Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:48:24 -0800: Hi, [snip] Multiple reports exist of varying power output from the device. Such variability wouldn't be acceptable in a commercial device. By ganging a hundred units together, the variability tends to average out resulting in a much smoother output. Hi Robin, Well yes, that's a decent reason ... but if it were only for the purpose of 'smoothing,' isn't having 100 a bit of overkill? 3 would have been fine for that purpose. There must be more to it. I think the magic number of 1 MW (which is roughly the geometric mean between household size and utility size) probably also plays a role. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:55:09 -0800: Hi, [snip] In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the cascade was the only rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+ modular units. [snip] Multiple reports exist of varying power output from the device. Such variability wouldn't be acceptable in a commercial device. By ganging a hundred units together, the variability tends to average out resulting in a much smoother output. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
In reply to Dennis's message of Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:57:50 -0700: Hi, [snip] I had the feeling that the heating was by directly passing the current through the metal bed - that would make for very fast transfer. I doubt it because there are 5 controllers for the device. If the current were passed directly through the metal bed, they would short one another out. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
-Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com In reply to Jones Beene's message In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the cascade was the only rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+ modular units. Multiple reports exist of varying power output from the device. Such variability wouldn't be acceptable in a commercial device. By ganging a hundred units together, the variability tends to average out resulting in a much smoother output. Hi Robin, Well yes, that's a decent reason ... but if it were only for the purpose of 'smoothing,' isn't having 100 a bit of overkill? 3 would have been fine for that purpose. There must be more to it. Jones Of course, has anyone mentioned that he could have already tried to double the size of the unit, and discovered a reverse economy of scale? Or else he found a high failure rate (when he goes to higher power levels). Consequently, the 10-15 kW unit may be optimal. Why is it that we are so accustomed to positive economy of scale, that we often fail to notice that 'scale' can operate in a reverse way, as well. This is probably giving Rossi too much credit. I doubt if had the funds to try very many variables.
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
On Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM Dennis wrote I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure. I don't think that the device would fail to disaster if the stimulation/heater/ whatever (80 or so Watts used in the demo) would be removed. Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the stimulation. I agree the explosion scenario is unlikely but I could see a loss of catalytic properties if the metal powder were to get so plastic hot as to grow whiskers And relieve the stiction forces. I think this is why the powder used in Rowan demos had to be reactivated after use. Regards Fran From: Dennis [mailto:den...@netmdc.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yes, I meant that it would be more convincing if a smaller device was used (10's to 100KW) and that it turned a steam engine, stirling,. that could convert the heat and it then could be run without any access to external power sources. Notice I do not wish to imply that the water flow also be required to be powered by the device. I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no control and little instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less instrumentation with no chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first principles. I would expect you would have to have some external power source to start the device. I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure. I don't think that the device would fail to disaster if the stimulation/heater/ whatever (80 or so Watts used in the demo) would be removed. Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the stimulation. A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing - if run for an extended time. D2 From: Jed Rothwellmailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netmailto:jone...@pacbell.net wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates. I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics should have a battery back up system. I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be. If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric stand-alone machine would be a good idea. In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though . . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
On Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:21 PM Jones Beene wrote In so doing, only one cell in the entire array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the critical temperature (374°C). Jones, I disagree, I think the electrical control slaves the repetition rate and duty factor from slipping into runaway or starvation. In addition to the thermal pulse there is also the magnetic pulse associated with this change in current through the heater which radiates out into the Ni powder much faster than the thermal pulse. The system requires a pulse that briefly exceeds this temperature threshold and a cooling system that draws it back down under during the PWM dead time. I think this particular recipe is normally a runaway reaction once initiated but by using a very small duty factor and a monster cooling rate it becomes exploitable. Modifications to the cooling system without something to initiate the reaction is impossible - trying to balance the once initiated reaction with the cooling rate would be almost impossible because you still need a PWM scheme relative to the threshold to repeatedly take you into and out of reaction. Regards Fran Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that it lends itself to the energy cascade, with extremely high iterative gain. A cascade will allow his COP to soar from 30:1 to 2500:1 with complete control, and consequently there will be no doubt about the magnitude of gain. Rossi seems to be reluctant to allow (unplugged) self-power, due to the risk of a runaway - otherwise a smaller system could be used. This analysis assumes that the major consideration which is needed for the reaction to proceed is to maintain a narrow range of temperatures over a threshold, but below a failsafe. In so doing, only one cell in the entire array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the critical temperature (374°C). So long as the threshold for the reaction is around ~350°C, which has been reported - then this kind of staged cascade can work beautifully, because the return of the hot water coming back into the system from the heat exchanger (which serves as the load) can be easily be mixed into the superheated water via a thermo-coupled proportioning valve (solenoid controlled valve) arrangement. This is common is industrial processes. Control is possible to one degree C. In effect no additional electrical input is required past the first cell. Elegant. Think about it this way. You have one key cell in the cascade - and it is constructed with the same kind of elaborate PLC control as in the Bologna demo, and superheated water from it then feeds two adjoining cells; and those two feed the next four; then eight, 16, 32 and then the final 37 in last series. All 99 have proportioning valves to control the input heat in a narrow range. None of the 99 subsequent cells in the cascade need to have any lossy electrical input at all - except for the valve-control arrangement so that temperature is a function of incoming hot water, mixed with the colder return flow water. This is actually a lot simpler to do than it sounds. All of the dependent stages essentially are heated by the preceding stage. But the first cell is the only one that gets electrical power (~400 watts), and the heat range for the others is controlled by the superheated water from the previous stage, by admixing hot water from a return line. Most of the output heat comes from only the last stage in the cascade, but since there is little input the COP is essentially 1,000,000/400 = 2,500. If it works out this way for a few hours, hopefully for a few days, it will surely convince any skeptic. 2,500:1 is essentially infinite gain which is tempered by the need to control against a runaway. Jones -Original Message- From: Dennis Unless he can unplug it... Most any system will tend to be messy at that level for any system that runs for extended times (days??) to rule out chemistry. I think he would do better by just making something in the 1 to 10 KW (thermal) range that ran for a week unplugged. If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates.
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC. I think you are exaggerating the power of the NRC! If this machine succeeds at all, it will be on the front pages of every newspaper on earth for weeks. It will be talked about everywhere. Every industrial company will be anxious to start manufacturing units, knowing that if they are late, they will soon face bankruptcy. There will be tremendous public pressure to allow the technology, simply because it will reduce the cost of energy by a large factor. The NRC cannot fight that. Neither can the fossil fuel industry. I am sure they will do everything they can to stop it or slow it down, but they will fail. When the public stands to gain trillions of dollars, nothing can stop it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote: I agree the “explosion “ scenario is unlikely but I could see a loss of catalytic properties . . . I do not know of any reason to think that there might be a nuclear explosion but based on the 130 kW heat excursion with the small unit I think there is some danger of a steam explosion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote: I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no control and little instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less instrumentation with no chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first principles. I agree with this characterization. A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing - if run for an extended time. Fairly convincing? Is that the best you've got? FAIRLY? If it were on a small scale and you could confirm there were no wires going into it, why would you not say it is totally convincing? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
In the early days of CF I talked with some SALT treaty people at LANL about the legal implications of cold fusion. Basically, if a device is not producing neutrons or is using materials with none-natural isotopic materials it seems to fall outside of the legal jurisdiction of such treaties and organization. Basically the system did not anticipate nuclear systems that emit no neutrons go figure. I am not sure that a proton capture device would fall within the jurisdictions of the NRC. Perhaps some other group that governs low level radiation. D2 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:20 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC. I think you are exaggerating the power of the NRC! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
From Jones ... Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely unplugged makes me nervous. Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want to live near one. Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering (and theory) involved would HAVE to spark considerable debate within the US for years - assuming Rossi Focardi's device turns out to be a winner. Risk concerns (risks which I gather are unconfirmed at this moment) of unwanted/unshielded radiation exposure, versus the more familiar risks of continued unpredictable price fluctuations from the international petroleum scene ought to keep PACS politicians busy and well funded for quite a while. On one side of the street protesters will carry picket signs warning: Don't let them Rossi-date your water! H... who could be funding this grass-roots organization... I just wonder. ...whereas on the other side of the street: Kill ITER! ...and then, there's Mills Co., presumably getting ready to strike before the end of 2011. Way too many variables to keep track of. Hopefully, a major fallout will turn out to be electric heating bills at a fraction of their current costs. Hopefully within my lifetime. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
From Jones ... Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely unplugged makes me nervous. Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want to live near one. Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering (and theory) involved would HAVE to spark considerable debate within the US for years - assuming Rossi Focardi's device turns out to be a winner. Risk concerns (risks which I gather are unconfirmed at this moment) of unwanted/unshielded radiation exposure, versus the more familiar risks of continued unpredictable price fluctuations from the international petroleum scene ought to keep PACS politicians busy and well funded for quite a while. On one side of the street protesters will carry picket signs warning: Don't let them Rossi-date your water! H... who could be funding this grass-roots organization... I just wonder. ...whereas on the other side of the street: Kill ITER! ...and then, there's Mills Co., presumably getting ready to strike before the end of 2011. Way too many variables to keep track of. Hopefully, a major fallout will turn out to be electric heating bills at a fraction of their current costs. Hopefully within my lifetime. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Fran, Yes, if a magnetic pulse is needed you are correct and cascading won't work. Brian Ahern also tells me superheated water will not work for this, which would mean that a molten salt would be needed instead. There could be other advantages to a molten salt as well. I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a pulse wave is involved in the operation. In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the cascade was the only rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+ modular units. Maybe there is another reason, or maybe he is not being as logical as I presumed. Otherwise - what is being accomplished, other than pandering to skeptics by making a chemical origin for the power seem less likely? Jones -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X Jones Beene wrote In so doing, only one cell in the entire array needs to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the critical temperature (374°C). Jones, I disagree, I think the electrical control slaves the repetition rate and duty factor from slipping into runaway or starvation. In addition to the thermal pulse there is also the magnetic pulse associated with this change in current through the heater which radiates out into the Ni powder much faster than the thermal pulse. The system requires a pulse that briefly exceeds this temperature threshold and a cooling system that draws it back down under during the PWM dead time. I think this particular recipe is normally a runaway reaction once initiated but by using a very small duty factor and a monster cooling rate it becomes exploitable. Modifications to the cooling system without something to initiate the reaction is impossible - trying to balance the once initiated reaction with the cooling rate would be almost impossible because you still need a PWM scheme relative to the threshold to repeatedly take you into and out of reaction. Regards Fran Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that it lends itself to the energy cascade, with extremely high iterative gain. A cascade will allow his COP to soar from 30:1 to 2500:1 with complete control, and consequently there will be no doubt about the magnitude of gain. Rossi seems to be reluctant to allow (unplugged) self-power, due to the risk of a runaway - otherwise a smaller system could be used. This analysis assumes that the major consideration which is needed for the reaction to proceed is to maintain a narrow range of temperatures over a threshold, but below a failsafe. In so doing, only one cell in the entire array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the critical temperature (374°C). So long as the threshold for the reaction is around ~350°C, which has been reported - then this kind of staged cascade can work beautifully, because the return of the hot water coming back into the system from the heat exchanger (which serves as the load) can be easily be mixed into the superheated water via a thermo-coupled proportioning valve (solenoid controlled valve) arrangement. This is common is industrial processes. Control is possible to one degree C. In effect no additional electrical input is required past the first cell. Elegant. Think about it this way. You have one key cell in the cascade - and it is constructed with the same kind of elaborate PLC control as in the Bologna demo, and superheated water from it then feeds two adjoining cells; and those two feed the next four; then eight, 16, 32 and then the final 37 in last series. All 99 have proportioning valves to control the input heat in a narrow range. None of the 99 subsequent cells in the cascade need to have any lossy electrical input at all - except for the valve-control arrangement so that temperature is a function of incoming hot water, mixed with the colder return flow water. This is actually a lot simpler to do than it sounds. All of the dependent stages essentially are heated by the preceding stage. But the first cell is the only one that gets electrical power (~400 watts), and the heat range for the others is controlled by the superheated water from the previous stage, by admixing hot water from a return line. Most of the output heat comes from only the last stage in the cascade, but since there is little input the COP is essentially
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
From Jed: From Jones: Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC. I think you are exaggerating the power of the NRC! If this machine succeeds at all, it will be on the front pages of every newspaper on earth for weeks. It will be talked about everywhere. Every industrial company will be anxious to start manufacturing units, knowing that if they are late, they will soon face bankruptcy. There will be tremendous public pressure to allow the technology, simply because it will reduce the cost of energy by a large factor. The NRC cannot fight that. Neither can the fossil fuel industry. I am sure they will do everything they can to stop it or slow it down, but they will fail. When the public stands to gain trillions of dollars, nothing can stop it. I am also in sympathy with Jed's POV on this matter. I truly hope Jed's prediction turns out to be accurate. However, do not underestimate the capacity of politicians and society in general to behave some of the most stupid counter-productive ways imaginable. Having been personally involved for weeks in on-going debates over Wisconsin's budget concerning the contentious matter of destroying collective bargaining rights for public employees, an issue that has now garnered national attention over the matter of what does killing this provision have to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget... I have to say pretty conclusively that when well-funded ideology grabs the steering wheel, logic, practicality, and pragmatism, are often forced to the back of the bus. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yes, the system tends toward inaction instead of action. Like in Wisconsin, some senators ran away to avoid voting and acting while there is great pain and hostility developing from their avoiding the democratic process. People tend to do nothing instead of acting. I fear that the system when confronted with a new technology will mainly run away to avoid acting while society suffers pain from the lack of clean energy. Large level implementation will suffer. However, the inaction may also result in implementing some of the technology. There seems little way to control its low level implementation by individuals. It would take a concerted effort and lots of action to prevent backwoods use of say 1-5 kW home heaters built by good old boys. Think about what it would take to prevent people from accessing Nickel and hydrogen and a steel tube and perhaps a reasonable vacuum pump made from an old refrigerator compressor. I for one will be trying be in a position to heat my house within 2 years, assuming I can get something to work. I have found no rules, laws, material restrictions, preventing that path. Dennis C -- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com However, do not underestimate the capacity of politicians and society in general to behave some of the most stupid counter-productive ways imaginable. Having been personally involved for weeks in on-going debates over Wisconsin's budget concerning the contentious matter of destroying collective bargaining rights for public employees, an issue that has now garnered national attention over the matter of what does killing this provision have to do with balancing Wisconsin's budget... I have to say pretty conclusively that when well-funded ideology grabs the steering wheel, logic, practicality, and pragmatism, are often forced to the back of the bus. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
On Friday, March 04, 2011 9:55 AM Jones Beene wrote I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a pulse wave is involved in the operation. Jones, I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. If the PWM were just accumulating an average temp over many cycles it would only represent a fine temp control and not be turning the reaction on and off each cycle as I think it needs to do to prevent runaway. The pulse wave, be it mechanical, electrical or magnetic needs to push the gas very briefly over the reaction threshold and then go away. As long as the average temp and cooling loop are able to pull it back under the threshold before the next cycle you have a valid control system. The energy originally required to bring the mass up close to this threshold only has to be invested once because iterative PWM cycles can take over this housekeeping chore and then progress to even higher levels in lockstep with increased heat exchange. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
On Friday, March 04, 2011 9:55 AM Jones Beene wrote I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a pulse wave is involved in the operation. Jones, I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. I had the feeling that the heating was by directly passing the current through the metal bed - that would make for very fast transfer. Dennis
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Americans spend $2500 per capita on energy. $10,000 per year for a family of four. When every person in the US fully realizes that we can reduce that cost a few dollars per year, and that people in China and every other country art rapidly doing that, there is absolutely positively no force on earth that will prevent us from doing it. The most powerful politician, the biggest industries, OPEC and Exxon Mobile alike can no more stop that than a spider web can stop a Mack Truck. The power of money is the one irresistible force in society. I'm sure there will be a monumental brouhaha last for many years. I am sure the DoE and Exxon Mobile will fight tooth and nail. But in the end the opposition will be swept away. The U.S. military will not stand aside passively while the Chinese and others rearm with cold fusion powered weapons. as I pointed out in my book, these weapons would give a military force the kind of advantage the British had over the Chinese in the opium wars. A small number of cold fusion powered ships or aircraft could completely destroy the largest force on earth as quickly as the British destroyed the Chinese. Any military office will soon see this. Having said that, I fully agree with Steven V Johnson: Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering (and theory) involved would HAVE to spark considerable debate within the US for years - assuming Rossi Focardi's device turns out to be a winner. Risk concerns (risks which I gather are unconfirmed at this moment) of unwanted/unshielded radiation exposure, versus the more familiar risks of continued unpredictable price fluctuations from the international petroleum scene ought to keep PACS politicians busy and well funded for quite a while. On one side of the street protesters will carry picket signs warning: Don't let them Rossi-date your water! I myself would be inclined to man the picket lines. Deploying the technology of this nature without first fully verifying that it is harmless, and without first making every effort to understand the fundamental physics of it, would be insane. This would cost only a few billion dollars. It would add a few pennies to the cost of every machine. There are countless government regulatory agencies such as NIST and the NIH, and industry organizations such as Underwriters Laboratories, that could perform all of the verification tests needed in a few years. Manufacturers such as GE would submit prototypes to NIST be tested for safety, while the NIH make certain there are no hidden effects on health, by testing laboratory rats and other species. this is how new technology is normally deployed in the US and there is no reason to think cold fusion would not be treated the same way, once the political objections and irrational opposition by the DoE is swept aside by the power of voters wanting to save thousands of dollars a year. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Fran, Yes you could be exactly right! Nanopowder or nickel black or Raney is poor for heat transfer, and passing current through it as Dennis suggests, could risk damaging the nanostructure. It would not be very conductive electrically anyway. This may indeed be one major key to the thermodynamics of this device: an internal gas pressure wave, based on pulsation of the pressurized hydrogen, such that it increases heat transfer to the tube wall, in order to cycle the powder temporarily over and under the threshold. Ironically the high pressure of the sine wave serves to increases cooling, not heating, and immediately the heat begins to increase as the wave crest passes through. The wave is working with the high flow rate of coolant, so the control is via the coolant working against the inversion temperature (hotter towards the middle of the tube). In looking at the data charts of inversion temperature in a similar ongoing experiment - yes, the thermal transfer rate seems to be way too low to control rapidly via external cooling (or heating) alone! A pulse of gas would be considerably more effective, and that dynamic rationale also meshes with the need for 5 controllers. He must want to set up a travelling wave, and five is about the minimum number it would take. It is possible to do a travelling wave with three but five gives redundancy. If it were only controlled via current - you would not need five. This is my best guess for TGIF, but it is good for only the next 15 minutes, until someone comes up with a better suggestion :) This still does not answer the looming question of why is he going to 100 modular units. If we can get a handle on that, it might tell us a lot. I think there is a valid reason for the 100, but again - I see Rossi as a genius who also got lucky, whereas others write him off as just a lucky crank. Try to imagine why an inventive genius would want to risk so much, with all of the unanticipated pitfalls which can happen, in order to convert a good demo at 10kW into a shockingly impressive demo at 1MW. There must a valid reason, but it could relate more to the funders than to Rossi himself. Jones -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X Jones Beene wrote I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a pulse wave is involved in the operation. Jones, I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. If the PWM were just accumulating an average temp over many cycles it would only represent a fine temp control and not be turning the reaction on and off each cycle as I think it needs to do to prevent runaway. The pulse wave, be it mechanical, electrical or magnetic needs to push the gas very briefly over the reaction threshold and then go away. As long as the average temp and cooling loop are able to pull it back under the threshold before the next cycle you have a valid control system. The energy originally required to bring the mass up close to this threshold only has to be invested once because iterative PWM cycles can take over this housekeeping chore and then progress to even higher levels in lockstep with increased heat exchange. Regards Fran
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
I meant to say that any military OFFICER will see the advantages of cold fusion powered equipment, such as aircraft and tanks. A cold fusion powered nuclear bomb would not be necessary and I doubt such a thing is possible. Direct use of cold fusion energy to destroy objects with lasers, heat or by accelerating objects is likely but it will be on same scale as chemical energy releases from conventional munitions. I hope so, anyway. Note that the primary differences between the British and Chinese fleets in the first Opium War (1839 - 1842) was in the use of energy. Mainly in two ways: the British fleet has auxiliary steam power, especially in the ironclad Nemesis, and they had better cannons. You can think of a 19th-century cannon as a device to concentrate energy. They were not particularly accurate over long range. The Chinese also had artillery and muskets. In the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate ironclad Virginia was technically possible because it used steam rather than sails. The power supply was the main difference, and the enabling technology. Sail-powered ironclad ships would be impossible, especially in narrow channels and inland waterways. The Virgina was designed right at the edge of its power limits, meaning it was so heavy, it barely able to navigate. (The steam engine was 1,200 HP, manufactured in Boston in 1856.) The Virginia easily destroyed two large wooden U.S. Navy ships in one day, March 8, 1862. This is an excellent example of how energy technology can decisively improve military effectiveness. The energy need not be used directly in combat, to cause harm. - Jed
[Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO Rossi said that the 1 MW unit will be used to generate hot water. Not to generate steam, not to be used as an electric generator. (This seems like a wise goal to me, because the conditions needed to generate steam or electricity are more extreme.) Assume the ratio of control electronics power to output is the same as the small device, 1:200, the control electronics will take about 5 kW. Okay, let us assume the target temperature is 40°C. Max power is 1 MW = 238,000 calories/second so the flow rate will be 5952 ml/s = 6 L per second (95 gallons per minute). That is not as large of a flow rate as I thought. A 100 gpm pump costs $642 and takes only 0.5 HP (372 W -- really?!). That seems kind of low. Fire pumps of this capacity are rated at 10 HP. A large pump used in a swimming pool is about 75 gpm. You have probably felt the surge of water from one of these. TEST PROCEDURE To test the 15 kW machine, you can buy all equipment you need at Home Depot and Radio Shack for less than $100. You need a thermistor, a Kill A Watt efficiency monitor, a large bucket marked in liters, and a stopwatch (nowadays a virtual stopwatch on a computer). Install the Kill A Watt between the wall outlet and the control electronics box, to circumvent skeptical doubts about waveforms. This equipment will give you a reliable answer to within 10%, which is enough to be certain that 80 W are going in and 15,000 W coming out. To test a 1 MW machine, you need thousands of dollars worth of specialized equipment, starting with a large AC wattmeter (power analyzer), which costs anywhere from $800 to $15,000. The point is, a professor or outside observer would not have this sort of thing handy. Someone like a consulting engineer would. You also need specialized flowmeters and temperature probes. The testbed at Hydrodynamics cost tens of thousands of dollars as I recall, and it took months to build. It had to measure mechanical torque as well as electric power, which added to the cost. The point is, this is not something you can throw together with a few universally available parts. You might be forced to depend upon Rossi himself to provide the instruments and set them up before the demonstration. This would compromise the results. It is challenging to install a temperature sensor into such a strong flow of water. An old-fashioned dial thermometer is probably a good choice. These things are inaccurate. You could take samples of tap water input and bucketfuls of the output to measure the temperature independently. You probably want an IR sensor and some other stuff to do sanity-check tests. I would recommend a great deal of nuclear safety equipment; Geiger counters and the like. Badges to measure radiation exposure. Rossi says there is no radiation but Celani says he measured it. I would not bet my life that Rossi is right. I am sure there would be other challenges I have not thought of. Flow calorimetry on this scale is quite different from anything in the laboratory. As I mentioned, measuring industrial processes is not only difficult, it is surprisingly inaccurate by the standards of the laboratory. There are good reasons why people do experiments on the level of 1 to 10 W. See: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJbutterside.pdf REASONABLE SKEPTICAL OBJECTIONS As noted, if Rossi supplies the instruments even a sympathetic observer would have doubts. This would not be an independent test in any sense. This is a large machine. It would probably have to be bolted to the floor. It would be dangerous to poke around inside it, even if everything is turned off. I believe that the control electronics are critical to the performance of this machine. It would be dangerous to allow these electronics to turn off completely in the event of a power failure, so I think the control electronics will require a large battery backup. A power failure might also disable the flow of water if they use a pump instead of tap pressure. the point is you will have a lot more equipment and many more wires which a suspicious person might reasonably suspect is actually supplying power to the machine. you would have to carefully sort out what is what, and what where goes where. It is harder to determine the layout and functionality of the components than with the small 15 kW machine. I think it would take a few days, and I would want a mechanical engineer to do the job. I
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
and I would like to see what he will use as his control. Dennis -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis wrote: and I would like to see what he will use as his control. I am more concerned about control in the other sense -- can he can keep it under control. Seriously, a thing like this does not need a control (null comparison). A null is vital for small scale experiments -- under ~10 W or so I would say -- but above that the positive is so positive you don't need to compare it to anything. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis, Indeed . And that would be controls. It might be a minority view; several controls are needed. He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, ... and synchronous calibration pulses of a fraction of that power. Would also suggest a temperature control for his pyrometer to match the peak temp recorded at point. The additional controls for calorimetry including correcting for positional flow error, and for background in any measurement of ionizing radiation (which they are doing) and near-IR (which you know who is doing), and thermal waveform reconstruction are obvious. Probably would also add a flow measurement calibration, and check that humidity sensors are valid with two calibrations if the temperature exceeds 96C. Best regards, m === At 06:05 PM 3/3/2011, you wrote: and I would like to see what he will use as his control. Dennis -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems perhaps he will make adjustments. Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think about how to measure the effect. THE 1 MW DEMO
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Unless he can unplug it... Most any system will tend to be messy at that level for any system that runs for extended times (days??) to rule out chemistry. I think he would do better by just making something in the 1 to 10 KW (thermal) range that ran for a week unplugged. If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. D2 -- From: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:06 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Dennis, Indeed . And that would be controls. It might be a minority view; several controls are needed. He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, ... and synchronous calibration pulses of a fraction of that power. ..
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote: He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve in the steady state, Ah. That is a skeptical objection I did not anticipate. I think this requirement is highly impractical. The only device capable of making a 1 MW pulse of heat long enough to achieve steady state in a flow of water would be a 1 MW water heater (a boiler). I believe that would cost about $200,000. That is quite a lot to pay for a calibration. Based on what I learned from the people at Hydrodynamics, the County Property Manager's department and other Hydrodynamics customers, I do not think any HVAC engineer in the world ask for this kind of calibration. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Having said all of that . . . Looking back at my notes from Hydrodynamics and the County Facility engineer who measured excess heat from the gadget installed in the Fire Department, I should report their methods could not be simpler. In the case of the Fire Department, they did the following: They asked the firemen not to use cold water for an hour or so. They read the water meter and wrote down the setting. (I mean the meter outside the building used for billing purposes.) They measured the tap water temperature. They ran the hot water and measured the outlet temperature with a dial thermometer. All boilers have these things. They recorded the temperature every 5 minutes. They measured the power input with an expensive wattmeter, set to record kilowatt hours on a paper tape. After a while they stopped, and recorded the water meter reading again. In other words, it was simple flow calorimetry. A water meter is a rather crude instrument, but highly reliable. Ditto a bimetalic dial thermometer. As you can imagine, this method gives you only 5% or 10% accuracy but that is enough to distinguish 5 kW input from 1,000 kW output. It would satisfy any engineer on planet earth. I guess I was exaggerating the difficulties in that sense. HOWEVER, this test will not be enough to satisfy skeptics and scientists, as we just saw from the comments by Mitchel Swartz. They will demand a calibration and a null run, and they will come up with many novel theories as to why the test is invalid, such as the positional flow error. I do not know if it is possible to devise a test to satisfy such critics. Certainly it would cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Skeptics who suspect a scam will not be satisfied there are no hidden wires, or fake instrument, or professors in cahoots with Rossi. Perhaps it would wise for Rossi to ignore this sort of thing, and try to convince engineers only. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that it lends itself to the energy cascade, with extremely high iterative gain. A cascade will allow his COP to soar from 30:1 to 2500:1 with complete control, and consequently there will be no doubt about the magnitude of gain. Rossi seems to be reluctant to allow (unplugged) self-power, due to the risk of a runaway - otherwise a smaller system could be used. This analysis assumes that the major consideration which is needed for the reaction to proceed is to maintain a narrow range of temperatures over a threshold, but below a failsafe. In so doing, only one cell in the entire array need to be elaborately controlled by electrical input - and the remaining 99 (if there are 100) are cascaded off the hot water (superheated) output of the first cell, in stages. Superheated water under pressure will allow temperature far in excess of the usual boiling point (100°C) up to the critical temperature (374°C). So long as the threshold for the reaction is around ~350°C, which has been reported - then this kind of staged cascade can work beautifully, because the return of the hot water coming back into the system from the heat exchanger (which serves as the load) can be easily be mixed into the superheated water via a thermo-coupled proportioning valve (solenoid controlled valve) arrangement. This is common is industrial processes. Control is possible to one degree C. In effect no additional electrical input is required past the first cell. Elegant. Think about it this way. You have one key cell in the cascade - and it is constructed with the same kind of elaborate PLC control as in the Bologna demo, and superheated water from it then feeds two adjoining cells; and those two feed the next four; then eight, 16, 32 and then the final 37 in last series. All 99 have proportioning valves to control the input heat in a narrow range. None of the 99 subsequent cells in the cascade need to have any lossy electrical input at all - except for the valve-control arrangement so that temperature is a function of incoming hot water, mixed with the colder return flow water. This is actually a lot simpler to do than it sounds. All of the dependent stages essentially are heated by the preceding stage. But the first cell is the only one that gets electrical power (~400 watts), and the heat range for the others is controlled by the superheated water from the previous stage, by admixing hot water from a return line. Most of the output heat comes from only the last stage in the cascade, but since there is little input the COP is essentially 1,000,000/400 = 2,500. If it works out this way for a few hours, hopefully for a few days, it will surely convince any skeptic. 2,500:1 is essentially infinite gain which is tempered by the need to control against a runaway. Jones -Original Message- From: Dennis Unless he can unplug it... Most any system will tend to be messy at that level for any system that runs for extended times (days??) to rule out chemistry. I think he would do better by just making something in the 1 to 10 KW (thermal) range that ran for a week unplugged. If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates.
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates. I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics should have a battery back up system. I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be. If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric stand-alone machine would be a good idea. In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though . . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
If you talking about closing the loop, then the Stirling engine is a good choice. Here is one he could use. http://www.whispergen.com/main/PRODUCTS/ If I am correct about the cascade, then a Stirling can provide about 15% conversion of heat to electricity (due to the low Carnot spread) but 15% of a megawatt is overkill, except for the nefarious few who may be snooping around on this demo ... and who love that word 'overkill' (literally). As any fool can see, this kind of device would be ideal for the military - tank, submarine, drone airplane that stays aloft for months . Maybe some observers thought we were joking about a threat from Russian interests (or Chinese, Arabs, Israel etc) . With this kind of gain, the threat to Rossi or his family is no joke. Jones From: Jed Rothwell I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining.
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
At 09:21 PM 3/3/2011, Jones Beene wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely unplugged makes me nervous. Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want to live near one.
RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC. At some level, one's tolerance level for risk is proportionate to the availability and cost of the safer alternative. -Original Message- From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax At 09:21 PM 3/3/2011, Jones Beene wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely unplugged makes me nervous. Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want to live near one.
Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yes, I meant that it would be more convincing if a smaller device was used (10's to 100KW) and that it turned a steam engine, stirling,. that could convert the heat and it then could be run without any access to external power sources. Notice I do not wish to imply that the water flow also be required to be powered by the device. I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no control and little instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less instrumentation with no chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first principles. I would expect you would have to have some external power source to start the device. I don't see the risk in the electrical conversion conversion failure. I don't think that the device would fail to disaster if the stimulation/heater/ whatever (80 or so Watts used in the demo) would be removed. Perhaps if the cooling water is turned off but not the stimulation. A self powered device that heats a water flow would be fairly convincing - if run for an extended time. D2 From: Jed Rothwell Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: He cannot safely unplug it, we are told. I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims are real, he should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates. That probably refers to thermoelectric generator conversion rates. I don't think he meant the machine should be literally unplugged. As you said, that is reportedly dangerous. That is why I suppose the control electronics should have a battery back up system. I think it would be unwise to make a thermoelectric generator and a completely stand-alone machine at this stage. For safety's sake, AC input with a battery backup is the most reliable, tried-and-true method. Stand-alone operation would not prove anything that 1:200 input:output ratio does not already prove. A skeptic who would question the 1:200 ratio would also doubt that the thermoelectric stand alone machine is what it appears to be. If it were safe to turn off the power completely, then perhaps a thermoelectric stand-alone machine would be a good idea. In the future, after the technology matures, a stand alone self-sustaining machine should be perfectly safe. I'll bet it will still have a battery though . . . for decades to come. It will be needed for safety and also for a cold start, assuming anyone ever shuts down one of these things. (Why would you? Maybe for maintenance or to ship it before installation.) - Jed
