of tri-phase power seems to indicates that this is the real deal. Why would indeed Rossi bother with that if he didn't have a true need to industrialize his product? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:new hypothesis to confute regarding input energy in Ecat test
In fact I said the 3-phase input to the box was particularly unnecessary *because* only single-phase was used for the box. There are legitimate reasons to prefer 3-phase input. If the output of the control box is a pulse width-modulated DC signal, then you need a high-power DC source. There might be requirements on the control waveform. Using three phases you can get DC with decent ripple using only a handful of diodes. The power never goes to zero, whereas it would go to zero 100 times a second if you were using a full-wave rectifier with single-phase input. If the peak power required by the e-CAT is around 1 kW, then you would need caps supplying up to 1 kW. We're talking ~100 µF caps rated at 350V supplying 3.5A. Such large caps are difficult to find and it makes more sense to go with multiple caps in parallel to supply that current. These caps would dissipate a couple watts each. Temperature very quickly shortens the lifetime of aluminum electrolytic caps. Hence, if you use them you reduce the reliability of your device, which could be a problem for the e-Cat. And the above assumes the peak power is 1 kW. So I don't think you can say that 3-phase input is particularly unnecessary, unless you know things about the e-Cat we don't know. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Claudio C Fiorini claudio.c.fior...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: ...I'm almost certain they were using 3-phase power on the input to the box. They write: a control circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output. And it's on the input that the power measurement is made, and so that's where it's relevant. That also forces a particular line to be used, and makes much higher power available, which may have been necessary for the glowing red experiment... What if they used 3 phase power to the control box, and a single phase to the resistors, but not as you write forces a particular line to be used, but two. I mean two phase lines. The result is a single phase signal but with a significant higher voltage then using one single phase line and the neutral pole. Tension would be greater by factor 1.73. The current would also increase according to the Ohm law and would increase by factor 1.73. The power dissipated would increase by 1.73 x 1.73 = 2.66.
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Torbjörn Hartman describes
Wouldn't harmonics show on the power analyzer? On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Duncan Cumming spacedr...@cumming.info wrote: With chopped DC, a clamp on ammeter will show the AC component. So if you had 0 to 1 amp chopped, the ammeter would show 0.5 amps peak AC. So you get a partial reading, substantially less than the true current that is actually flowing. IMHO, this could have happened at the demo. I am not saying that it did (I was not there), merely that it could have. Duncan On 5/26/2013 8:09 PM, a.ashfield wrote: Duncan Cumming No, it does not. What happens is that the diode rectifies the mains to DC, and the DC is not sensed by the clamp-type current meter. What would the clamp on meter show with chopped DC?
Re: [Vo]:What it takes to fake
3. The clamp ammeters are incapable of detecting not only DC but also incapable of detecting frequencies above about 60 Hz. I think you meant 60 kHz. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote: Some points to ponder, if you run the numbers: 1. To produce the supposed excess energy generated over 116 hours would require about 100 Kg of lithium-based batteries. 2. To produce the supposed excess power would require a wire feed (and return) carrying just a few milliAmps at a few Kilovolts. 3. The clamp ammeters are incapable of detecting not only DC but also incapable of detecting frequencies above about 60 Hz. Andrew
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
The mailing list format is fine. I'm completely opposed to web-based forums for discussing sensitive topics. With an e-mail based discussion list, each participant keeps a copy of the discussions. A web-based forum can be taken down very easily. Web-based forums are subject to hacking and manipulation. I have personally witnessed this. Web-based forums require more hardware, more software, more administration and more bandwidth. They are easier to monitor. They are easier to censor. Web-based forums quickly become small oligarchies where cabals impose their dictatorship. Also, web-based forums can inject malware, and web sites can be blocked. Lots of people may be reading Vortex e-mails from work; if Vortex moves to a web-based forum, some of them may no longer be able to participate due to IT policies in effect at their workplaces. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:CALL FOR REDIRECT OF SOME TOPICS OR DISCUSSIONS TO VORTEX-B
Also, mobile accessibility of web-based forums is poor. Like all complex web applications, they won't work uniformly well accross different browsers, esp. embedded ones. And e-mail has mechanisms for authentication. You can sign your messages with your private key using GPG, the signature will be distributed to the members of the mailing list along with your message without interfering with normal operation. You can't do this with a web-based forum. Using e-mail, you can also privately mesage members of the list without the administrator of the mailing list knowing it. With a web-based forum, the mail address of members generally remains hidden, and users have to go through the private message system of the forum, allowing the admins or hackers to spy on, disrupt or modify private messages exchanged between users. For a mailing list where topics as sensitive as cold fusion are discussed, this is totally inappropriate. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:entanglement broadcasting
Axil Axil wrote: I think I can safely say no one understands quantum mechanics, the late physicist Richard Feynman once famously explained. Does anyone know if and how entanglement effects are explained in stochastic electrodynamics? -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? I don't. Is there a link or citation? (thanks) Now there is: see my transcript of the LENR documentary: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg58293.html It was Celani. Here is the relevant part. After various vicissitudes, because the reactor was having major problems, some inner resistors had broken down, Mr. Rossi came out of the room delighted: The reactor has started. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and the mini Geiger had hit the top of the scale, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a short but intense emission of gamma radiation had taken place. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: OK, dear Berke- can you suggest how it is done, provided that it does not multiply the cost of Ni. How can Rossi do this enrichment in practice? Please give some literature. I'm gonna quote Jones Beene's Nov. 4th message on this list: If you are going for enriching an isotope that is 10% denser, it will take at least seven stages for every doubling (not counting losses). This is the rule of seventy (similar to formula used in compound interest). Therefore, to increase a 1% isotope to 16% might require a minimum of 28 stages of progressive enrichment, but when losses are included, it is probably closer to 50 stages. Automation makes a big difference with this many stages. For the NiCl solution (hexa-hydrate) the solubility is 254 g/100 mL at 20 °C - and 600 g/100 mL at 100 °C. That difference could help a lot in automating the processing, so that even 50 stages in a continuous centrifuging would not be a insurmountable problem to get 64Ni enriched to a level in the mid-teens at an affordable cost. Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: By the way I have retired in 1999 from an Institute http://www.itim-cj.ro/ specialized in isotopes. Well if that's the case, I assume you are familiar with, or know people familiar with isotope enrichment. Could you then estimate the cost for enriching the heavier isotopes using known methods? Note that we don't know how much enrichment is needed, but we cannot rule out the possibility that raising the Ni-64 fraction by a couple percentage points would not be sufficient. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
Francesco Celani is a professor at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics. He performed measurements on the Rossi device. Sergio Focardi, emeritus professor physics, confirms what Celani said: there were gamma emissions during the functioning of the device. --- 00:23:37 | Focardi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMBzLQt=23m37s During the first experiments, when we were working in Bondeno, we were using an open experimental system, and on those occasions I was using a Geiger detector, set for the gamma scale, through which I verified the presence of gamma emissions during its functioning. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:24 AM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Focardi said also not much above environment. Possibly there was a dentist or internist doctor or a antique colortv in neighbourhood. Possibly there where suneruptions. Solar flares, really? Read again. I have capitalized the relevant parts. Before he came out, a few minutes before, I had independently measured that both the gamma detector and THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE, whereas the two detectors of electromagnetic interference were not showing anything. This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had taken place. So what does that mean? THE MINI GEIGER HAD HIT THE TOP OF THE SCALE Was the Geiger counter in unexperienced hands? No. What was Celardi's interpretation? This: This meant that a SHORT BUT INTENSE EMISSION OF GAMMA RADIATION had So, no solar flares, dentists, welding apparatus, etc. Why did this happen? I assume this was because it was a prototype with partial shielding. Or maybe the reaction was pushed into an unsafe zone, or... time will tell! An multiply observed fact is: No Gamma above environment are measured with Rossis's e-cat during operation. Right, that's because the aim of the e-Cats is not to produce radiation, but to produce heat. As the engineering advances, shielding gets better, the reaction is better controlled, so there is less and less radiation escaping. None is measured with 50 ecats in operation. Same answer. Even if screened, a little bit must come through and must be measureable. No, it depends on thickness and flux. Photons below 200 keV are easy to completely shield. See previous discussions. So there is no high energy radiation inside. If by high energy you mean on the order of MeVs, you may be right about that. But there might very well be low energy radiation. Also, there might still be high-enery radiation since the physics of the device are not understood -- how about that heavy electron shielding? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Celani: gamma spike during ignition of Rossi reactor
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Means nothing. What scale was it on? Did a hyperthyroid patient (treated with I-131) walk past? It takes very little to put some meters off-scale. And yes, some (older) welding rods can easily do it. Many old glazed ceramic dishes will do it to, as will KCl, although the latter takes a sensitive meter. This is getting ridiculous. The Geiger counter was on the scale that allowed Celani to say with a straight face that a short but INTENSE emission of gamma radiation had taken place. Because Celani is perfectly qualified (hello, he is working at a nuclear physics lab!), he probably wouldn't qualify as intense the radiation emitted by a bag of bananas or some irradiated mammal. Also, nuked patients walk at finite speeds. Therefore, they wouldn't register as a short spike. Again, if cold fusion can't find some systematic, reproducible, meaningful evidence to hang its hat on, The systematic, reproductible, meaningful evidence is the industrial amount of heat that has been harnessed by Rossi et al. over the last years. it's just not gonna get respect from some guy's meter went off scale somewhere at about the right time. Deliberate Some guy... right. You and I are some guy. Celani and Focardi are not. attempts to measure radiation in correlation with the operation of ecats have not measured anything. That should mean much more. First of all, radiation is not a necessity. If the Rossi device produces no radiation at all, that's fine by me, as long as it produces a good amount of energy. Which I don't have any reason to think that it doesn't. Secondly, did someone insert a radiation probe INSIDE the reactor? Did someone use any kind of ultra-sensitive equipment? No. They used ordinary scintillators and probes. There was a hole in the shielding, but there's plenty of material left to shield the reactions. So you just cannot say that there was or wasn't low-energy ( 200 keV) gammas. Finally, why all the hate? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
Skeptics? Can we please stop calling these people skeptics. I am a skeptic. This is not skepticism. This is dogmatism. We are the skeptics. We are skeptical of official dogma that says that hundreds of scientists are incompetent, frauds or self-deluded and that you can't produce energy from CF/LENR/CANR/whatever it turns out to be. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:[Rossi] University RD has gone away?
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: And he repeats in a message today that his Ni is enriched in the isotopes 64 and 62- and this is not believable. Why is that not believable? A small amount of enrichment can't require that much energy, given that Ni-64 is heavier than the most abundant isotope Ni-58 by a hopping 10%, making separation way easier than, say, uranium enrichment. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Transcript of Low Energy Nuclear Revolution
into their lab, and obviously all people that worked for free or in some way helped this work and participated! Free for non commercial use. Televisions, radios, newspapers, in or out the net, and web sites with advertising can contact us for permission:l...@phizero.it -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: But Villa measured no gammas above background with *no* lead. ... Villa would have detected gammas in that range. All right, probably no or negligible gammas above 200 keV. (c) We don't know if the gammas are emitted isotropically. The nickel is a power. It's pretty hard to imagine a preferred emission direction with randomly oriented reactants. True, but again, this is unknown physics, and the randomly oriented powder is possibly bathing in these EM fields that Rossi possibly uses to control the reaction - this breaks the spherical symmetry. So they say. It would be more credible if someone could imagine a reaction that produces heat and no radiation. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Easy to do with very little shielding. And photons in that range wouldn't have been detected by Villa - this is clearly stated in the abstract. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Padua University not Siena made the analysis
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Right. Anything can be explained that way... Thank God you weren't there when they came up with quantum theory. Maybe with new physics, but with old physics, the EM fields Rossi used do not control nuclear reactions. What do you know about the EM fields Rossi used? Are these described somewhere? An X-ray tube produces directional photons using EM fields. You cannot a priori assume spherical symmetry about an unknown system that is known to be non spherically symmetrical. As usual, you are making lots of implicit assumptions to debunk something we don't have much information about. It's OK to complain about lack of information, but it's not enough to debunk. But let us know if you find actual contradictions in the reported data. And if true, it wouldn't be hard to get evidence for it. Evidence that might help to vindicate Rossi. But then, he's trying to avoid vindication; too much competition. That's another debate. According to Nelson's slides, the gammas are in the 50 - 200 keV range and are thermalized. Nelson didn't show data to support that. It was just wild speculation, and the range was probably chosen because Villa's cutoff was 200 keV. How do you know it's just wild speculation? The slide doesn't say My guess: 50 - 200 keV. Maybe you were at the LENR Workshop and asked him? Or is this your resonant mind-reading ability at work? And if he's randomly speculating, why do you think he put a lower threshold of 50 keV? Right. But there are ways to detect photons between 50 and 200 keV. And NASA could probably avail themselves of the necessary technology. But they didn't show evidence of 50 - 200 keV gammas. Neither has Rossi. And neither did he suggest any reactions that might produce such low energy gammas. Rossi is not a physicist and has no business suggesting reactions. That's why he's contracting to University of Bologna for the theoretical research. And the sort of reactions that WL predict would produce much higher energy gammas. Therefore, if Rossi's device works, then WL is wrong or doesn't apply to it. And the one slide he showed with a gamma spectrum from Piantelli showed a 750 keV gamma. (1) This is Piantelli. Rossi developed his own thing with Focardi. It's something different, so at this level of knowledge, spectra don't need to match a priori. Also, aren't they using a different catalyst? Maybe the high-energy photons come from the catalyst. (That's my random speculation.) (2) If you read the chronology of Piantelli's work in the same document, you'll see that Piantelli didn't always get radiation when he got excess heat. (3) You cannot exclude a small amount of energetic gammas being produced. So you could get most of the heat from 200 keV photons, plus the occasional 750 keV photon. Remember that guy who measured a gamma spike while Rossi was adjusting a reactor in the other room? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Detailed 1-MW demo temperature analysis ; peak power = 490 kW, mean power 461 kW.
been 4.69 h for a rate of 792 l/h, not too different from 675.6 l, and the average power would be close to 570 kW. Note that the installed power is 1070 kW. What's the point of analyzing the measurements, if you're going to ignore some of them and make up your own? The report does not go into too much detail, is often ambiguous and it contains small errors. We don't have the plans for the 1 MW demo, so minor adjustments and reasonable hypotheses are needed to make sense of it. So far I haven't found anything significantly wrong with the 1 MW demo. Also I still don't understand your instantaneous power transfer discontinuity argument. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Put your money where your mouth is - for charity
How about: Three independent companies, each with more than 20 employees, gross revenues exceeding $50 M/year, and having been in existence for 5 years or more, should acknowledge the use of at least 500 MJ per liter of e-Cat. (In other words, if they have a 50 l e-Cat, they should report the use of at least 25 GJ. That's 29 days of use for a 10 kW e-Cat.) -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Detailed 1-MW demo temperature analysis ; peak power = 490 kW, mean power 461 kW.
I was curious about JC's claims about the temperature profile during the warm-up period. Since no one seems to be doing that (or did I miss something?) I have started analyzing the Oct. 28th temperature data in more detail. I believe the data shows that initially the reactors are off, contain water and the pumps are off. The reactors are then turned on and their power increases linearly to ~475 kW. Thus temperature increases quadratically, until water starts to boil. A couple of liters boil off from each of the e-Cats, causing a rise in temperature (and pressure?). THEN pumps are turned on, causing an inrush of warm water into the reservoir and a corresponding increase in T_in. Stable regime follows. Peak power would be about 490 kW. Power profile : http://imgur.com/iUgJp.png Input temperature : http://imgur.com/PC7P7.png Output temperature : http://imgur.com/qQu0v.png SCENARIO, version 1 (caveat emptor) - At 10:36:07, e-Cats contain approximately 13.5 l of water each at 28.9 C. Pumps are off, reactors are off. The system is in thermal equilibrium.From now on, we assume that the output thermocouple temperature T_out reflects the temperature of the water/steam mixture in the reactors. - At 11:00:04, the reactors are turned on. - The 13.5 l of water they each contain start heating up. - The power level of the reactors rises linearly at a rate of 160 W / s. This can be deduced from the profile of the warm-up period, which is a quadratic function of time to a very good agreement: T_out = 20.37 + 1.423e-6 * t^2 where t is the time in seconds, and T_out is in degrees Celsius. - At 12:34:40 the water in the reactors reaches 100 degrees and starts boiling. - The reactors reach their peak power (492 kW or less) around 13:22:50. - From 12:34:40 to 13:22:50 about 631 l (2 l per module) of water has been boiled off the reactors. - At that moment, the pumps are turned on, causing water to flow at a rate of 675.6 l/h. This can be deduced from two facts. (1) The temperature of the water in the reservoir starts increasing linearly from 16.9 at 13:22:50 to 19.6 at 13:56:10 as 375 l of warm water is pumped back, according to T_in = 16.9 - 0.001351 * t where t is in seconds starting from 13:22:50. (2) The output temperature starts decreasing at the same time, as fresh water is pumped in. (3) Referring to my Nov. 24th post titled E-Cat 1MW Demo Water Clog Theory, but counting both reservoirs as 2/3 full for a mass of m = 1200 l, we find that the average temperature of the water flowing back must be T_c = m (T_2 - T_1) / m_c + T_2 = 28.24 C which is quite close to the initial temperature. - Stable operation is attained at 13:56:10, with an average output temperature of 105.2 ± 1 C. Mean power is 461.4 ± 30 kW. Total energy produced from 13:56:10 is 8.55 GJ or 2 375 000 kWh. Notes. 1. This scenario doesn't take pressure into account. Because there was no pump after the condenser, a pressure increase of 0.5 to 1 m of water (about 50 to 100 kPa) can be expected. This may raise boiling temperatures by a couple of degrees. Also, pressure increases related to possible water clogs were not taken into account. 2. About the power profile. When boiling water, power transfer depends strongly and in a non-linear fashion on the temperature difference. This hasn't been taken into account. The formula used was : heating_power= ((min(T_out, T_boil) - T_in) * c_p_water + h_fg(T_out - T_boil) + max(0, T_out - T_boil) * c_p_steam) As you can see, this is only a class C^0 function in T_out: its derivative is discontinuous at T_boil. 3. Do not take these at face value. I am not familiar with thermodynamics. It would be nice if that kind of analysis was performed by a properly qualified and experienced person. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Here is what happened. Before the test, the e-Cats are empty of H2. They weighted the bottle on the scale. The reading was 13606.4 g. This is consistent with previous weighthings, since the bottle was at 13606.9 g on Oct. 6th. They then pressed the zero button, leaving the bottle on the scale. They let the test run. After the test, they went back to check the scale. The scale was reading -1700 g. Then they went on to fill the report. As you can see the report had been pre-printed. It was to be filled in manually. But the reporting format for the H2 consumption was weight (really mass) before test, weight after test. So they had to add the initial mass and the difference, and that's where they fucked up, adding -1.7 g instead of -1.7 kg. Happens all the time. They even wrote down kg instead of g. Obviously, they didn't have a 13 ton hydrogen bottle, right? Now, does 1.7 kg make sense? For the Oct. 6th demo, the consumption was 1.5 g. The Oct. 28th demo used 321 reactors, so that's 1700/321 = 5.3 g per reactor. Assuming the same 1.5 g per reactor, that leaves 3.8 g. At 2 g/mol, that's 1.9 x 321 = 610 mol of excess H2, which at 55 bar and 300 K will take a volume of 277 l. The modules were arranged in 8 or 10 rows of 5 m (since that is the dimension of the container). That's likely 40 to 50 m of tubing. That tubing with an inner radius of 2.66 - 3 mm. It all makes perfect sense to me. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Sorry I meant diameter. The inner DIAMETER of tubing would have to be 2.66 - 3 mm. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Doesnt happen to a Nato Colonel with 30 years of experience. These guys are topfit, far above average. Are you seriously claiming that a category of people doesn't make mistakes? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi's E-cat is claimed to have a COP of around 6
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: The question is, how did they measure the energy input? This is not documented. Were you being sarcastic? I'll assume you weren't. To answer your first question, it is not documented but it seems quite obvious. The power was entirely supplied by a diesel generator. The diesel generator had a fuel level meter or an electricity meter built-in, or maybe they connected an electricity meter between the diesel generator and the equipment. They obviously took readings before and after and wrote down the difference. What else? Do you imagine that Fioravanti took a hard look at the genset, then said, Well I guess that's about 66 kWh and wrote that down? This colonel engineer confuses kg and g. False. The correct sentence would be : This coloned engineer CONFUSED kg and g. That is, he made a mistake in the report. You can't claim with a straight face that he doesn't know a gram from a kilogram. He measures a hydrogen consumtion of 1.7000 kg and dont write down all significant digits. That's part of the same fuck-up. Then he subtracts this from a value that means gramm. but is mistakenly labeled as kg. That's part of the same fuck-up. How can we win a war where precise decisions must be made in seconds? ;-) What? He makes many handwritten corrections and erasures to ensure he can read his own writing. Is this sarcasm? He has two different ways to write a one: 1 and | in one and the same document. That remark is completely silly. Or are you one of these people who believe in graphology? He uses decimal point and decimal , alternating in one and the same document. That would tend to indicate that we was often reading or writing technical documents in different languages with different conventions. How can we believe he measured or calculated the electrical energy or the diesel consumption correctly? How can we take what you say seriously when you come up with arguments like this instead of discussing the core issue? Possibly he has confused more than that? Yeah, maybe he was just some random drunken hobo off the streets of Bologna calling himself colonel. This is not a Nato colonel engineer with 30 year of experience in a multi-language military organisation. You must be joking. Maybe Fioravanti is one of these rare engineers who is not an obsessive-compulsive robot with Asperger syndrome? Anyway, let me resume the content of this topic. (a) MY gratuitously asserts that the reason for the guaranteed COP of 7 statement is that Rossi, in her belief, thinks that he can get away claiming that he sells million-dollar devices that vaporize water completely where, in fact, they barely vaporize it. (b) I reply by showing that, even if Rossi's device didn't vaporize a gram of water during the 1 MW demo, it would still have a COP of 40 because it takes more than a fucking gigajoule to heat 4 tons of water by 90 degrees, and the energy input was less than 250 MJ. (c) PH finds it appropriate to cast a baseless doubt on the measurement of the input energy and then goes on a completely wild tangent by nit picking on Fioravanti's handwriting. But it's so comical (NATO colonels don't make mistakes) that I have probablly missed some sarcasm. I'd be happier when you guys come up with real arguments and not silly I don't like his handwriting! arguments. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Why Rossi's E-cat is claimed to have a COP of around 6
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: In the 15 or some odd years, I have never seen anyone use this word on this forum. If English is not your first language, you might understand that this in inappropriate for this forum. I invite you to seek a more appropriate phrase: English is not my first language. I'm sorry that I offended the Victorian virtue police. I understand that there might be a desire to keep the discussions on this list formal so I'll avoid such words from now. After all, sir, there are ladies present. I have copied the list owner so that this might be brought to his attention. However I don't see why being a lady would make someone more or less susceptible to be offended by the f-word. Actually, some women will find your statement offensive - are ladies precious flowers unable to speak up for themselves and that should be protected from vulgar language? PS. How about a ban on ad hominem attacks and unsusbtantiated accusations or insinuations of scam or incompetence? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Andrea Rossi Working with Domenico Fioravanti on Electrical Power from E-Cat
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 8:50 AM, vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Since lead melts at 327 Celsius, is there some lead alloy that would keep it solid at 450? What's wrong with tungsten? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat 1MW Demo Water Clog Theory
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson proposed a theory where a water clog forms because of condensation. Because of this clog, pressure and temperature rises until the clog is cleared I'm pretty sure your depicted scenario is not what Roberson was proposing No it's not exactly that, but I want to give him credit for the clog theory. and it doesn't make sense. Let's see. First of all, let me reiterate the assumption that no significant amount of liquid flows in the output steam pipes. This is based on the report. Note how this implies that the pumps were not on at their peak capacity all the time. The heat exchanger is *supposed* to condense the output, Yes, it is. and return cooled water (at ambient temperature) back to the input reservoir. No, it's not. I didn't see any pump after the heat exchanger. The output of the exchanger is at ground level. Then it goes into a hose which goes up and into the reservoir, which is 60 cm of water. So the heat exchanger doesn't return anything by itself, but must rely on upstream pressure to push the condensed, cold water back and up. Agree? The heat is removed from the steam/water output and dispersed to the sky behind some barriers Right. maybe so no one can see how little heat there actually is. Or maybe it was to protect visitors from a megawatt of thermal output? Also visitors took a peek and we have footage and pictures of what is behind. So, the output of the exchanger is surely always liquid. It almost certainly is. That's not a clog if the temperature is reduced, so steam is not possible. This sentence doesn't make sense to me. Could you explain? What does steam is not possible mean? The water flows more slowly, but it's more dense, so the mass flow rates balance. Mass flow rates balance in the stable regime, but not at the beginning. This is because there is no post-condenser pump and there is a height difference. Therefore condensed water doesn't get out of the way until there is sufficient pressure for a sufficiently long time. That pressure must be on the order of a hundred kPa (relative) or so. If you are suggesting that when the clog clears, steam flows into the reservoir, then there is far more heat entering the reservoir than if it were water. No I'm not. I'm suggesting it is warmish water. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Joshua, it seems to me that you are privy to some insider knowledge about the 1 MW demo. For instance, you wrote: The pumps were run close to capacity, so there is no way you can account for 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water. How do you know that the pumps were run close to capacity? Please explain. What was the capacity of the pumps? How many pumps were on? Do you know how they were they controlled? If you have all that information, why don't you share? Sincerely, -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:E-Cat 1MW Demo Water Clog Theory
David Roberson proposed a theory where a water clog forms because of condensation. Because of this clog, pressure and temperature rises until the clog is cleared. If you look at the temperature profile for the 1 MW demonstration, you will see that from 12:45 to 12:55 the output temperature rises sharply from 100 to 112, and stays there until 13:25 where it drops sharply to around 104.5 at 13:27. Interestingly, this is when the input temperature starts to rise from 16 to 20.7 degrees, before slowly cooling. Now if we assume that the warm clog water went back into the pool, causing its temperature to rise, what size and temperature of clog would be reasonable? The main water reservoir has a capacity of 1000 l, but is about 2/3 full. Let's say it contains 600 l. If Tc is the clog water temperature, T1 = 16 C the initial reservoir temperature, T2 = 20.7 C the reservoir temperature after the clog has been added, m = 600 kg the mass of water in the reservoir, and if we take the clog temperature to be, say, Tc = 70 C, we can compute the clog mass by m_c = m(T2 - T1)/(Tc - T2) which in this case gives 48 kg. This is a fairly high but not implausible for a clog, and we don't know how fast the water mixed, nor where the input temperature sensor was. Here is a diagram explaining this scenario: http://i.imgur.com/LLtrR.png Also, note that for water to boil at 112 degrees you need a pressure of about 150 kPa, which is about five meters of water. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It is Rossi that is *claiming* an 8-fold (actually closer to 7) instant power increase. When the temperature is 99.9 degrees, if we accept Rossi's flow rate, then the output power is about 66 kW. When the temperature is 105 degrees or so, *Rossi* (not me) claims the power output is 470 kW. I still don't understand what the hell you're talking about, but you'll have to excuse me, I'm not very familiar with thermodynamics. Meanwhile, while browsing a book on heat transfer, I came across this paragraph: The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the boiling point of the fluid. Figure 9-1 indicates six different regimes for typical pool boiling; the heat flux curve is commonly called the boiling curve. Here is that figure : http://i.imgur.com/1LQwK.png T_s is the temperature of the heating surface. It seems that a couple of degrees of increase for T_s translates to a couple of orders of magnitude increase in power transfer. That, plus the fact that power transfer is proportional to the area of contact. If you pump in water, you may cover more of the heating element if it has vertical surfaces, and thus arbitrarily increase the power transfer. Sincerely, -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7 times steeper. and also wrote: You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact. As the diagram shows, heat flow into water depends extremely non-linearly on the temperature differential. It also depends more or less linearly on area of contact. We don't know what the inner geometry of the devices, and we don't know how the water level changes. So you cannot say that an increase in power transfer of x times requires an increase in core temperature of x times, because that can be achieved by a small increase in temperature, or a proportional increase in area of contact. Also, do you know what the thermal mass of the reactor is? I don't. Thus, in principle, the area of contact can be increased easily by changing the water level as demonstrated in the following example. Consider a vertical heating element, partially in contact with water fed from a pump. Let there be a thermocouple sensing the temperature T of the heating element, and a water level sensor. Control the heating element using feedback from the thermocouple to keep T constant above the boiling point of water. By matching the flow rate to the evaporation rate using the water level sensor, you keep the water level l constant. To the first approximation, the power transfer should be proportional to the area of contact which is proportional to the water level. An electric heating element can have quite a small thermal mass. The current can be ramped up very quickly. So if you start pumping more, the water level rises, and so does the evaporation rate and the power transfer. In principle, you just have to control the pumps and provide enough power to have a dQ/dt as high as you wish (within limits, of course). -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that the external temperature was around 15 degrees. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. Yes. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. And that will also cause temperature and pressure to rise and then possibly push water that obstructs smaller pipes, clearing the way and creating a pressure/temperature drop. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; the corresponding amount of water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l of water per sub-module. Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60 l. So each sub-module is less than 20 l. Having 3.43 l of water in a 20 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full. That also gives a good safety margin, since the power per module when running at 470 kW is 1.46 kW. That will evaporate 2.23 kg of water in one hour, enough time to find or fix a problem or shut the thing down. So Dave's theory is that condensed water in the pipes causes clogs and thus pressure and thus temperature fluctuations. I like that idea, but maybe someone knows better. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:So Rossi has a real Ph.D. obtained in 1975
I'm being told that Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia is the equivalent to a master's degree, and not to a Ph.D. Are there any Italian-speaking persons familiar with Italian research education here that could comment on this? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the beginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Then what were they measuring at the output? I'm under the impression that the temperature sensor was connected to the steam pipe, and that therefore Tout is the temperature of the pipe. In fact, the output increases gradually throughout the warmup period from about 30C to the boiling point. This suggests the ecats and pipes etc are filled, and the water is flowing through the system. The pipe is cooled at the other end by the air condensers. Maybe it is slowly heating up with heat transferred by larger and larger amounts of steam, and not water. There is no indication anywhere that the flow rate was changed Why wouldn't it change? Were you there? There are electrical pumps, valves, a control system and sensors. and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate. Which calculation? All you need is the quantity of water vaporized; it doesn't matter if they were vaporized at a constant rate or not. And flow rate may be stable once the stable regime has been reached. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. If the ecats were not full, there would be nothing flowing out of them until the onset of boiling, No, unless you meant empty. As long as the amount of water in the ecats was not zero it is conceivable to get steam. and then there would be a very steep increase in temperature. Very steep is very qualitative. Someone should try to run some numbers. Then, to reach a rate of vaporization of 675 kg/h, from the onset of boiling (0 kg/h) would take much longer than to reach the boiling onset. So, you would see a rapid, almost step increase, then a very much longer plateau. How do you know the water in the ecats wasn't already at boiling temperature for a long time? Or, if the heating elements were not submerged, the steam temperature would exceed the boiling point. And if they started submerged, the boiling would reduce the level, exposing them and then increasing the temperature of the steam. So? The output temperature fluctuates between 105 and 112 degrees. And, again, you assume that there is no mechanism to regulate the water level. In any case, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough time. Nearly all of the pre-heat period (2 hours) is used up in bringing the temperature up to the onset of boiling. That's probably the temperature of the pipe. Increasing the power transfer by another factor of 8 cannot happen in a few minutes. Care to explain this? 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get it (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi assumes the output flow rate is equal to the input flow rate ... Here is how I see it. (1) Fioravanti signed the report. (2) The report has the following equation: Total energy produced : (steam kg x 627.5) + (100 - input water T) x kg of water heated x 1.14 (3) This implies that dry steam was flowing in the pipes, because 627.5 kWh/kg is the enthalpy of vaporization of water at 100 degrees. (4) This is thermodynamics 101. (5) Fioravanti is an engineer hired to check a million-dollar power generator. (6) Therefore he took that course. (7) So Fioravanti had good reasons to believe that the steam was dry. Anyone disputing this is basically claiming that the report is fake and that Fioravanti doesn't exist or isn't an engineer or became senile or was on drugs and/or was conspiring with Rossi. I find your rate of change of power transfer too high vs thermal inertia argument intriguing, but it would be nice if you could explain it logically and numerically. Currently, your explanations are entangled with a multitude of hypotheses and suppositions. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:So Rossi has a real Ph.D. obtained in 1975
At http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi there is a scanned statement from the University of Milan: UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI MILANO Registrato al numero 582 Matricola 89930 Si attesta risultare dagli atti di questa Segreteria che il Sig. ROSSI ANDREA nato a Milano il 03/06/1950, ha superato presso questo Università, in data 10/12/1975, l'esame di laurea in Filosofia con voti CENTODIECI su CENTODIECI conseguendo la qualifica accademica di Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia. Il presento certificato si rilascia in carta libera, a richiesta dell'interessato, per gli usi consentiti dalla legge. Milano, 14 febbraio 2011 IL COMPILATORE IL CAPO UFFICIO SEGRETERIA FACOLTA UMANISTICHE Dott. ssa. Filomena CICORA Google translate produces this: UNIVERSITY OF MILAN Registered number 582 Serial number 89930 This is to certify that the documents before the Secretary that Mr. Rossi Andrea was born in Milan on 03/06/1950, has been awarded by the University, on 10/12/1975, examination degree in Philosophy with a hundred and ten votes of one hundred and ten achieving the academic qualification of Doctor of Science in Philosophy. This certificate is issued on plain paper at the request of, for the purposes authorized by law. Milan, February 14, 2011 THE COMPILER THE HEAD OFFICE SECRETARY Faculty of Humanities Dr. ssa. Filomena CHICORY According to e-cat.com, he conducted his thesis on relativity. This corroborates the information on Wikipedia: In 1973, Rossi graduated cum laude in Philosophy of Science and Engineering at the University of Milan with a thesis on Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and its interrelationship with Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenology. His advisor was Professor Ludovico Geymonat. So where does all this disinformation about Rossi being a chalatan with a fake PhD from a diploma mill coming from? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There is a five minute period during which water would be flowing through the ECATs and into the steam pipes. During this 5 minute period, I would expect (675.6 liters/hour * 1 hour/60 minutes * 5 minutes = 56.3 liters) of water to be captured by the water trap. Maybe the steam pipe was a steam pipe and no significant amount of liquid water flowed in it. This would mean that the water flow rate did not reach the 675.6 l/h value before the cores became warm enough to boil it off at that rate. I don't know how the pumps were controlled. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation using the input flow rate is meaningless. Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the input mass flow rate is obviously equal to the output mass flow rate. What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the beginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was very low, just enough to keep a sufficient water level in the reactors. When the reaction then starts, you start increasing the input mass flow rate to match the vaporization capacity. Here is such a scenario: 1) Each module contains a given amount of water. 2) Water flow is initially zero. 3) The reaction slowly ramps up in power. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. 5) The output power is now sufficient to vaporize water at 675 l/h. 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. 7) Condensed, warm water starts flowing back into the reservoirs. The input temperature rises by a few degrees. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Joshua, when I look at the pictures of the 1 MW module, I see an awful lot of pipes, tubes, valves and connections. Now pipes etc. are quite removed from my trade, so maybe it is obvious to you how everything is connected, but it seems to me that you are making lots of assumptions on how the structure of the system is. I suppose Rossi did not provide you with a detailed plan. Maybe you could draw a schematic of how you think this system is connected. Then you could explain your power level fluctuations imply that e-Cat modules overflow or whatever argument calmly and in detail. As I said, steam or not steam, this thing produces lots of excess energy. This argument hasn't been properly countered by skeptics. Fire bricks/hot graphite/molten lead/batteries/garden gnomes etc. are not allowable arguments since they imply willful deception, a needlessly complicated hypothesis which is easily subsumed by the simple claim that all the data is simply fake. Now the 1 MW module has a control system; wires run to the pumps, of which there are at least four; we don't really know what kind of piping is inside the reactors. We know that the power of each reactor can be controlled, but not to what extent or how fast. Why couldn't there be overflow valves or other appropriate mechanisms to keep the water level or pressure in check? What makes you think that Rossi can't properly control his reactors, the input flow rate, the power level, or any other combination of variables to keep the thing running? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Believers (or at least claimants) are responsible to provide data to support their claims. Skeptics just need to show why the data does not support the claims, by showing the data is also consistent with another interpretation. If the other interpretation is more plausible, then the claim becomes even more unlikely. I disagree and I will explain. For the 1MW demo, the data, as well as the claims, are provided by Rossi et al. IT IS THEREFORE EQUALLY EASY TO FAKE THE DATA AS TO FAKE THE CLAIMS. This means that it is meaningless to judge the data in the light of the claims, or to judge the claims in the light of the data. The only thing we can do is look for INCONSISTENCIES. INCONSISTENCIES can be physical or logical. - A PHYSICAL INCONSISTENCY would be, for instance, Rossi claiming that the water flow rate was X, and someone deducing from pictures and footage that X is not possible because of observed or reported pipe diameters, pressures, etc. - A LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY would be a non sequitur, i.e., Rossi claiming that an amount X of excess heat was produced based on data Y and Z, while X depends on an unknown quantity T. Claiming that some subset of the data could be achieved using a particular method M is not useful if the method M contradicts the body of information provided by Rossi. For example, claiming that the same results could be obtained by storing heat in graphite and having it released during the demo is useless. It is useless, because according to Rossi's description of the reactor, the reactors contain no large amount of graphite (or unicorn poo) capable of storing that much heat, nor do they contain a mechanism for thermally insulating that graphite until the demo starts and then providing a controlled heat exchange. If, on the other hand, you manage show that the shell of the reactor, as deduced from the known data, can store the pre-heating energy and release it during the demo at the observed rate, then you're in business and can claim that the data does not unambiguously support the conclusion that excess heat was produced. Now, as I said in the initial post of this thread: The amount of water heated proves that a large quantity of excess energy was released during the demonstration. Persons who wish to claim that this excess energy might have come from the pre-heating period need to provide plausible accumulation, storage and retrieval mechanisms compatible with the claimed geometries of the reactors. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Oops, I made a mistake. We have 320 kWh x 3600 s/h = 1.15 GJ and not 576 MJ. And Joshua Cude wrote: As I've said before, the temperatures are consistent with 70 kW output, to give 385 kWh total. So Joshua is right that the figures are consistent if we suppose a hidden energy storage mechanism. The problem is that I know of a storage mechanism that doesn't involve Rossi, Focardi, etc. conspiring to deceive and developing specific technology for that. How one can accidentally store 1 GJ in the modules and release it nicely over a period of 5.5 hours? Especially given that Rossi talks of the reactor cores not exceeding 500 degrees. There isn't supposed to be any phase-change material in there. Joshua Cude also wrote: Finally, the input power does not include any energy added by chemical reactions between the hydrogen and nickel, which could be substantial, and would not be considered excess energy. The report states that 1.7 g of H2 was used. How do you want to produce substantial energy with that? 1.7 of H2 is 3.4 mol or 2.05e24 molecules. To get even one 1 kW for 5.5 hours which is 20 MJ or 125e24 eV, you need a whopping 61 eV per molecule. That's pushing it a bit for only 1 kW. Claiming that the energy comes from that amount of hydrogen is equivalent to admitting nuclear reactions. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Rossi: Only two theories left. The big conspiracy theory and the true energy production theory.
Theory 1. At some point Rossi decided to attempt a large scam. He somehow talked Focardi and some others into this. Focardi said something like: I'm tired of being a poor Italian university professor. Let's make money! How about we rob a bank? Rossi answered, no, no, look, we can easily fool idiots into believing we achieved cold fusion. Look at Steorn. Focardi: Hey that's a great idea, let's do it! And they went on to design advanced deception machines. Then they started doing demonstration after demonstration to lots of people, including some very knowledgeable ones. Investing huge amounts of money, they built a giant complicated fake machine with lots of pipes, wires, control systems, diesel generators, pumps, hydrogen bottles etc. They are now just waiting for the gullible investor checks to clear before leaving Italy and escaping to some remote tropical paradise to spend the money on alcohol, cocaine and escorts, and possibly come up with their next scam, possibly after undergoing plastic surgery to change their appearances. Theory 2. Cold fusion is being researched by scientists since 1989. Conferences take place every year and tens if not hundreds of papers have been published. Lots of scientists replicated the effect. Some of them reproducibly obtained small amounts of excess energy. One enterprising technical-minded guy from Italy came accross a university professor working in that field. They agreed to attempt to develop a prototype for a commercially useful reactor. After a couple of years they succeeded and started performing public demonstrations. Due to general human stupidity and the immense amounts of money, power and reputation vested in conventional energy production and hot fusion, they have been unable to follow the conventional path of technological innovation and have been mostly met with accusations of fraud. They noticed that no conceivable demonstration would be good enough for pseudoskeptics, so they focus on commercialization, which is the only way to get the devices accepted. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Imputing pressure at the output thermocouple for Rossi's Oct 28 demo
James, Here is what I have deduced from the available pictures. 1) The steam exit pipes have an outer diameter (including insulation) of 11±2 cm. 2) The outer diameter of the pipe without insulation is 6±1 cm. (There is a picture of the steam exit pipe without insulation.) 3) Your guess of a 2 m pipe length to the condensers is correct. Also, these measurements are based on a container width of 2.6 m as given in the report - corroborated by a deduced floor tile size of 30 cm. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
So you have water in the two 1000 l reservoirs with an average temperature of ~18 degrees (Celsius). Output temperature was 104.5 C average. I don't give a damn about steam. I presume the boiler wasn't operating at sub-atmospheric pressure, right? So let's just say that the water was heated to at least 100 degrees. 3716 liters of water flowed, came in at 18.3, came out at 100 and cooled down before going back into the reservoir, since the average temperature was 18 degrees. So delta T is 80 degrees. With a heat capacity of 4.2 kJ / kg / K we get : Q = 3716 kg × 4.2 kJ / kg / K x 80 K = 1.25 GJ. Genset output was 66 kWh ie 238 MJ. So that's 1 GJ of excess heat. -- Berke
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Excess, or stored, or chemically produced? As Albert said, the ecats were heated for 2 hours beforehand, and the power was not given, but at 250 kW input for 2 hours, less an average of (at most) 35 kW output during that time, that gives 215 kW x 2 hours x 3600 J/Wh = 1.5 GJ Yeah, but the modules probably don't have enough heat capacity to hold 1.5 GJ, unless you assume they hold iron bricks heated to 1500 degrees celsius. Quite an unlikely scamming technique. Also, that would be too heavy for the way they were mounted in the container. Quoting my own Nov. 9th mail: Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not per volume. One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something like 2.33 MJ per kelvin. In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800 degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees. So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ. One cubic meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ. Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported. With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters. With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters. Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm. That makes 4.7 cubic meters. Not enough space for cement (unless you know of some special kind of cement.) Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at 250 kg per module. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:High school physics says 1 GJ excess energy for the Oct. 28 demo
Joshua Cude wrote: Actually, even if you trust F. about the energy during the run the data is entirely consistent with no excess heat. Not according to Ny Teknik's This is how the test was done box at http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3303682.ece Subtracting the energy supplied during startup, about 320 kWh at an average power of 160 kW, the net energy would still be 2249 kWh. In this case the energy output during startup should also be estimated and added. That's 320e3 x 3600 = 576 MJ. So if you trust the reported figures, then there clearly is plenty of excess energy, and the only non-cold-fusion explanation involves an international conspiracy and technologically non-trivial deception. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This looks pretty good. Ask Rossi if this is correct. Send him the link. He may want to use it himself, on his website. - Jed Thanks. I've posted a comment two days ago, it appeared yesterday, no answer yet. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=516cpage=12#comment-118170 -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
Here is the third version : http://i.imgur.com/GbZri.png Changes - Added valve on connection to jerrican. It indeed seems closed on the Ny Teknik video. I suppose it was opened at some point? Did the 5l of unvaporized water mentioned in the report collect there? - Connected reservoirs 1 and 2. - I've added some 3.8 bar readings. Albert, by pressure meters on the outlets of the pumps, do you mean the pressure meters integrated into the pumps, or the ones I've drawn? - The two pumps on the side of the container close to the condensers are marked off. Where these the pumps you meant, Albert? Missing are : - the automatic valves for keeping the water level. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
I've checked the Ny Teknik video, and the jerrican valve is probably slightly open (the handle is not exactly perpendicular to the valve). Also, I think the two jerricans seem to be part of a contraption and may be connected together, because they are rotated 90 degrees with respect to each other. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
The average temperature of steam flowing out of the pipe is reported as 104.5 degrees. The average temperature of the water input is reported as 18.3 degrees. The reservoir capacity is less than a cubic meter, therefore its contents went a couple times through the reactor. If the reservoir contents got too hot, it would have been noticed. Therefore the reservoir water temperature did not exceed, say, 25 degrees. Even if only water flowed through the pipe, and even if we assume that its temperature was actually only 100 degrees, then at least 1.17 GJ of energy would be required. The input energy was only 238 MJ. There is clearly a large amount of excess energy, unless we assume that the whole report and everything else was falsified. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:02 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Am 13.11.2011 01:47, schrieb Berke Durak: Even if only water flowed through the pipe, and even if we assume that its temperature was actually only 100 degrees, then at least 1.17 GJ of energy would be required. The input energy was only 238 MJ. If we assume only a small amount was vaporized and the major amount of water was neither heated nor vaporized and flew back through the second pipe, then excess energy is not required. So you say no water was heated now? Do you have any basis for that assumption? How did Fiovaranti get the 104.5 degrees reading then? Did Rossi hide heaters in the pipe?!? With that kind of assumption, one can dismiss even the most careful demonstration. If we stick to the report, then 3716 liters of H2O went into the reactor at 18.3 degrees and came out through the lower steam pipe at 104.5 degrees. The report also states that 66 kWh of energy was used (from the diesel generator). Even with extremely unfavorable assumptions, that requires, at minimum, hundreds of megajoules of excess energy. -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
After watching the available footage and looking at the pictures of the Oct. 28th demo, I have just drawn a diagram of the system as I think it was that day. http://i.imgur.com/Ipn7W.png Please report any inaccuracies or misuse of engineering symbols. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: I believe Rossi or someone said the genset was rated at 300 kva and they had a spare on site, in case the prime genset failed. I see only one genset in the pictures: the big orange one that is visible in the video available on Youtube. It has a sticker that reads Altertecno 450 KVA. I can add another 300 KVA genset for version 2. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Hypothetical diagram of the Oct. 28th E-Cat
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: There should be power and control cables going into the E-Cat container. Right, added as a single power/control line. (I don't want to clutter the diagram -- maybe a separate electrical diagram is warranted.) http://imgur.com/Nxaj2 -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
The three-page public report states that 3716 liters of water have been vaporized. 1) Is 3716 liters the difference in the quantity of water contained in the reservoirs before and after the demonstration? 2) Was this water mostly released to the air, or was there a drain somewhere? 3) If the water has been mostly released to the air, can we assume that it has been vaporized, i.e. turned into steam? 4) If yes, would that require 2.26 MJ per kilogram? 5) How much energy does it take to nebulize water so that the droplets can be evacuated to the air (i.e. not condense nearby)? 6) Are there other techniques for getting rid of water? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Berke wrote: 6) Are there other techniques for getting rid of water? -- Yes, by condensing the steam back to liquid water and recycling the water. There was closed loop water circulation. Thus no water/steam was escaped neither to drain nor air. That's not getting rid of water. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Oct. 28 demo: 3716 liters of water vaporized
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: No, but your original question was written wrong. You meant to ask is there other techniques to get rid of the heat?. There is no need to get rid of water, just get rid of heat. Sorry if my questions were not clear. I'm not asking if there are other techniques to extract heat. I'm talking about the Oct. 28th demonstration, where 3716 liters of water were reportedly vaporized. I am trying to understand the energetical implications of this claim. My current understanding is that about 3716 liters of water escaped into air in 5.5 hours. Now, vaporization is one way of getting water to escape into air. That takes 8.4 gigajoules plus whatever is needed to heat the water, right? What about nebulization? Is that possible, would that match what was seen, and how much energy would it take to nebulize 3716 liters of water in 5.5 hours so that it escapes into the atmosphere? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The issue of complete vaporization has plagued the E-Cat from the beginning. In the early E-Cats, water was able to run straight out of the E-Cat and down a drain, without ever being collected or sparged. In the 1MW demo, the steam is condensed and fed back in, there is no way of knowing how much water was actually vaporized. How did they get the 3716 liters of vaporized water figure then? -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
The important thing with the e-Cat is that there don't seem to be any good faith classical models left around to explain the effect. In other words, all the various demonstrations disprove the notion that this is just misunderstood classical physics. It is either an elaborate hoax, or this is the real stuff. Elaborating models with hot bricks in the reactor core etc. is mostly an intellectual distraction, because a hot brick model is obviously not a good faith model. People can simulate all the hot brick/cement/iron slug/wet vapor models they want, but unless someone discovers something that can be there only if this is a hoax, such models won't speak for the hoax hypothesis. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat / philosophical remarks
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that it is easy to come up with fraudulent methods that could have delivered the observed demo results. This is true and that's one of the points. Add to which Rossi has had no end of opportunities to remove all doubt, at no extra cost in effort or materials, and without danger of loss of IP, but has chosen not to for reasons that I (and others) are unable to guess. I disagree. Designing and setting up an iron-clad demonstration for public consumption is a major task, and is never good enough if there is disinformation by the mainstream media. Getting the product to the market is the best demonstration one can do. So we can assume that he just opted for the latter at the expense of the former. 1/ It's real, but Rossi is not able to see how bad the decisions he is making are, and is incapable of taking sensible advice. Rossi is Rossi, not god. If his decisions were that bad, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. 2/ It's a very elaborate scam. That option seems less and less likely. Rossi's failure in commercialisation of the biggest thing since the transistor is not totally unprecedented - the Wright brothers were almost as bad. I have checked the media coverage of the Wright brothers flights the other day. The silence was astounding. But the fact that he is selling his house to finance a white elephant 1MW demo, when he would have had investors (with the expert help he so obviously needs) beating a path to his door to make him a billionaire if he simply did one good multi-day 10kW scale demo (with proper setup, record keeping and inspection), just leaves me amazed. It is so bad that at this point I am actually starting to feel he doesn't deserve success, I am glad that other groups seem to be closing in on similar results. The problem is not with Rossi. The problem is with the human race. We are a bunch of fuck-ups too stupid to get rid of our own human parasites and invest in useful technology and adopt them before we poison what little drinkable water is left by fracking or nuclear disasters. Maybe we deserve to die. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
You are proposing a theory where a slug of hot iron releases its stored energy. The e-Cats have enough internal volume to store the reported amount of energy produced in very hot iron, and it is theoretically possible to insulate them using aerogel so that they'll keep their heat for a few hours. Install a controllable heat-exchange mechanism, program the software to emulate a reactor output, et voilà! Except that this theory deosn't fly for the 1 MW demo. About 9.5 GJ was produced. I've done some layman calculations, and using aerogel, you could go to 1200 degrees Celsius, and the amount of iron required would be about 250 kg per module. Look at the pictures of the e-Cat. The modules are standing on pieces of metal supported by 5 cm x 5 cm angle sections about 5mm thick. I don't think you can put 500 - 750 kg over 1.5 m on such angle sections. -- Berke durak
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Cement has more specific heat capacity per mass, but not per volume. One cubic meter of iron can hold something like 3.5 MJ per kelvin, while the same volume of cement can hold something like 2.33 MJ per kelvin. In addition I'm not sure cement can go above 800 degrees Celsius, while iron melts at 1500 degrees. So one cubic meter of cement at 800 degrees celsius above background can hold 800 x 2.33 MJ = 1.86 GJ. One cubic meter of iron at 1500 degrees can hold 5.25 GJ. Now take the 9.5 GJ that has been reported. With cement, you need 9.5e9/1.86e9 = 5.11 cubic meters. With iron, you need 9.5e9/5.25e9 = 1.81 cubic meters. Assume you have 50 modules of 70 cm x 30 cm x 45 cm. That makes 4.7 cubic meters. Not enough space for cement (unless you know of some special kind of cement.) Using iron, it would fit, but it would weight way too much, at 250 kg per module. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com wrote: Or 25kg per module if we just bring the water to 105C and make very little steam But that assumes that the numbers are falsified. In the customer's public report, it says : Water vaporized : 3716 l. So if that figure is false, anything goes and there is nothing left to investigate. You have to put faith in something, otherwise it is pointless to discuss - just call it a scam and move on. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Some thoughts about preparation of nickel powder
Hi Pasha, Could you give an estimate for the energy required for preparing 10 kg of nickel following that procedure? Rossi claims 200 W.h is sufficient. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Nickel enrichment : is a liquid-phase Calutron possible?
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: So why bother enriching at all? Rossi himself stated that the fuel is enriched, and that the energy cost for enriching it for a 1 MW set of reactor is (only!) 200 W.h. By analogy with classical Uranium nuclear reactors, I can only assume that the reactive isotope ratio in natural nickel is not enough for self-sustained operation. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Nickel enrichment : is a liquid-phase Calutron possible?
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: The ion diffusion speed in an electrolyte is only some centimeters per minute at best, while the speed in a Calutron is probably some 100 to some 1000 kilometres per second. Therefore the mass inertia of the nucleus at this low speed has no effect. The electrolyte vessel must be some 1000 km long for this to work. Yes, but can't the liquid be accelerated to a sufficient velocity using pumps? A quick search reveals that the radius of the circular path described by a charged particle subject to a transverse magnetic field is R = mv/qB where m is the mass, v is the velocity, q is the charge and B is the field in tesla. Assume we want to separate two isotopes of masses m1 and m2, we'll want R1 - R2 d for some sufficiently large d. Take d = 1cm, m1 = 58 amu and m2 = 64 amu, and q = 2 x 1.6e-19 C (for Ni 2+), then we need v = qB/(m1 - m2) = 32e6 m/s/T. For a 100 nano tesla field, this gives 3.2 m/s and R1 = 9.6 m and R2 = 10.6 m. I suppose 3.2 m/s is a reasonable velocity. If we pump the solution so that the Ni2+ ions reach a velocity of 3.2 m/s while keeping the magnetic field around 100 nanotesla, we might be able to separate them. By properly orienting the setup with respect to the Earth's magnetic field, some mu-metal shielding or using some active cancellation technique, it might be possible to obtain a 100 nT field. The problem might be that you will also have whatever cations are present swirling in the opposite direction. I don't know how that would affect the Ni2+ ions. Any physicists / electrochemists in the room? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:Rossi Nickel enrichment : is a liquid-phase Calutron possible?
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: It seems you are conflating two processes when only one will suffice. And one of them is absurd from the start. Why pump the liquid at all? Why use a magnetic field with pumping, when a simpler route exists? Calutrons were a gigantic waste of money in the Manhattan project and were only used for a few years as an expedient. Because you need to have v d * q * B/(m1 - m2) where v is the speed, d the desired separation distance, q the charge, B the magnetic field and m1 and m2 the respective masses, and if you don't pump, you'll have to rely on the acceleration provided by the electrical field, which may be too low. Centrifugal acceleration (even the common lab centrifuge) should give similar or better results, if what you want is enrichment by density gradient in a NiCl solution. In fact the chloride is ready-made for this since by varying the water content and temperature (solubility) - the heavier fraction can be solidified by chilling - while the light fraction remains a liquid and is more easily removed at the early stages (to automate the process). If you are going for enriching an isotope that is 10% denser, it will take at least seven stages for every doubling (not counting losses). This is the rule of seventy (similar to formula used in compound interest). Therefore, to increase a 1% isotope to 16% might require a minimum of 28 stages of progressive enrichment, but when losses are included, it is probably closer to 50 stages. Automation makes a big difference with this many stages. For the NiCl solution (hexa-hydrate) the solubility is 254 g/100 mL at 20 °C - and 600 g/100 mL at 100 °C. That difference could help a lot in automating the processing, so that even 50 stages in a continuous centrifuging would not be a insurmountable problem to get 64Ni enriched to a level in the mid-teens at an affordable cost. At least this is doable, but - as for final cost - that is another question based on many issues. But if the enrichment percentage can be kept to a low level, it need not be too expensive for the numbers Rossi is throwing around. This is because with NiCl - the rejected isotopes are of the same value as the feedstock, and this makes the processing simply a matter of overhead, efficiency and labor. The bulk nickel is no less useful in industry - with the 64Ni removed as with it there. In effect, you only rent the feedstock, removing very little. That is a huge difference compared to what we look to as the model for isotope enrichment. With uranium enrichment - in contrast, the feedstock cost must be 100% absorbed in the cost of the enrichment (since the depleted U has almost no value) so that factor alone grossly inflates the net cost by several orders of magnitude (compared to nickel). Enrichment cost alone, for even the heavy metals - is not outrageous so long as there is a large market for the depleted feedstock. That is key. There seldom is a market, but since nickel has that as its major feature, then an enriched isotope on a mass production scale, for a NiH energy system, is not out of the question. -Original Message- From: Berke Durak On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: The ion diffusion speed in an electrolyte is only some centimeters per minute at best, while the speed in a Calutron is probably some 100 to some 1000 kilometres per second. Therefore the mass inertia of the nucleus at this low speed has no effect. The electrolyte vessel must be some 1000 km long for this to work. Yes, but can't the liquid be accelerated to a sufficient velocity using pumps? A quick search reveals that the radius of the circular path described by a charged particle subject to a transverse magnetic field is R = mv/qB where m is the mass, v is the velocity, q is the charge and B is the field in tesla. Assume we want to separate two isotopes of masses m1 and m2, we'll want R1 - R2 d for some sufficiently large d. Take d = 1cm, m1 = 58 amu and m2 = 64 amu, and q = 2 x 1.6e-19 C (for Ni 2+), then we need v = qB/(m1 - m2) = 32e6 m/s/T. For a 100 nano tesla field, this gives 3.2 m/s and R1 = 9.6 m and R2 = 10.6 m. I suppose 3.2 m/s is a reasonable velocity. If we pump the solution so that the Ni2+ ions reach a velocity of 3.2 m/s while keeping the magnetic field around 100 nanotesla, we might be able to separate them. By properly orienting the setup with respect to the Earth's magnetic field, some mu-metal shielding or using some active cancellation technique, it might be possible to obtain a 100 nT field. The problem might be that you will also have whatever cations are present swirling in the opposite direction. I don't know how that would affect the Ni2+ ions. Any physicists / electrochemists in the room? -- Berke Durak
[Vo]:Rossi Nickel enrichment : is a liquid-phase Calutron possible?
Hello everyone, My name is Berke and I'm not an electrochemist. Nor a physicist for that matter. (Just a comp. sci. guy.) That being said, I'd like to discuss this issue nonetheless. I find this subject extremely interesting. Also, congratulations for this well-kept and informative list. Some people have speculated that the heavier nickel isotopes (in particular Nickel-64) are the active elements in Rossi's alleged reaction. I recall reading that Rossi claimed that the enrichment is quite an easy process. Prof. S. Çelebi asked Rossi about the quantity of energy required to produce the fuel assembly, and Rossi responded that 200 W.h are enough for a 1 MW unit. Since Rossi claims that 10 kg of (enriched) nickel is good for 180 days worth of 1 MW production, I suppose that this 200 W.h figure is what is required to process 10 kg of nickel, or maybe the corresponding amount of some nickel ore or salt. On the other hand, there is talk of nickel powder being used, although I don't know if nanometric powder is required. I don't know anything about powdering, but based on some quick web research and back-of-the-envelope number crunching, it seems that 200 W.h is a reasonable amount of energy to pulverize 10 kg of some softish metal into a 70 micrometer-ish powder using commercially available equipment. Now, that doesn't solve the enrichment issue. Note that we don't necessarily need pure Nickel 64. Some Reddit folks were talking of a 64 Ni - 65 Cu reaction giving off 40 keV (as gammas I suppose). Since 64 Ni has .00926 abundance, you'd need to enrich that isotope by something like 5 times. So how could nickel 64 be cheaply enriched x 5? I had this weird idea, which may well be completely unfeasible. Take a nickel electroplating bath. There you have negatively charged nickel ions moving towards the anode. If you place a sufficiently long bath in a magnetic field, won't the trajectories of the nickel ions be deviated, in a quantity decreasing with their mass? If this is true, then you may be able to separate the heavier nickel ions from the lighter ones. Note that Nickel-64 is about 10% heavier than the most abundant isotope, so maybe this won't require require too many stages, if feasible. Basically, this would be a liquid-phase Calutron. Maybe there is a good physical or chemical reason why this wouldn't work, so I'd like any knowledgeable persons to step forward and give their opinion. If this works, from the couple pages I've read on electroplating, I gathered that it should be possible to obtain relatively brittle nickel by controlling the parameters of the process. This is probably a good thing, since after enrichment, you'll want to pulverize your nickel. In addition, it probably is not unreasonable to use a copper anode. Then, your fuel will be contaminated with natural copper. So, if the fuel sample you provide for analysis didn't run for very long, you'll have way more natural copper than transmuted copper, and the isotopic composition may well be indistinguishable from that of natural copper. Now if that enrichment process is feasible, we need to run some numbers to see if 200 W.h is in the ball park for 5 x enrichment of Ni-64. -- Berke Durak
