RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Mr. Murray sed: ... It is indeed high time to welcome the likes of Park, Shanahan, Cude, Little, Krivit, Heffner, and the bit player Murray into the shared forums -- for if any voices are denigrated, then all are enfeebled, with the chorus of collaboration needlessly crippled... High time? Surely you haven't forgotten the fact that Mr. Krivit used to participate in discussions here in the Vort Collective. What's stopping him now? As a former Board of Director member for Krivit's New Energy Times, I wish Mr. Krivit's would once again return and share in the discussions. However, it was Mr. Krivit who excused himself after demanding that Mr. Rothwell publicly apologize to him for slights imagined against his own character. I don't remember what the specifics were, nor do I care. Nevertheless, Mr. Krivit responded in a manner that suggested he had been personally dishonored when Rothwell continued to speak his own mind, and no such apology was received. I sure looked to me as if Mr. Krivit was simply no longer willing to stand the heat in the kitchen. Mr. Krivit's demand that Rothwell publicly apologize struck me more as the modus operandi Krivit chose to exploit as an effective self-justified reason to excuse himself from further discussions going on in the kitchen. I could see how constantly having explain and defend some of his investigative actions and the opinions and conclusions he personally drew was becoming exceedingly draining on the psyche. Nevertheless, by all means, Rich, please welcome Mr. Krivit back. No one's stopping Krivit from returning and expressing is positions on various matters. Of course, many are likely to once again challenge Mr. Krivit and his views on various matters. But isn't that what a discussion forum is all about? As for Park, well, he never participated here. Park has his own What's Up newsletter where he can say anything he wants and in any manner he sees fit, where everyone is invited to absorb his wisdom. As Mr. Storms once quipped about Park commentary and I'm paraphrasing here: Park seems to be very much in love with the cleverness of his own words. Nevertheless, I ask you, Rich, has Park had ANYTHING to say about the Rossi Saga? ...anywhere? Don't you find that just a little bit odd that, for someone who since 1989 has gone out of his way to criticize the whole Cold Fusion community as nothing more than a sociological phenomenon that depicts the principals of misguided pseudo science in action, why is it that after repeatedly being asked for his thoughts on the Rossi matter Park continues to remain uncharacteristically silent. His apparent self-imposed silence in the public arena is unprecedented. It speaks volumes. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test. This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the efficiency of heat exchanger, because we do not know how much heat went down the sink from open primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed. I did not reference T3 in this regards, as far as I know. If you think I did in some relevant way please provide a quote of the material to which you refer. Here again are the quotes I think are important with regards to *measuring* the outflow of the primary circuit: 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/ s. Temperature 23.2 °C. The water coming out of the primary circuit should not be cooler than the cooling water going into the heat exchanger, but the difference may be just thermometer error. My point here is there is no wasted heat going down the drain if this is correct. Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E- Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. This is not a flaw in reasoning. I have done many similar calculations and I typically like like Ein Eout and COP as final columns. COP is very meaningful, and helpful to quick interpretation, but you have to wring out the latent heat in the system at the end of the test. I have posted a test of mine where the COP ended at 1, and another where it ended significantly above 1. You are making the unwarrented assumption above that the thermometry can be relied upon. I don't think it can. The thermometers were improperly located and no manual checks were provided, no calibration run. Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. There is no evidence provided of that at this point. Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point. But your calculations were absolutely brilliant. Thanks, but they are just standard operating procedure for this kind of thing I think. It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of 100-150 MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity. Although I did consider also something for the innefficiency of heat exchanger. for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the temperature of primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would be very important bit of information. I provided quote of a couple of such measurements above. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net kirjoitti: The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/ article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of +E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved reliability of the power out values. Second, the lack of hand
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
The Tout thermocouple being within an inch or two of the hot steam flow into the heat exchanger does not sit well w/me... From watching Lewan's video again, the external heat exchanger (XHX) was operated in counter-current flow, where the steam from the primary circuit flowed opposite to the water flow in the secondary circuit. Yeah, yeah, we don't really know how that XHX is constructed, but let's just look at the inlet/outlet physical locations on both sides of it. The steam entered the same side of the XHX as did the out-flowing heated water from the secondary side. So we are assuming that the metal fitting to which the thermocouple was attached, was at the temperature of the water flowing inside and was not influenced by the 120+C steam that was entering only an inch or two away from the thermocouple??? Just doesn't sit well w/me... ...now I can go to bed. -m
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Hey, Horace, I don't see anyone calling YOU a pathological skeptic -- thanks muchly for doing my homework for me... Gratefully, Rich Murray On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test. This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the efficiency of heat exchanger, because we do not know how much heat went down the sink from open primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed. I did not reference T3 in this regards, as far as I know. If you think I did in some relevant way please provide a quote of the material to which you refer. Here again are the quotes I think are important with regards to *measuring* the outflow of the primary circuit: 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. The water coming out of the primary circuit should not be cooler than the cooling water going into the heat exchanger, but the difference may be just thermometer error. My point here is there is no wasted heat going down the drain if this is correct. Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. This is not a flaw in reasoning. I have done many similar calculations and I typically like like Ein Eout and COP as final columns. COP is very meaningful, and helpful to quick interpretation, but you have to wring out the latent heat in the system at the end of the test. I have posted a test of mine where the COP ended at 1, and another where it ended significantly above 1. You are making the unwarrented assumption above that the thermometry can be relied upon. I don't think it can. The thermometers were improperly located and no manual checks were provided, no calibration run. Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. There is no evidence provided of that at this point. Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point. But your calculations were absolutely brilliant. Thanks, but they are just standard operating procedure for this kind of thing I think. It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of 100-150 MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity. Although I did consider also something for the innefficiency of heat exchanger. for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the temperature of primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would be very important bit of information. I provided quote of a couple of such measurements above. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net kirjoitti: The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:04 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: The Tout thermocouple being within an inch or two of the hot steam flow into the heat exchanger does not sit well w/me... From watching Lewan's video again, the external heat exchanger (XHX) was operated in counter-current flow, where the steam from the primary circuit flowed opposite to the water flow in the secondary circuit. Yeah, yeah, we don't really know how that XHX is constructed, but let's just look at the inlet/outlet physical locations on both sides of it. The steam entered the same side of the XHX as did the out-flowing heated water from the secondary side. So we are assuming that the metal fitting to which the thermocouple was attached, was at the temperature of the water flowing inside and was not influenced by the 120+C steam that was entering only an inch or two away from the thermocouple??? Just doesn't sit well w/me... ...now I can go to bed. -m You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are! External heat and cold had little influence on Scrooge. No warmth could warm, no wintry weather chill him. No wind that blew was bitterer than he, no falling snow was more intent upon its purpose, no pelting rain less open to entreaty. A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Rich Murray wrote: Hey, Horace, I don't see anyone calling YOU a pathological skeptic -- thanks muchly for doing my homework for me... Gratefully, Rich Murray Well, I am admittedly a member of the free energy lunatic fringe. What would be the point? 8^) I still am on the fence on this one. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E- Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. The format I used I think is very useful for calibration runs, where it is known there is no excess heat. If the protocol is good and sufficiently long, and the measurements good, then at the end of the run the COP ends up at 1. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Horace, you were correct. I did error with the temperature (one example how easy it is to jump into conclusions when you thought to be certain, but actually reasoning was flawed). Temperature after the heat exchanger was indeed measured in primary circuit. But we have just two datapoints which had mass flow rate of 3.3 kg/h and 6.9 kg/h. This is rather variable. However, I do not think that this variation could explain temperature fluctuations in secondary loop, because most of the enthalpy was caried out by steam and and that should not have no other fluctuations than what are caused by power fluctuations. 95°C water without steam did not cause notable temperature change in secondary loop. Therefore we can just assume high efficiency for the heat exchanger. Something like 90% or above. Or we can just ignore it. Jouni wrote: Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. Horace wrote: There is no evidence provided of that at this point. We do not have any evidence against it either. All evidence that we have is pointing into this direction that E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining after initial heating. Jouni wrote: Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. Horace wrote: Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point. There is no evidence against either, because test was scheduled to be short (8 hours). lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net kirjoitti: On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. The format I used I think is very useful for calibration runs, where it is known there is no excess heat. If the protocol is good and sufficiently long, and the measurements good, then at the end of the run the COP ends up at 1. For this this is useful, but it is not meaningful to extrapolate long term COP, what you were trying to do, when you thought that COP was rather low for industrial applications: »Even if it is real, a COP of 3 is marginal for commercial application. It is much more difficult to achieve self powering with a cop of 3 vs 6.» This is just utterly false reasoning, because initial heating of E-Cat consumed most of the input and it does not need to be done more than once. But perhaps your mistake was with this misunderstanding: »Further, the temperature tailed off after less than 4 hours of no power input. The device should not have been shut down there, but re-energized.» Temperature tailed off when the hydrogen pressure was reduced and frequency generator was shutdown in 19:00. after that it took some 40 mins to stop heat production at kilowatt scale. that is, reactor was shutdown in 19:00 as was scheduled. Therefore E-Cat test was phenomenal success that surpassed even our wildest dreams. I think we need David Copperfield to explain the illusion, because no less skilled illusionist can not do such a convincing demonstration, if it was the gratest hoax in history of cold fusion. We have positive evidence against hidden power sources and positive evidence for huge amounts of excess heat with only 50-80 watts input for frequency generator. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
An extended review of the Rossi 6 Oct 2011 test, with a better format graph, is located at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: An extended review of the Rossi 6 Oct 2011 test, with a better format graph, is located at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf This is an excellent report. I agree with the analysis, conclusions and most of the details. I reserve the right to quibble with a few points. Especially: In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises. The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. Others have observed that in some cases when heater power is cut, anomalous heat rises rapidly. I think there is no doubt that anomalous heat can rise quite quickly and uncontrollably with this device, as it did during the 18-hour liquid flow test in February. There is no doubt that heat burst was real, and not an instrument artifact. So this is not nonsense, and it is not an instrument artifact. It is a characteristic of the reaction. - Jed
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Jed, I totally agree with your assessment of the review and the quibble over the seemingly anomalous heat gain when power is first removed - the anomaly supports the claim of an ongoing LENR reaction in the reactor where control has suddenly been handed over to a secondary agitator / signal generator to keep the reaction goint. It would be interesting to see which way the reaction would go without the signal generator to maintain control ... off or runaway. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 8:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netmailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: An extended review of the Rossi 6 Oct 2011 test, with a better format graph, is located at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf This is an excellent report. I agree with the analysis, conclusions and most of the details. I reserve the right to quibble with a few points. Especially: In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises. The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. Others have observed that in some cases when heater power is cut, anomalous heat rises rapidly. I think there is no doubt that anomalous heat can rise quite quickly and uncontrollably with this device, as it did during the 18-hour liquid flow test in February. There is no doubt that heat burst was real, and not an instrument artifact. So this is not nonsense, and it is not an instrument artifact. It is a characteristic of the reaction. - Jed
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. I have never heard of any material acting that way. If heat from the electric heater is used to ignite the nickel, how would continuing to heat it after it ignites suppress the reaction? And how would not continuing to heat it lead to a runaway reaction? Can someone outline how that might happen?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
In any case, it is nonsensical that when power is cut that output power quickly momentarily rises. The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. Others have observed that in some cases when heater power is cut, anomalous heat rises rapidly. I think there is no doubt that anomalous heat can rise quite quickly and uncontrollably with this device, as it did during the 18-hour liquid flow test in February. There is no doubt that heat burst was real, and not an instrument artifact. I can't help but think back to the idea that it's not heat which triggers the reaction, but rather an event which causes the molecules to vibrate at a certain frequency. I think Znidarsic holds this view and, if correct, can identify the frequency needed from the work he's done. If so, then we would see a need for heat to start the reaction, and heat could then also be used to kill the reaction. If the molecules were vibrating faster than an optimum reaction would require, then shutting power down would increase the reaction as the temperature fell to the optimum point, killed only then by the lack of hydrogen. If this idea is correct, then the reaction should be stable and sustainable at a certain temperature and power spikes would be rare and short lived. This might also explain Rossi's 'frequency generator' that appears to be a mystery in this experiment. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Horac sez: On Oct 7, 2011, at 10:10 PM, Rich Murray wrote: Hey, Horace, I don't see anyone calling YOU a pathological skeptic -- thanks muchly for doing my homework for me... Well, I am admittedly a member of the free energy lunatic fringe. What would be the point? 8^) I still am on the fence on this one. Mr. Murray can correct me if I have misinterpreted him but I don't think he sits on the fence. It's also been my perception that Mr. Murray is not shy in lavishing lots of complementary kudos in the direction of anyone he perceives as being on the other side of the fence, or perhaps waffling nearby. I've noticed Mr. Murray has done this repeatedly. I hasten to add that I don't mean to imply that there is something wrong in complementing the opinions of others that one personally approves of. It's often nice to know where one stands in the great scheme of things with others. ;-) In regards to being on the other side of the fence, I guess it's lonely over there, particularly insofar as being a Vort participant. As for me, I guess I'm probably not a fence sitter as Horace claims to be. I'm on the side that suspects there probably is something significant going on within Rossi's mysterious and little understood eCats. But that does not mean that I haven't lost sight of where the fence gate is. I wouldn't hesitate walking through that gate and into the Land of Resolute Doubt if sufficient evidence were to begin to accumulate that reveals the fact that Rossi's eCat technology is not panning out as advertised. In the meantime, all I can do... what I think all ANY of us can do is keep our eyes and ears open - and try, try, TRY, not to arrive at any fixed conclusions - not just YET. Paraphrasing something Krivit recently stated over in his blog: This event is still in the process of playing out. However, I suspect the way Krivit used the phrase ...play out in his blog was meant to be interpreted a tad more cynically than the way I have used it here. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Can someone tell me where the exit water themocouple was located? It meausured a delta T of zero C to approx 9 C during the test. Is there a photo? Could it have been under the influence of an electic heater nearby? Why didn't Rossi make a big tank of hot water? 120 MJ would heat 150 gallons of water about 50 C above starting temperature. Though note that Horace says 120 MJ while Krivit says less - why is that? Jeff Therefore E-Cat test was phenomenal success that surpassed even our wildest dreams. I think we need David Copperfield to explain the illusion, because no less skilled illusionist can not do such a convincing demonstration, if it was the gratest hoax in history of cold fusion. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Hi, On 8-10-2011 16:43, Craig Haynie wrote: I can't help but think back to the idea that it's not heat which triggers the reaction, but rather an event which causes the molecules to vibrate at a certain frequency. I think Znidarsic holds this view and, if correct, can identify the frequency needed from the work he's done. If so, then we would see a need for heat to start the reaction, and heat could then also be used to kill the reaction. If the molecules were vibrating faster than an optimum reaction would require, then shutting power down would increase the reaction as the temperature fell to the optimum point, killed only then by the lack of hydrogen. If this idea is correct, then the reaction should be stable and sustainable at a certain temperature and power spikes would be rare and short lived. This might also explain Rossi's 'frequency generator' that appears to be a mystery in this experiment. Indeed. As I mentioned earlier who says that the dials on the blue control box are just resistor values and not frequencies that can be adjusted? Does anyone have a definitive answer on that? What about a frequency around 900 kHz ? Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On 2011-10-08 01:28, Horace Heffner wrote: The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: A knowledgeable user on italian discussion board Energeticambiente.it made a few impressive charts regarding the 7 Oct experiment. Everybody, have a look at the following link: http://goo.gl/gm0D0 Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Can someone tell me where the exit water themocouple was located? It meausured a delta T of zero C to approx 9 C during the test. This is shown in the video. I believe it was on the outside of the pipe leading out from the heat exchanger, and it was wrapped in insulation. I do not think it was in a probe, inserted directly into the stream of water. (The report should have specified this -- will ask Lewan.) If it was on the outside, I think this is an excellent place to put it, as long as it is wrapped in insulation. The pipe itself averages out the temperature nicely. Many researchers such as Miles and Takahashi use probes on the outside of metal shells, and calibrations show that it works well. That fellow GoatGuy wondered if the water in the pipe is well mixed. I guarantee it is. Water flowing through a heat exchanger at 10 L per minute will be well mixed. One of the purposes of a heat exchanger is to mix the water so it is all heated (or cooled). The inside is convoluted. Could it have been under the influence of an electic heater nearby? There is no electric heater nearby. It could be influenced by the outlet from the condensed steam water, but I doubt it for the following reasons: It was far from that spot; that temperature is probably close to the cooling water, since this a commercial heat exchanger. The was much more cooling water going through than condensed steam, so the thermal mass is much greater. Overall, the heat exchanger temperature itself must be close to that of the flowing cooling water. That's what a heat exchanger is for! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: A knowledgeable user on italian discussion board Energeticambiente.it made a few impressive charts regarding the 7 Oct experiment. Everybody, have a look at the following link: http://goo.gl/gm0D0 This links to the message: Analisi Dati esperimento FF. This has images andamenti termici.jpg and others. But you have to be member to see them! If the images are small, could you please copy them here? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On 2011-10-08 17:46, Jed Rothwell wrote: This links to the message: Analisi Dati esperimento FF. This has images andamenti termici.jpg and others. But you have to be member to see them! If the images are small, could you please copy them here? Sorry, here is a link that should make them available to everybody: http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8 Cheers, S.A.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. I have never heard of any material acting that way. If heat from the electric heater is used to ignite the nickel, how would continuing to heat it after it ignites suppress the reaction? First of all, ignition is only an analogy here. Nothing is or can be ignited or burned in the chemical sense. There is no oxygen. There is no fuel. No chemical changes occur in the cells. Second, this is cold fusion, not combustion or any other chemical reaction. The rules are different and the rules are not well understood. I have no idea why raising the temperature locally can quench a reaction, but this appears to be the case. If several other groups confirm that heat is a controlling parameter, and raising the heat quenches the reaction, that will make it true. This is cutting edge experimental science. You can ask how would X or Y be true. You *should* ask. But even if you cannot think of a reason, you still have to accept that X or Y is true if replicated experiments prove it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, here is a link that should make them available to everybody: http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8 Nice! Good graphs! The Internet is wonderful. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Akira: What does this word rendomento mean, in the Google translation? This is the graph instead of the power output. One sees that the E-cat provides more energy than it consumes but does not rendomento is staggering. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On 2011-10-08 18:16, Jed Rothwell wrote: Akira: What does this word rendomento mean, in the Google translation? It means performance, energy yield/gain. The user actually meant to write rendimento. This is the graph instead of the power output. One sees that the E-cat provides more energy than it consumes but does not rendomento is staggering. He's saying that the E-Cat appears to provide more energy than it consumes, but the energy gain is not staggering. Cheers, S.A.
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: The electric heating power is apparently used to suppress the reaction, not to enhance it. I have never heard of any material acting that way. If heat from the electric heater is used to ignite the nickel, how would continuing to heat it after it ignites suppress the reaction? First of all, ignition is only an analogy here. Nothing is or can be ignited or burned in the chemical sense. There is no oxygen. There is no fuel. No chemical changes occur in the cells. Thanks, I needed that reminder. Now I see that pretty much anything goes. Second, this is cold fusion, not combustion or any other chemical reaction. The rules are different and the rules are not well understood. I have no idea why raising the temperature locally can quench a reaction, but this appears to be the case. If several other groups confirm that heat is a controlling parameter, and raising the heat quenches the reaction, that will make it true. This is cutting edge experimental science. You can ask how would X or Y be true. You *should* ask. But even if you cannot think of a reason, you still have to accept that X or Y is true if replicated experiments prove it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: What does this word rendomento mean, in the Google translation? It means performance, energy yield/gain. The user actually meant to write rendimento. Thanks. I think the author is wrong about that. Energy yield or gain is meaningless in this context, since there can be no significant energy storage. Anyway, I suppose we can't expect Google translate to deal with typos yet. When it learns to do that . . . we should begin to worry that the Googleplex Borg will assimilate us, taking our jobs, making love to our wives, and leaving us -- as Richard Brautigan put it -- All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: I like to think (and the sooner the better!) of a cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers live together in mutually programming harmony like pure water touching clear sky. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Jeff Driscoll wrote: Could it have been under the influence of an electic heater nearby? To which Jed wrote: There is no electric heater nearby. It could be influenced by the outlet from the condensed steam water, but I doubt it for the following reasons: It was far from that spot; that temperature is probably close to the cooling water. It is clear in Lewan's video that the steam input (primary circuit) is on the SAME end of the heat exchanger as the secondary circuit OUTPUT. so the Tout thermocouple is within 2 to 3 inches (perhaps less) of the steam (120+C degrees) input! For maximum heat transfer you want the maximum delta T, so I would think that you want the steam input being on the same end as the cooling water input??? -Mark
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: First of all, ignition is only an analogy here. Nothing is or can be ignited or burned in the chemical sense. There is no oxygen. There is no fuel. No chemical changes occur in the cells. Thanks, I needed that reminder. Now I see that pretty much anything goes. No, not anything. The only thing that goes is what replicated experiments reveal to be true. It makes no difference how unlikely or contradictory the truth may seem. Experiments are the only standard of truth. What you need to be reminded of is that you do not know what goes on here. You are not omniscient. This phenomenon is newly discovered and not yet understood, so you cannot assume anything, and you cannot tell it should or should not work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 8, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-10-08 01:28, Horace Heffner wrote: The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: A knowledgeable user on italian discussion board Energeticambiente.it made a few impressive charts regarding the 7 Oct experiment. Everybody, have a look at the following link: http://goo.gl/gm0D0 Cheers, S.A. I don't see any charts. What am I doing wrong? Is there a link there I am missing? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On 2011-10-08 20:41, Horace Heffner wrote: I don't see any charts. What am I doing wrong? Is there a link there I am missing? You are not doing anything wrong. It looks you need to subscribe to that discussion board to see the charts. I've put up a new link for everybody to see them: http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8 Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: . I can't help but think back to the idea that it's not heat which triggers the reaction, but rather an event which causes the molecules to vibrate at a certain frequency. I think Znidarsic holds this view and, if correct, can identify the frequency needed from the work he's done. If so, then we would see a need for heat to start the reaction, and heat could then also be used to kill the reaction. If the molecules were vibrating faster than an optimum reaction would require, then shutting power down would increase the reaction as the temperature fell to the optimum point, killed only then by the lack of hydrogen. If this idea is correct, then the reaction should be stable and sustainable at a certain temperature and power spikes would be rare and short lived. This might also explain Rossi's 'frequency generator' that appears to be a mystery in this experiment. How does the reaction increase (after turning off the input power) without causing an increase in temperature? It sounds like the reaction creates heat by absorbing cold. (seriously, I do not restrict myself to the modern conception of cold as the mere absence of heat). Harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:57 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Horace, you were correct. I did error with the temperature (one example how easy it is to jump into conclusions when you thought to be certain, but actually reasoning was flawed). Temperature after the heat exchanger was indeed measured in primary circuit. But we have just two datapoints which had mass flow rate of 3.3 kg/h and 6.9 kg/h. This is rather variable. However, I do not think that this variation could explain temperature fluctuations in secondary loop, because most of the enthalpy was caried out by steam and and that should not have no other fluctuations than what are caused by power fluctuations. 95°C water without steam did not cause notable temperature change in secondary loop. Therefore we can just assume high efficiency for the heat exchanger. Something like 90% or above. Or we can just ignore it. Jouni wrote: Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. Horace wrote: There is no evidence provided of that at this point. We do not have any evidence against it either. All evidence that we have is pointing into this direction that E-Cat is mostly self- sustaining after initial heating. Jouni wrote: Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. Horace wrote: Again, there is no evidence provided of that at this point. There is no evidence against either, because test was scheduled to be short (8 hours). Here you are making the point I made in my report. The evidence presented is insufficient to determine one way or another if there is excess heat. This is poor experiment design. It wouldn't be so horrific if many people had not suggested in advance ways to get good evidence, like combined use of isoperibolic calorimetry methods. lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net kirjoitti: On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self- sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. The format I used I think is very useful for calibration runs, where it is known there is no excess heat. If the protocol is good and sufficiently long, and the measurements good, then at the end of the run the COP ends up at 1. For this this is useful, but it is not meaningful to extrapolate long term COP, what you were trying to do, when you thought that COP was rather low for industrial applications: »Even if it is real, a COP of 3 is marginal for commercial application. It is much more difficult to achieve self powering with a cop of 3 vs 6.» This is just utterly false reasoning, because initial heating of E- Cat consumed most of the input and it does not need to be done more than once. But perhaps your mistake was with this misunderstanding: »Further, the temperature tailed off after less than 4 hours of no power input. The device should not have been shut down there, but re- energized.» Temperature tailed off when the hydrogen pressure was reduced and frequency generator was shutdown in 19:00. after that it took some 40 mins to stop heat production at kilowatt scale. that is, reactor was shutdown in 19:00 as was scheduled. The test was advertised to be 24 hours. Then it was advertised to be at least 12 hours. It would be nice to know when the 19:00 shutdown time was scheduled. Therefore E-Cat test was phenomenal success that surpassed even our wildest dreams. I find this viewpoint unimaginable. I guess I am short on imagination. 8^) I think we need David Copperfield to explain the illusion, because no less skilled illusionist can not do such a convincing demonstration, if it was the gratest hoax in history of cold fusion. We have positive evidence against hidden power sources Hidden power sources are not needed to explain the results. A misplaced Tout thermometer provides all the explanation that is necessary. and positive evidence for huge amounts of excess heat with only 50-80 watts input for frequency generator. —Jouni Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Hi Horace, 10-8-11 I don't understand the two attached captions for your graph. Would you please put them in plain text (ascii) for me? Also, I would appreciate any explanation of the graph you can give me. Thanks, Jack Smith inline: rossi106.jpginline: r2os106.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. That's my take on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner A BRILLIANT OBSERVATION The eCat's running in the same weird mode as Lewan/Sept ... at 120C 1 Bar (?) 50% fluid water out. The observation-port temperature is stable (as Rossi said) but it arrives at the exchanger in slugs. Lewan took a random sample of slug-arriving/slug-exchanging/slug-departing .. with a (probably) exponential rise and decay of Tout with each slug -- which explains the highly variable output of 3 kW to 8 kW. So the calculation of output energy from Tout is ... unusable? strange? I wonder what kind of statistics one should use to calculate the total. (I know a professional Bayesian statistician, but I'm not sure we have enough data to ask the right question.) (ps ... just back online, so there may be other responses to this that I haven't read)
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: The test was advertised to be 24 hours. Then it was advertised to be at least 12 hours. I believe it was the other way around. They said 12 hours, possibly to be extended to 24. Hidden power sources are not needed to explain the results. A misplaced Tout thermometer provides all the explanation that is necessary. That is incorrect. If there was no anomalous heat it would have stopped boiling a few minutes after the power was turned off. Within an hour, the cooling water and steam thermocouples would all register room temperature soon after the power. When Lewan went to feel the surface of chamber surface, he would not have felt it was hot, he would not have measured a high temperature, and he would not feel or hear that it is boiling. It is easy to estimate that, based on the flow rate, which was verified by several methods. You see how quickly the temperature fell after the anomalous heat stopped at 19:30. No matter where you put the thermometer, if there was no anomalous heat, the moment you turn off the power the temperature must fall according to Newton's law. It can never rise. It does not matter how wrong the positioning may be, or how inaccurate or imprecise the thermometers are. Inescapably, it would cool to room temperature and all There is absolutely, positively, no doubt that this system produced massive amounts of anomalous heat. I will grant however, that if I spent a week trying to think up way to obscure this fact, confuse the issue, and make it difficult for observers to verify it, I could not come with a more confusing test than this. That is a separate issue. Don't confuse the results with the presentation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
SA's link to that italian site (thanks!) shows the eCat stable between 110-120C and the exchanger highly variable. http://i.imgur.com/CPyVV.jpg - Original Message - Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
I pressed send before I finished writing a message. Anyway, I meant to say: It does not matter how wrong the positioning may be, or how inaccurate or imprecise the thermometers are. Inescapably, it would cool to room temperature and all . . . would return to where they were when the test began. There are some biased thermometers that do not agree, but they would all go back to where they started from. You can remove a lot of heat with 170 g/s of tap water (2.6 gpm). I should have made it clear that Lewan did actually feel the reactor during the H.A.D. It was hot, and boiling inside. That would never last for hours without heat generation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi Horace, 10-8-11 I don't understand the two attached captions for your graph. Would you please put them in plain text (ascii) for me? Also, I would appreciate any explanation of the graph you can give me. Thanks, Jack Smithrossi106.jpgr2os106.jpg I have updated my review with a DISCUSSION OF GRAPH section, and other corrections. Thanks for the question! Here it is: DISCUSSION OF GRAPH The legend tags are: red circle - Pin (kW) [power in] blue diamond - Pout (kW) [power out] yellow square - Ein (kWh) [energy in] brown triangle - Eout (kWh) [energy in] The x axis shows elapsed time in minutes. The Y axis shows kw for Pin and Pout, kWh for Ein and Eout. It is important to show these values all on the same graph because it clearly shows that once hot water is flowing, i.e. power is turned off, quickly eliminating much steam volume, the excess heat values show up immediately. Eout only crosses Ein, i.e. COP1 occurs, only once the electric power is mostly shut down. During the first 130 minutes there is no hot water flow into the heat exchanger because the E-cat is still filling up, and still heating up, thus the blue line remains flat near zero. Once the flow begins the over unity power begins. It is quickly elevated when the power is turned off. Notice the steep decline trend of the blue curve from 350 minutes to 550 minutes. This corresponds to the nearly linear drop in T2 (not shown), which likely corresponds to a drop in the internal temperature of the huge thermal mass of hot metal inside. It is most notable the experiment was terminated when that temperature approached 100°C. Due to bad calorimetry, there is an excess energy explanation for all the Rossi tests if one thinks in terms of how the output thermometer can be affected by thermal wicking - an old problem discussed many years ago with regards to metal thermometer wells in CF cells. The thermometer attached to the heat exchanger is right next to the water/steam input to the heat exchanger. There is an insulated thick metal heat conduit from the steam inlet to the Tout thermometer. When steam goes into the heat exchanger it does not have enough specific heat to provide a large false reading for Tout, which is maintained at a lower temperature by the competing cold water flow. However, when power is cut back, and pure nearly 100°C water is pumped to the heat exchanger from the E-cat, that water has the thermal power to drive up a large false temperature reading for Tout. This explains why there is an upward temperature movement almost immediately every time the electric power is cut back. The steam quickly abates, leaving only a water flow due to the pump. The Tout thermocouple is placed directly on the metal and under insulation, not placed in the water, so this is a perfect situation in which to obtain false temperature readings. This placement was described by Rossi in NyTechnik video shown in the URL referenced above. There is still enough energy stored in the metal thermal mass to produce a bit of steam for 3.5 hours, on the order of 100 W or so. This is enough to generate a percolator effect which makes the blue line erratic as shown, due to slugs of water moving through the line. It is notable that if a calibration run were made then this kind of measuring error, if it exists, would show up as soon as the test device were full and up to temperature and then the power cut back. In the case of the thermometer hidden inside the Rossi device, and previous devices, they are likely subject to direct wicking from a large insulated metal thermal mass which heats up well beyond 100°C. Also, steam present above the water line in the device, especially in the chimney of the earlier devices, when the flow is reduced, is subject to superheating to some degree. The 120°C temperature recorded may just be a thermometry problem - easily solved by measuring outlet temperature a small distance down the hose away from the device itself, where the thermometer is not subject to direct metal to metal thermal wicking. It is notable that in this test the primary flow circuit is open. Pressure should not build up inside the E-cat, unless valves are present inside which close or partially close automatically near 100° C. However, the water condensed steam flow through the heat exchanger was manually verified, indicating a significant flow was present, indicating the pressure should not be high inside the E- cat. Yet a higher than 100°C reading was present for the thermometer inside the E-cat. That indicates a good possibility that this high reading is merely a systematic false reading. This is a hypothetical explanation of the graph. Others, involving genuine excess energy, have been made. Best regards, Horace Heffner
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Jed, Good points all but I think there has been a long standing chemical component involved here ever since the day of Langmuir. There appears to be a need for the hydrogen to go from monatomic to diatomic states -maybe not the simple oscillation proposed with the atomic hydrogen generator but still an enabling parameter for whatever the anomaly turns out to be. Heating the hydrogen population to a majority of monatoms or cooling it to a majority of diatoms would both slow the reaction momentarily but I wonder if the heating method is a little more dangerous - as the cooling loop starts cooling the monatoms you could be working with larger populations of both...perhaps this is why gas pressure is also reduced to extract the monatoms more quickly from the most confined and likely most active regions. Time and temperature analysis is probably being complicated by the same effect responsible for claims regarding change in radioactive decay rates - just because hydrogen isn't radioactive doesn't mean it isn't experiencing the same environment responsible for the decay rate claims. Perhaps a latency/dilation proportional to the suppression/confinement of the Ni powder. Regards Fran Jed Rothwell Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:01:31 -0700 vorl bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: First of all, ignition is only an analogy here. Nothing is or can be ignited or burned in the chemical sense. There is no oxygen. There is no fuel. No chemical changes occur in the cells. Thanks, I needed that reminder. Now I see that pretty much anything goes. No, not anything. The only thing that goes is what replicated experiments reveal to be true. It makes no difference how unlikely or contradictory the truth may seem. Experiments are the only standard of truth. What you need to be reminded of is that you do not know what goes on here. You are not omniscient. This phenomenon is newly discovered and not yet understood, so you cannot assume anything, and you cannot tell it should or should not work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Hello Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net , Good to receive your warm, wry, alert comments -- like the smiling hanged man in the classic Rider Tarot deck, hair hanging down, hands crossed behind his back, suspended from a tree by a rope to one foot, the other foot crossed over that leg, I am mainly waiting for Rossi himself to come to his senses, do a proper run to show to himself there is no excess heat anomaly, and then promptly share this with complete candor... Any evidence, video, or witness testimony, as to whether Rossi or anyone else held the portable hand display unit for showing the four temperature readouts from the four thermocouples, which someone said put out microvolt signals on wires to the unit -- or is there a record of all settings of the adjustment control before, during, and after the July 7 run on its 1 GB SD card -- since apparently this control can be used to vary the display temperatures by several deg C -- there has already been a plausible critique that Rossi seemed to be adjusting the input power at the blue control console during the demo with Krivit...? I woke up this morning, realizing this was the kind of perhaps impulsive, opportunity of the moment, action that might occur, far simpler than massive heat storage inside the reactor system, or cunning modifications of the circuitry and programming of the temperature control display unit... Anyway, Horace's painstaking and thorough critique, thoroughly vetted and improved in candid discussions on Vortex-L, establishes that the demo has not proved excess heat or heat after death. I notice a trend... and a heroic tragedy much in the tradition of ancient Greek drama... I honor Andrea A. Rossi for his Promethian spirit -- stubborn, driven, solitary, independent, fierce, willful, defiant, human -- may others emulate him -- may his work inspire others within the ragged primitive frontiers of cold fusion explorations to prove anomalies that inspire physicists and all men to create amazingly, productively, for the benefit of all. within mutual creativity, Rich Murray https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=nm#inbox/132e0b96e1fb9396 On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Hi Jack, Nice to see you are still around. A much clearer version of the graph is located at the end of my data analysis: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg52405.html I sent several versions to vortex, increasingly compressed, before I got passed the vortex filter. A much better clip of the legend is attached. The legend tags are: red circle - Pin (kW) [power in] blue diamond - Pout (kW) [power out] yellow square - Ein (kWh) [energy in] brown triangle - Eout (kWh) [energy in] Ooops! - I see I made a typo on the original graph W instead of kWh. I have fixed it in the report and the new legend is attached. Thanks for the correction! The x axis shows elapsed time in minutes. The Y axis shows kw for Pin and Pout, kWh for Ein and Eout. I felt it was important to show these values all on the same graph because it clearly shows that once hot water is flowing, i.e. power is turned off, quickly eliminating much steam volume, the excess heat values show up immediately. Eout only crosses Ein, i.e. COP1 occurs, only once the electric power is mostly shut down. During the first 130 minutes there is no hot water flow because the E-cat is still filling up, and still heating up, thus the blue line remains flat near zero. Once the flow begins the over unity power begins. It is quickly elevated when the power is turned off. Notice the steep decline trend of the blue curve from 350 minutes to 550 minutes. This corresponds to the nearly drop in T2 (not shown), which likely corresponds to a drop in the internal temperature of the huge thermal mass of hot metal inside. It is most notable the experiment was terminated when that temperature approached 100°C. Due to bad calorimetry, there is an excess energy explanation for all the Rossi tests if you think in terms of how the output thermometer can be affected by thermal wicking - an old problem discussed many years ago with regards to metal thermometer wells in CF cells. The thermometer attached to the heat exchanger is right next to the water/steam input to the heat exchanger. There is an insulated thick metal heat conduit from the steam inlet to the Tout thermometer. When steam goes into the heat exchanger it does not have enough specific heat to provide a large false reading on the Tout, which is maintained at a lower temperature by the competing cold water flow. However, when power is cut back, and pure nearly 100°C water is pumped to the heat exchanger from the E-cat, that water has the thermal power to drive up a large false temperature reading on the Tout. This explains why there is an upward temperature movement almost immediately every time the electric power is cut back. The steam
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Rich Murray wrote: Anyway, Horace's painstaking and thorough critique, thoroughly vetted and improved in candid discussions on Vortex-L, establishes that the demo has not proved excess heat or heat after death. This is surprising. I have spread Horace's (almost) brilliant critique to all over the Internet as a proof for phenomenal success of the experiment and that the reality of E-Cat is now beyond any reasonable doubt. It is funny how differently we interpret the same text... There was only few errors, misconceptions and criticism that was based on assumptions, but I considered them as minor flaws. Jed pointed out one and other is that Horace did not consider that heat exchanger's thermocouples were calibrated and calibration offset was observed to be one degree. Also he was mistaken, because he misused the term COP that is only usable concept for long term power production, but here we only had a short demonstration. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On 10/08/2011 03:47 PM, Akira Shirakawa wrote: On 2011-10-08 20:41, Horace Heffner wrote: I don't see any charts. What am I doing wrong? Is there a link there I am missing? You are not doing anything wrong. It looks you need to subscribe to that discussion board to see the charts. I've put up a new link for everybody to see them: http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8 If that link does not work for you, maybe you need to enable javascript for the domain. In these graphs I noticed that the demo was finished when power output fall below the power of the heater resistor. Maybe Rossi intended to run the test for longer, and suspended it to avoid output power going to zero. That is not an indication of anything, of course. Except maybe that he does not yet control the reaction enough, at least to estimate the duration and amount of output power for a given initial heating. Regards, Mauro
RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Horace wrote: Yet a higher than 100°C reading was present for the thermometer inside the E-cat. That indicates a good possibility that this high reading is merely a systematic false reading. Horace, The T2 thermometer (inside the E-Cat) started out at nearly the same temp as the peristaltic pump water (T3), T3: 25.6C @ 11:22 T2: 29.9C @ 11:22 Ok, so worst case is that T2 is reading ~4C higher than T3, but then, T3 has water flow over it, whereas T2 is INSIDE the E-Cat and supposedly above any liquid water (in order to measure steam temperatures). So as the reactor is heating up, the air inside the reactor is also heating up and we see a steady rise in T2. So far the behavior of T2 is not anomalous. Therefore, I don't see any justification for your saying that the 120C readings for almost 2 hours were merely systematic false readings. T3, which is the water temp going into the Reactor core, remained quite stable (+-0.7 C) for nearly the whole test. T2 on the other hand, spent a lot of time above 120C, and was also reasonably stable... obviously, measurements significantly above boiling temp would indicate superheated steam if the pressure inside was not much above ambient. Lewan also put his hand on the E-Cat during Self-sustain mode several times and could feel the rumblings indicating significant boiling. Why do you think that all of the time that T2 is 100C, that it must be false readings??? Are you saying that the T2 thermometer was reading 10's of degrees off??? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 8, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Horace wrote: Yet a higher than 100°C reading was present for the thermometer inside the E-cat. That indicates a good possibility that this high reading is merely a systematic false reading. Horace, The T2 thermometer (inside the E-Cat) started out at nearly the same temp as the peristaltic pump water (T3), T3: 25.6C @ 11:22 T2: 29.9C @ 11:22 Ok, so worst case is that T2 is reading ~4C higher than T3, but then, T3 has water flow over it, whereas T2 is INSIDE the E-Cat and supposedly above any liquid water (in order to measure steam temperatures). So as the reactor is heating up, the air inside the reactor is also heating up and we see a steady rise in T2. So far the behavior of T2 is not anomalous. Therefore, I don't see any justification for your saying that the 120C readings for almost 2 hours were merely systematic false readings. T3, which is the water temp going into the Reactor core, remained quite stable (+-0.7 C) for nearly the whole test. T2 on the other hand, spent a lot of time above 120C, and was also reasonably stable... obviously, measurements significantly above boiling temp would indicate superheated steam if the pressure inside was not much above ambient. Lewan also put his hand on the E-Cat during Self- sustain mode several times and could feel the rumblings indicating significant boiling. Why do you think that all of the time that T2 is 100C, that it must be false readings??? Are you saying that the T2 thermometer was reading 10's of degrees off??? -Mark I m not saying the T2 thermometer is reading its local temperature wrong. I am saying that its local temperature could be under the influence of the huge thermal mass of lead and steel, which is located within the insulation jacket. In the case of the earlier E- cats this appeared to be likely. In the case of the E-cat in this test we simply do not know where the T2 thermocouple is located. The thermal mass is on the order of 3 J/K, as I computed in the STORED HEAT section of my review. At a delta T of 200 °C this is about 6 MJ of thermal storage. If there is some thermal resistance R1 to the T2 thermocouple, and a thermal resistance R2 to the 100°C water, then the thermocouple will be at a temperature of 100°C + (R2/ (R1+R2))*200°C. To get a 30°C difference all is needed is for r=(R2/ (R1+R2)) to satisfy: r * 200°C = 30°C r = 0.15 The interpretation made regarding the earlier E-cats was the steam/ water had to be under pressure to permit a 120°C temperature near the exit port. My point was this does not necessarily follow. The high temperature could merely be a systematic artifact. In the case of the current test it does not matter if it is due to superheated steam in the locality or due to direct high thermal conductivity to the thermocouple from the large metal thermal mass which is directly in contact with the heater. Because it is above 100°C I take it as an indication heat is stored which can provide a stream of hot water to influence the close by Tout location. At the heat exchanger side of things, a similar formula applies, but the water does not even have to be 100°C, merely hot enough to obtain a small delta T to the Tout temperature. If we designate Thot to be the temperature of the water arriving at the steam/hot water entry port, then there is some composite thermal resistance R1 from the Tout water to the Tout thermocouple, and a similar thermal resistance R2 to the Thot water/steam, then the thermocouple will be at a temperature of 24°C + (R2/(R1+R2)*100°C. To get an 8°C difference all is needed is for r=(R2/(R1+R2)) to satisfy: r * (100°C-24°C) = 8°C r = 8/76 = 0.1 We see the Tout temperature decline with the E-cat temperature at the end. This could be an indication the water temperature was actually less than 100°C. It could also be a partial indication of flow reduction. It is notable that the T2 thermometer inside the E-cat could possibly be under the influence of the low power frequency device at the end of the run, and thus maintain an artificially high temperature. It would be useful to have some form of thermometer at the Thot location. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Hi Rich, Just a brief comment. You said: ...I am mainly waiting for Rossi himself to come to his senses, do a proper run to show to himself there is no excess heat anomaly, and then promptly share this with complete candor... To be honest I currently don't feel I'm proficient enough with the necessary math pertaining to the latest Oct 6 test to make a judgment call. Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that there is probably excess heat - enough excess heat that it will eventually be commercialized, but that is just my opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. ...and remember what the Buddha had to say on that matter of people and their damned opinionated opinions. ;-) In the meantime, let me touch on a different matter, something else that I think we can share some common ground on. Recall the thoughts of Eckhart Tolle, and the need to stay in the present moment. While keeping that thought in mind - I would recommend not putting too much psychic energy into anticipating what you hope Rossi will eventually do. IMO, waiting for Rossi... to comply to your wishes is just another way of allowing yourself to become lost in a maze of future events - in a future drama of what you hope will pan out, all in order to prove that you were right all along. To be honest, Rich, I've been wrong probably more times than I have been right. But I've discovered that I also tend to learn a lot more when I realize I was wrong about something. I wish the same kind of progress for you. In the meantime, Waiting for Rossi to do this or that is just another long string of traps we humans allow ourselves to get ensnared in - a trap in this case that is specifically designed to detract us from becoming aware of ourselves and the power of ourselves in the present moment. I am, of course, still learning that lesson myself. But I think I'm getting better at it. Just a suggestion, Rich. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Hi Steven, I am pleased and grateful to appreciate your sincere, frank, and wise sharing -- I mean, like the hanged man, to wait happily, suspended helplessly upside down in my daily dream, appreciating freedom not just patiently but joyfully and securely, within unified awareness-being, for magical flow to harmonize inexplicable dream outcomes -- I also am aware that all players involved are equally divine and powerful, and that a single voice that welcomes the best possible evolution for all to unfold frees everyone involved from dualistic conflicting patterns of creative thought -- I prefer the probable line of history in which cold fusion leads quickly to extraordinary outcomes, but am not attached to any specific vision, such as unlimited free and safe power -- as wind, solar, wave, water, and geothermal, along with a variety of new storage modes, such as molted salts, as well as zero resistance power transmission, are, given very plausible exponential growth, already happening for years, can certainly safely meet all energy needs of our world by 2030, according to a detailed assessment early in 2010 in Scientific American -- I am very pleased to see a high level of respectful discussion worldwide on a number of forums re the Rossi device -- this emerging high standard of civil collaboration is essential in all levels of cocreativity -- based on love, inclusion, respect, trust, honesty, forgiveness, positive focus, appreciation, compassion, open-mindedness, sharing, generosity, courtesy, cooperation, willingness to invoke inner guidance, unified application of shared public evidence and reason and intuitive inspiration-revelation -- It is indeed high time to welcome the likes of Park, Shanahan, Cude, Little, Krivit, Heffner, and the bit player Murray into the shared forums -- for if any voices are denigrated, then all are enfeebled, with the chorus of collaboration needlessly crippled... So, we pivot from thought police to potent polite thought release... in our hyperlinked single human family, where no one is excluded from the exponential banquet. Within shared happiness, Rich Murray On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:25 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Hi Rich, Just a brief comment. You said: ...I am mainly waiting for Rossi himself to come to his senses, do a proper run to show to himself there is no excess heat anomaly, and then promptly share this with complete candor... To be honest I currently don't feel I'm proficient enough with the necessary math pertaining to the latest Oct 6 test to make a judgment call. Nevertheless, I am still of the opinion that there is probably excess heat - enough excess heat that it will eventually be commercialized, but that is just my opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. ...and remember what the Buddha had to say on that matter of people and their damned opinionated opinions. ;-) In the meantime, let me touch on a different matter, something else that I think we can share some common ground on. Recall the thoughts of Eckhart Tolle, and the need to stay in the present moment. While keeping that thought in mind - I would recommend not putting too much psychic energy into anticipating what you hope Rossi will eventually do. IMO, waiting for Rossi... to comply to your wishes is just another way of allowing yourself to become lost in a maze of future events - in a future drama of what you hope will pan out, all in order to prove that you were right all along. To be honest, Rich, I've been wrong probably more times than I have been right. But I've discovered that I also tend to learn a lot more when I realize I was wrong about something. I wish the same kind of progress for you. In the meantime, Waiting for Rossi to do this or that is just another long string of traps we humans allow ourselves to get ensnared in - a trap in this case that is specifically designed to detract us from becoming aware of ourselves and the power of ourselves in the present moment. I am, of course, still learning that lesson myself. But I think I'm getting better at it. Just a suggestion, Rich. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E- cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved reliability of the power out values. Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water temperatures Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially when large values of delta T was present. The thermometers should be relocated down the rubber hose a short distance and insulated. Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or obtained and read at the same time the other electric meters were used. Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-cat power supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to ensure no such pulses were imposed on the input current. Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded at the same times temperature readings were recorded. GENERAL COMMENTS A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C minimum error in the delta T for Tin and Tout. No kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by P(t) = d E(t)/dt than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and integrate to obtain E(t). Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the time stamped volume data. It is much more accurate, depending on flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as: f(t) = d V(t)/dt than to integrate: V(t) = integral f(t) dt (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues. The flow rate chosen was too large, resulting in a max delta T of about 8°C and thus unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples had not been placed on insulated metal parts, i.e. connected directly, metal to metal, to the heat exchanger itself. They should have been separated from the heat exchanger by low conductivity material, such as a short length of rubber hose, to avoid thermal wicking problems through the metal. The same applies to the output temperature measurement for the E-cat. This is the same problem as before, when the thermometer was buried in the earlier E-cats, but compounded. This makes the temperature data highly unreliable. From the report: Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C. 18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/ s. Temperature 23.2 °C. These values indicate a significant problem with temperature measurement. The most serious problem is the output temperature recorded for the condensed steam. Perhaps that was a repeated recoding error. The condensed steam is measured leaving the heat exchanger at a temperature lower than room temperature by at least 5° C, and lower than the Tin of the exchanger by 1°C. It is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may
[Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
horace, you have two flaws in reasoning. T3 is inlet water temperature. Not the temperature of output of primary circuit. You are correct, it should be the value what you thought it to be, but this is the main flaw in the test. This also means that we do not have any means to know what was the efficiency of heat exchanger, because we do not know how much heat went down the sink from open primary circuit. Primary circuit should have been closed. Second flaw in your reasoning is that it pointless to calculate COP from the beginning of the temporarily limited test. That is because initial heating took 18 MJ energy before anything was happening inside the core. Therefore COP bears absolutely no relevance for anything because after reactor was stabilized, it used only 500 mA electricity while outputting plenty. And self-sustaining did not show unstability. Even when they reduced the hydrogen pressure, E-Cat continued running for some 40 minutes. Of course you can calculate the COP, and it has it's own interesting value, but it has zero relevance for commercial solutions, because E-Cat is mostly self-sustaining. Real long running COP should be something between 30 and 100, but we do not have no way of knowing how long frequency generator can sustain E-Cat. My guess is that it far longer than 4 hours, perhaps indefinitely. But your calculations were absolutely brilliant. It was something that I wanted. It also confirmed my estimation of 100-150 MJ for total output, including 30 MJ of electricity. Although I did consider also something for the innefficiency of heat exchanger. for Mats Lewan, I would like to ask did anyone measure the temperature of primary circuit after the heat exchanger? This would be very important bit of information. —Jouni lauantai, 8. lokakuuta 2011 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net kirjoitti: The following is in regard to the Rossi 7 Oct E-cat experiment as reported by NyTeknic here: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3284962.ece/BINARY/Test+of+E-cat+October+6+%28pdf%29 A spread sheet of the NyTecnik data is provided here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf Note that an extra 0.8°C was added to the delta T value so as to avoid negative output powers at the beginning of the run. This compensates to some degree for bad thermometer calibration and location, buy results in a net energy of 22.56 kWh vs 16.62 kWh for the test, and a COP of 3.229 vs 2.643. The 22.56 kWh excess energy amounts to 81.2 MJ excess above the 36.4 MJ input. If real this is extraordinary scientifically speaking. However, the lack of calibration and placement of the thermocouples makes the data unreliable. The experiment was closer than ever before to being credible. Just a few things might have made all the difference. First, a pre-experiment run could have been made to iron out calorimetry problems. A lower flow rate and thus larger delta T would have improved reliability of the power out values. Second, the lack of hand measurements of the cooling water temperatures Tin and Tout periodically was unfortunate, especially when large values of delta T was present. The thermometers should be relocated down the rubber hose a short distance and insulated. Third, a kWh meter could have been fairly cheaply purchased or obtained and read at the same time the other electric meters were used. Fourth, a filter to smooth any pulsed current demand from the E-cat power supply could have been used, or an oscilloscope used to ensure no such pulses were imposed on the input current. Fifth, the flow meter volumes could have been manually recorded at the same times temperature readings were recorded. GENERAL COMMENTS A control calibration run was not made, as evidenced by a 0.8°C minimum error in the delta T for Tin and Tout. No kWh meter was used to measure the total input energy. It is far better to record E(t) frequently and then drive power P(t) by P(t) = d E(t)/dt than to occasionally and sporadically take power measurements and integrate to obtain E(t). Flow meters were used but apparently no one thought to record the time stamped volume data. It is much more accurate, depending on flow variations, to calculate flow f(t) from volume v(t) as: f(t) = d V(t)/dt than to integrate: V(t) = integral f(t) dt (or a similar integration to obtain energy) using occasional sporadic short interval flow measurements. This is the value of using volume meters. This appears to actually be a small point in this case, however, because fortunately overall flow volume was measured, and total volume vs sum of periodic flows does not appear to be an issue, at least compared to the other issues. The flow rate chosen was too large, resulting in a max delta T of about 8°C and thus unreliable accuracy in the heat measurements. The measurements might have been more reliable if the thermocouples had not been
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis. What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o.135474503149001type=1theater (and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the secondary circuit until 13:22. Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. That was my conclusion also. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. That was my conclusion also. In other words, there was no steam or water going into the external heat exchanger, so nothing reached the cooling water. The hot water going into the eCat sat there getting hotter and hotter. You would not have seen this with previous tests, where the steam or flowing water went directly through the cell, and could not avoid carrying off heat from the start of the test. This does not mean that all of the heat entering the cell before 18:22 stayed there. Much of it must have radiated away. For Krivit's hypothesis to be correct, the output line would have to stay flat, at zero at the bottom, right up to 15:50. The steam would have to be magically prevented from carrying out any heat; the surface of the reactor would be at room temperature, not radiating anything; the heat exchanger would exchange nothing. Then at 15:50 you would see a tremendous burst of heat. I do not know how the laws of physics would work in this pretend Krivit universe, but I suppose Newton's law of cooling would still be in effect, so the temperature would fall steadily, and it would never increase. It would look like this: https://www.math.duke.edu/education/ccp/materials/diffcalc/ozone/ozone1.html Since the curve does not fall monotonically, but it also rises, we know there must be heat generated in the system. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Since the curve does not fall monotonically, but it also rises, we know there must be heat generated in the system. Yep. It looks like 5 kW out when the heater is turned off when you normalize Hustedt's plot. I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I understand the names of the attendees will be released soon. I think I have left the fence behind. I do, however, look forward to the eSabertooth being fired up. Soon? I hope. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis. What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o. 135474503149001type=1theater (and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the secondary circuit until 13:22. Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. 19:22: Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. This indicates pump flow is probably 1.82 ml/s. The heat showed up in the exchanger at about 130 min, or 7800 seconds into the run. See graph attached, or spreadsheet at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf This means the flow filled a void of (7800 s)*(1.82 ml) = 14200 ml = 14.2 liters before hot water began to either overflow or percolate out of the device, and thus make it to the heat exchanger. If you look at the graph you clearly see the Pout data points are all over the place when Pin ~= 0. As I noted in my Preliminary Data Analysis: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg52405.html it is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into output stream, as before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased temperature from the Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. That's my take on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ inline: RossiGraph.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Oct 7, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I preliminarily agree with your Preliminary Data Analysis. What I DON'T understand from Hustedt's graph http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150844451570375set=o. 135474503149001type=1theater (and your spreadsheet) is why there was NO heat transfer to the secondary circuit until 13:22. Maybe they didn't turn on the eCat's input pump until then. 19:22: Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. This indicates pump flow is probably 1.82 ml/s. The heat showed up in the exchanger at about 130 min, or 7800 seconds into the run. See graph sent with separate email, or see spreadsheet at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf This means the flow filled a void of (7800 s)*(1.82 ml) = 14200 ml = 14.2 liters before hot water began to either overflow or percolate out of the device, and thus make it to the heat exchanger. If you look at the graph you clearly see the Pout data points are all over the place when Pin ~= 0. As I noted in my Preliminary Data Analysis: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg52405.html it is notable that when the power is turned off, for example at time 14:20, and 14:51, and 15:56, the power Pout actually rises. This may be a confirmation that the Tout thermocouple is under the influence of the temperature of the incoming water/steam in the primary circuit. Water carries a larger specific heat. Cutting the power may introduce water into output stream, as before. If the thermocouple within the E-cat is subject to thermal wicking, the water temperature may actually be 100°C, as before. This sudden flow of 100°C water could then account for increased temperature from the Tout thermocouple, which is located close to the hot water/steam input. Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. That's my take on it. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
inline: RossiGraph.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Further, the fact the data is highly variable is an indication the hot water arrives at the heat exchanger in slugs. Or that the reactor is highly unstable as claimed by Defkalion. T
RE: [Vo]:Rossi 6 Oct Experiment Data - Preliminary Data Analysis
Lewan stated in his report: The Thursday test took place on the same premises as the previous tests. I've just been asking myself, Is there anything learned from this test that could help analyze previous tests?. This test gives us some idea of the consistency of the temperature and flow-rate out of the public water system. Thus, should anyone care to go back to the previous 18 hour/high flow rate test and make the assumption that the flow-rate and temperature of the cooling water was as consistent as in this test, what is one to conclude about the 18-hour test? Just a thought before going to bed... -mark
