Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Does your psychoanalyst know what you are doing on the internet?
Are you currently institutionalized?
Do you still see you analyst? I hope so.

If you are not seeing your analyst I think you should.

Because you should tell him how it makes you feel to mimic him when he
whispers into his littlte recorder. You should tell him how it makes you
feel more powerful.

This is an antisocial behavior you need to correct.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> Try to keep up.
>>
>
> Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless
> statements plus what's been copied from before.
>
> However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a
> multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis:
>
> 2  *  2  =  4
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Keep going Lomax. You are in over your head, and far out classed.

When I arrived at Vortex-L you were stumbling around in the dark stuck on a
humidity meter.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> Try to keep up.
>>
>
> Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except useless
> statements plus what's been copied from before.
>
> However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a
> multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis:
>
> 2  *  2  =  4
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Harry Veeder]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> > At 04:11 PM 7/22/2011, Harry Veeder wrote:
>>  It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature 
> difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature 
> of 
> the reactor.
>> 
>>  No?
> 
> Probably not true. The reaction, on the face, depends on the temperature of 
> the 
> reactants. Only if heat "flow" is causing the effect would this idea 
> be true.
> 
> For example, suppose that 400 C is necessary to operate the reactor with 100 
> C 
> cooling water, i.e., boiling water.
> 
> If we use water that is just over freezing, i.e, 0 C -- say we use ice 
> slurry! 
> -- does this mean that we'd see the same effect at 300 C?
> 
> I don't think so. 
>

well, that hypothesis that could be tested.

Anyway I think what I am saying is not incompatible with a perfered temperature 
inside the reactor. In practice you can't aim for the prefered temperature 
without 
regulating the heat flow. Without any heat flow the reactants will over heat.
With too much heat flow the reaction will cease. With just the right amount of 
heat flow
the reaction will be self maintaining.




Harry

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:06 PM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

Try to keep up.


Try not to fill this list with posts with no new content except 
useless statements plus what's been copied from before.


However, to provide some utility here, I will reproduce part of a 
multiplication table, in case Damon needs it for steam analysis:


2  *  2  =  4 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Try to keep up.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>  The "by mass" and the "by volume" jargon that has evolved here--or where
>> ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.
>>
>
> Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing steam
> quality has its value.
>
>
>  In each case a volume is examined and "by mass" and "by volume" are both
>> unitless values.
>> "by mass" units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3
>>
>> "by volume" units: dx^3/dX^3.
>>
>
> That's right. It's expressed as a percentage. If we want to know
> vaporization rate, how much water was vaporized to make the steam, we
> presumably want to know that in mass units. Strictly speaking, we want to
> know how much was *unvaporized." That's what steam quality percentages tell
> us, if it's mass percent.
>
> However, suppose we want to know how the steam will look. Suppose we have a
> measure of volume in some way. Then we'll be interested in mass by volume.
> Steve Krivit went off on a tangent with this. Everyone had been talking
> mass. But there were some assumptions being made, that high wetness steam
> would somehow look very different from low wetness. That doesn't happen
> until *very high mass percentage*
>
>
>  In no manner will there ever be 97% "by mass" steam in Rossi's device that
>> exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy
>> to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far
>> greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes
>> energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It
>> takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets.
>>
>
> That's not to be established by mere assertion. And it's not established by
> giving us a google search that gives over 8 million hits. And just how large
> are the "droplets"? Nothing says they are "teenie weenie." In practice,
> there is no sharp boundary between "wet steam" and any other biphase
> mixture, i.e, some level of wet steam above some level of liquid. Consider
> the liquid at the bottom a "really big droplet."
>
> "Wet steam" does usually refer to steam where the droplets are suspended,
> but that's a generally unstable situation, I think, those droplets will
> eventually grow and condense unless flow conditions keep breaking them up.
>
> Look, Damon, you screwed up. Don't keep compounding it.
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:22 AM 7/26/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

The "by mass" and the "by volume" jargon that has evolved here--or 
where ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.


Not when you know what you are talking about. Each way of expressing 
steam quality has its value.


In each case a volume is examined and "by mass" and "by volume" are 
both unitless values.

"by mass" units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3

"by volume" units: dx^3/dX^3.


That's right. It's expressed as a percentage. If we want to know 
vaporization rate, how much water was vaporized to make the steam, we 
presumably want to know that in mass units. Strictly speaking, we 
want to know how much was *unvaporized." That's what steam quality 
percentages tell us, if it's mass percent.


However, suppose we want to know how the steam will look. Suppose we 
have a measure of volume in some way. Then we'll be interested in 
mass by volume. Steve Krivit went off on a tangent with this. 
Everyone had been talking mass. But there were some assumptions being 
made, that high wetness steam would somehow look very different from 
low wetness. That doesn't happen until *very high mass percentage*


In no manner will there ever be 97% "by mass" steam in Rossi's 
device that exits into the output tubing. This would take an 
incredible amount of enegy to aggitate water to break surface 
tension to this extent, and probably far greater than the fanciful 
energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes energy to separate 
water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It takes a 
great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie droplets.


That's not to be established by mere assertion. And it's not 
established by giving us a google search that gives over 8 million 
hits. And just how large are the "droplets"? Nothing says they are 
"teenie weenie." In practice, there is no sharp boundary between "wet 
steam" and any other biphase mixture, i.e, some level of wet steam 
above some level of liquid. Consider the liquid at the bottom a 
"really big droplet."


"Wet steam" does usually refer to steam where the droplets are 
suspended, but that's a generally unstable situation, I think, those 
droplets will eventually grow and condense unless flow conditions 
keep breaking them up.


Look, Damon, you screwed up. Don't keep compounding it. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Corrections:

"by mass" units: int(m dX^3) / int(MdX^3) = unitless
"by volume" units: int(dx^3)/int(dX^3) = unitless
We can't just drop the integral out of the units equations and examine the
characteristic vectors. This would be a little pretensious dividing a tensor
by a tensor to get a scalar.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> "by mass" units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3
>
> "by volume" units: dx^3/dX^3.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

The "by mass" and the "by volume" jargon that has evolved here--or where
ever--to describe steam quality is a bit screwy.

In each case a volume is examined and "by mass" and "by volume" are
both unitless values.
"by mass" units: m/dx^3 / MdX^3

"by volume" units: dx^3/dX^3.

In no manner will there ever be 97% "by mass" steam in Rossi's device that
exits into the output tubing. This would take an incredible amount of enegy
to aggitate water to break surface tension to this extent, and probably far
greater than the fanciful energy output calculated by Mr. Rossi. It takes
energy to separate water into little droplets. Go google surface tension. It
takes a great deal of energy to make a great deal of teenie-weenie
droplets.


On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>
>  On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig <
>> de**cra...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>> The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen
>> floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?
>>
>
> I'll answer that, I've never seen anything floating in any kind of steam,
> except for water droplets, which I see as mist.
>
>
>  I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence
>> in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even
>> styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any
>> solids with lower density than that.
>>
>
> Joshua is very correct, here, high percentage steam, by mass, is still far
> lower percentage by volume, and therefore remains low-density.
>
> Arrggh. I just realized that I've seen *very* high percentage steam, and,
> yes, things float in it. It's called "boiling water," and it contains
> bubbles of water vapor.
>
> With continuous agitation, one could make any percentage "steam" one wants.
> When it becomes dense enough, it will merely fall quickly to the bottom of
> any vessel, leaving dryer steam at the top and less foamy water at the
> bottom
>
> As to plausibility for the e-cat, extremely high percentage liquid by mass
> seems implausible to me except as a fraud mode. Could be, and probably
> isn't.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:55 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig 
<decra...@gmail.com> wrote:


The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever 
seen floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?


I'll answer that, I've never seen anything floating in any kind of 
steam, except for water droplets, which I see as mist.


I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its 
existence in the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any 
case, even styrofoam is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I 
don't know any solids with lower density than that.


Joshua is very correct, here, high percentage steam, by mass, is 
still far lower percentage by volume, and therefore remains low-density.


Arrggh. I just realized that I've seen *very* high percentage steam, 
and, yes, things float in it. It's called "boiling water," and it 
contains bubbles of water vapor.


With continuous agitation, one could make any percentage "steam" one 
wants. When it becomes dense enough, it will merely fall quickly to 
the bottom of any vessel, leaving dryer steam at the top and less 
foamy water at the bottom


As to plausibility for the e-cat, extremely high percentage liquid by 
mass seems implausible to me except as a fraud mode. Could be, and 
probably isn't.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Very well said. There is no obvective measuring stick to measure burden.

I was attempting to reveil the hidden hypocracy in the "burden of proof"
argument.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> Essentially, "burden" is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from
> human conventions. There is no "burden meter."
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Joshua Cude, and other astute observerse:

We could model an exothermic reactions with unlimited (over the course of
the experiment) heat generation as a simple bump function.

A simple bump function for this is p = p_o / {1+[(T-T_o)/T_w]^2 }.

At T=T_o the power, p is maximal.

T_w is the half-width of the bump function. When T-T_o=T_w the power
evolution is halved.

On the rising side of the bump an increase in temperature will result in an
increased evolution of energy. This part of the curve could have
real-time-control problems due to positive feedback such as to make control
nonexistent. More heat evolution results in a higher temperature, and a
higher temperature evolves more heat increasing the temperature, etc, etc.

On the falling side of the bump function, increasing the temperature
decreases the evolved energy and the process is essentially self regulating
and the control problem vanish. It is self regulating.

If there is evidence from the reports that indicate that the alleged
reaction would be operating on the divergent, rising side of the curve, a
disproof of the assertion of thermal energy gains in the order of 5:1, 6:1,
8:1, or better might be made.

There seems to be a maximum dE/dT slope after which there is no possibility
of reducing the reaction rate, but where it will continue to increase when
the control input goes to zero. E is the evolved energy, and T is the
temperature for any given reactant volume.

However there may be an interesting problem with this sort of disproof upon
spatial dimensional rescaling:-

Control heat energy is introduced over an area. Total heat evolution is a
function of volume.

In other words, there may be a disproof for a reactor of typical dimension
X, that is not a disproof for a reactor of typical dimension 10X (or 1/10th
X.)

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

[Snip...Stuff said about a sustained exothermic reaction]

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Yeah, your right. What was I thinking??

My boyancy argument is just wrong. Thank's for straightening that out to me.
(And, darn it, don't I look stupid.)

As such, I  can't see any way to solidly determine if the bulk of the liquid
water exits the device suspended in vapor, or simply pours out the spout.

Any ideas?
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>> I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
>>
>> Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
>> steam containing 90% by mass water?
>>
>
> I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is
> 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that
> has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You
> can't swim in that.
>
> Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the
> density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass
> and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume.
>
> *Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.*
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Josh: "I don't think you read what I wrote."

Maybe I didn't get it, Josh. I'll try to get back. My poor brain is too
fried at this time.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>> I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
>>
>> Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
>> steam containing 90% by mass water?
>>
>
> I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is
> 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that
> has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You
> can't swim in that.
>
> Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the
> density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass
> and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume.
>
> Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Yeah, maybe i'm confused. When I get my brain back I'll be capable of
thinking about it--maybe.

the fucks im working for are working me to death.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>> I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
>>
>> Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
>> steam containing 90% by mass water?
>>
>
> I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is
> 1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that
> has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You
> can't swim in that.
>
> Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the
> density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass
> and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume.
>
> Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Terry Blanton]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
 wrote:

> It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the pasta is
> actually worms. "Gee, it looked like pasta to me!"


Hey, that's an insult to us pastafarians!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

T

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Harry Veeder]

To be more precise, the temperature difference between the inside of the 
reaction vessel and the water cannot be greater than a certain value  or 
the generation of heat will cease and the difference cannot be less than a 
certain value or the reactor temperature will then begin to rise 
autonomously until the vessel melts. These curcial temperature differences are 
calculated by subtracting the water temperature from the optimal operating 
temperature of the vessel's interior. 
 
 
Harry 

From: Harry Veeder 
>To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" 
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 4:11:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
>
>
>It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature 
>difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of 
>the reactor. 
> 
>No?
>Harry
>
>
>From: Joshua Cude 
>>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
>>wrote:
>>
>>At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up 
>>>>to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of 
>>>>power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly 
>>>>bring the temperature below ignition.
>>>> 
>>>First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to 
>>>me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's 
>>>assume that.
>>
>>
>>They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. 
>>
>>
>>Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend 
>>much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if 
>>the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there 
>>appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the 
>>ratio. 
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction 
>>>generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You 
>>>need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>>>> 
>>>
No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." 
>>
>>
>>I agree, but they certainly claim it does.
>>
>>
>>
>>Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the 
>>temperature behavior. 
>>
>>
>>It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power 
>>as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its 
>>own. 
>>
>>
>>
>>Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on 
>>temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a 
>>temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that 
>>temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the 
>>boiling point.
>>>
>>
>>
>>The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the 
>>reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the 
>>temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What 
>>am I missing? 
>>
>>
>>>There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be 
>>>generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction 
>>>chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining 
>>>temperature. 
>>
>>
>>If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the 
>>same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature.
>>
>>>I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that 
>>>the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would 
>>>be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only 
>>>a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being 
>>>only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band 
>>>heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?
>>>
>>
>>
>>The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures 
>>of the leads for it.  
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Harry Veeder]

It would be more accurate to say the reaction depends on a temperature 
difference between the reactor and the water rather than on the temperature of 
the reactor. 
 
No?
Harry

From: Joshua Cude 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 1:11:59 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  
>wrote:
>
>At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up 
>>>to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of 
>>>power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly 
>>>bring the temperature below ignition.
>>> 
>>First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to 
>>me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's 
>>assume that.
>
>
>They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo. 
>
>
>Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't spend 
>much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is that if 
>the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense. So there 
>appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to demonstrate the 
>ratio. 
>
>
>>
>>
>>To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction 
>>generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You 
>>need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>>> 
>>
No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." 
>
>
>I agree, but they certainly claim it does.
>
>
>
>Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the 
>temperature behavior. 
>
>
>It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power 
>as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its 
>own. 
>
>
>
>Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on temperature, 
>increasing with increased temperature, there would be a temperature at which 
>the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain that temperature under the 
>conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at the boiling point.
>>
>
>
>The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the 
>reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the 
>temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What 
>am I missing? 
>
>
>>There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be 
>>generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction 
>>chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining 
>>temperature. 
>
>
>If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the 
>same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature.
>
>>I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true that 
>>the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function would 
>>be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and that only 
>>a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted as being 
>>only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the outer band 
>>heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?
>>
>
>
>The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures 
>of the leads for it.  
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> Essentially, "burden" is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside from
> human conventions. There is no "burden meter."
>

Again you are on a roll! This burden of proof argument is silly and
widely spread pseudoargument.

Usually it works, because if Alice tells something to Bob, Alice
usually wants Bob to believe her. Therefore burden of proof is here in
Alice's hands. But in this case Rossi has made a bold claim, but does
not benefit a single bit whether we believe him or not, but instead
our endless curiosity does not rest until we get some, even partial
clarification. Therefore in this case, burden of proof is in our hands
and we need to find discrepancies or evidences whether E-Cat claim is
trustworthy or not.

Although, excess heat claims are exaggerated, I think that considering
how many persons are involved to this magic performance, I still trust
100% to Rossi. With a hoax in hand, it is impossible to make money,
not least because in order to sell anything that contains nuclear
reactions, you need to have licence from the authorities, to ensure
it's safety. Oddities on how E-Cat was brought into discussion makes
some sense, because Rossi has very clear cut personal philosophy,
although his choice was not the most sensible one. But I am accusing
ridiculous patent legislation!

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

> At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>> I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature
>> up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units
>> of power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly
>> bring the temperature below ignition.
>>
>
> First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit less to
> me, because of factors that have been discussed in many places. But let's
> assume that.


They've claimed much more than that: 20 times or so in the January demo.

Of course you know I don't buy the ratio either. And that's why I don't
spend much time thinking about the workings of the ecat. All I'm saying is
that if the ratio is more than 2, the need for the input doesn't make sense.
So there appears to be an inconsistency apart from the failure to
demonstrate the ratio.


>
>
>  To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction
>> generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You
>> need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't generate "even more heat."


I agree, but they certainly claim it does.



> Initiation is not truly abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the
> temperature behavior.


It doesn't have to be abrupt. But once the thing is generating as much power
as was needed to start the process, it should be able to maintain it on its
own.



> Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on
> temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a
> temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to maintain
> that temperature under the conditions, which includes a cooling chamber at
> the boiling point.
>

The temperature T0 that the input power brings it to is enough to get the
reaction going. Once the reaction produces that much power or more, then the
temperature will not drop below T0 and so the reaction will keep going. What
am I missing?


>
> There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would not be
> generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the reaction
> chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the self-sustaining
> temperature.


If that temperature initiates the reaction, and the reaction can produce the
same power as the input, then that would be a self-sustaining temperature.

>
> I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's true
> that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its only function
> would be to speed up the process of reaching operating temperatures, and
> that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen demo, input power was noted
> as being only a little more than the 300 Watt rated heating power of the
> outer band heater. What's heating the reaction chamber to the higher
> temperatures, then?
>

The K&E report claims an auxiliary heater in the reactor, and shows pictures
of the leads for it.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/7/22 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax :
> However, claims that the data is contradictory, on the basis of steam
> pressure calculations, seem to fail.
>

Thanks for these calculations – they sound reasonable. For me it seems
that E-Cat worked properly only in Mats Lewan's hands where power
output was comparable to that what was claimed. In other
demonstrations there are, I think, significant discrepancies, but at
least in all demonstrations, expect perhaps in June, there is clear
excess heat present.

For memory refreshment, here are the temperature anomalies and my
estimations for corresponding total power output in all 6
demonstrations of E-Cat: in December (101.6°C / 9kW), January (101.2°C
/ 6kW), March (100.2°C / 1.2 kW), April (100.6°C / 2kW) and June
(100.1°C / 1kW)

Estimations for December and January demonstrations are very rough,
but I think that they are over 5kW in any case, as inflow rate of
water was 13kg/h.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

"the burden of proof lies with the claimant"

it does?

1) prove it.

2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to 
me to prove it?


3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?


Arguments like this assume absolutes that aren't, they are 
interpretations, sometimes widely supported, which doesn't change 
that they are intepretations.


Essentially, "burden" is a social construct, it doesn't exist aside 
from human conventions. There is no "burden meter."


So, when there are arguments over this, they can easily boil down to 
"My imagined absolute standards are better than your imagined 
absolute standards. You are wrong, I'm right. Q.E.D."


This can then take various forms: "My imagined absolute standards are 
shared by all right-thinking people. People who do not share these 
standards are, by definition, not "right-thinking.'"


Sometimes, the claimant asserts that "The majority support my 
position." Sometimes this could be established -- this can be made 
into an objective assessment under some conditions -- but often it's 
just an assertion, based on the belief of the claimant that his or 
her own position is obviously the only reasonable one, and we assume 
that the majority are reasonable, right?


Wrong. Not necessarily! Majority opinion is certainly of interest, 
but anyone who makes it into an authority has lost the possibility of 
moving out of established ideas. The majority, even, may be *usually* 
right, but about what?


About usual questions, those they have experience with 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:48 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:

http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html

It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. 
Therefore wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. 
I think that wetness depens slightly on temperature difference 
between heating element and water, but if this is the case, 
difference is rather small.


As a Wikipedia editor, I became very sensitive to "synthesis," where 
someone asserts that a source says something that it doesn't.


That source actually says this:

All boiling chambers usually produce steam that is 98% saturated 
vapour and 2% water droplets, i.e. it is "wet" and "saturated". This 
is important to remember. The % dry is called the steam "quality".


Notice that the source says "usually." That's because commercial 
boilers, what is being described, are designed to produce good-quality steam!


Jouni, quoting the source, left out the word "usually," strongly 
changing the meaning.


Further, the context is completely lost, that this isn't really "all 
boiling chambers," i.e., every possible boiling chamber, but rather 
normal ones. He's talking, later, about using a pressure cooker, 
i.e., a large, open chamber, with a single escape opening at the top. 
Design a different boiling chamber where steam must heavily mix with 
water under more turbulent conditions, you can and will get higher wetness.


The "wetness measurement" would refer to certain measurements using 
unknown and unstated procedures, based on readings from a relative 
humidity meter. Nobody has been able to explain how to use an RH 
meter for steam quality, and it appears impossible, the RH meter will 
give the same readings for any saturated steam, i.e., any level of wetness.


In other places, a small elevation in temperature was used to claim 
that the steam was dry, whereas the chamber was clearly nailed at 
boiling, for the likely pressure, but dry steam would not be 
self-regulating at that temperature. The steam, from the temperature 
records, appears to be wet, wetness being unmeasured.


In some demos, temperature varies slightly, which is easily 
attributed to variations in pressure produced by how the hose was 
handled. It's slight.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:24 AM 7/22/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does 
not contribute to the pressure at all, because 
water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but 
is spilled due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.


No, that's an error. The E-Cat operation, in the 
demos, begins with water flowing through, due to 
the pumping. That would be gentle flow. What 
happens later is unclear, and that depends on 
internal conditions that we cannot observe directly.


Only thing that contributes for the pressure is 
steam flow pressure out of the E-Cat and in the 
hose. Steam flow resistance is roughly the same 
in all E-Cat setups, therefore steam temperature 
is depended directly and comparably on total water heating power.


An analysis of temperature and pressure, I just 
wrote for the CMNS list. I'll add it below.


It was well established that wetness of the 
steam was something in order of 1-2% that is 
typical for normal boiling in closed container 
where there is lots of spilling and water droplet density is high.


It is very much not well-established. However, 
there are two problems, both somewhat semantic in 
nature. The real question is how much water is 
vaporized. Failure to vaporise a known flow can 
come from two sources: literal overflow of liquid 
water and wetness of steam. Both would be 
expected to some degree. What degree is actually 
found? We don't know, we have inadequate data, 
and that inadequacy has been maintained by Rossi 
unwillingness to allow definitive demonstrations.


from my post to CMNS:

Assume Temperature of chimney: 100.5 degrees.
Assume Boiling at ambient pressure of 99.6 degrees.

Interpolate pressure in chimney from 
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_457.html


pressure: 1 bar, temperature 99.63 C.
pressure: 1.1 bar, temperature, 102.32 C.

Interpolated pressure at 100.5 C.: 1.036 bar
Interpolated steam density: 0.610 kg/m^3

Raw steam flow if no hose. Assume orifice from chamber, 1/2 inch.

Estimate from http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html

Overpressure, 0.036 bar, 1 psig = 68.948×10^3 bar, 0.522 psig

This is off the chart. However, assuming 
linearity, I come up with 40 lb./hour, which is 
18 kilograms, and the claimed flow rate is 5 
g/sec, oir 18.5 kg/hr. That is an amazing 
coincidence, and is not a confirmation of that 
exact value, considering how rough the chart is.


However, there is a hose attached. If we assume 
18.5 kg/hr flow, 3 meters of 15 mm ID hose, steam density of 0.590 kg/m^3,


http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html

gives a drop of  10978 Pa. 1 Pa = 10^-5 bar. That 
would be a drop of about 0.1 bar, as has been 
stated. However, we don't, in this marginal 
calculation, have any pressure left, the flow 
through the orifice was estimated based on the 
pressure difference with atmospheric.


In fact, the steam flow will be reduced because 
of back pressure from the hose, so that the 
figures match, with the sum of pressures 
equalling the total elevation of chimney pressure over ambient.


The expansion of the steam into the hose is a 
factor of 1.40 by area ratio. Steam cannot cool 
until the wetness approaches 100%, but the steam 
will become wetter, reducing the steam volume, so 
that "steam flow" is reduced. If I take the Mats 
Lewan report as indicating that half the steam 
condenses in the hose, this will reduce the 
"steam flow" to 9.25 kg/hr, reducing back pressure to 2744 Pa.


I'm not going further with this. If I take the 
data straight, as it is, and assume accuracy 
(which is unreasonable, but it does allow us to 
see what ball-park estimates could be), I come up 
with an indication that 75% vaporization, very 
roughly and without doing more exact math than is 
found above, seems quite reasonable. Given the 
roughness of the data, it is not impossible that 
there is full vaporization, and it is possible 
that vaporization is below 50%, I have not done an exact analysis.


And the reason for that is not only lack of time, 
but that this is not going to nail anything down, 
there is so little data. I return to my basic 
conclusion, we don't have enough data to be sure 
about the Rossi E-Cat either way.


However, claims that the data is contradictory, 
on the basis of steam pressure calculations, seem to fail.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:59 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution 
but futher along in the device toward the exit.


For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the 
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the 
outlet where the pressure is less than that where it originates.


"Adhering to a hypothesis," I call "believing."

We don't really know where the thermometer level is, though it is 
well below the outlet to the hose. It could be at the level of the 
steam generation. Maybe. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:48 AM 7/22/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in steam 
containing 90% by mass water?


Absolutly not. You are thinking, Damon, of 90% by volume. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:06 AM 7/22/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature 
response of the active material.


The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with 
increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point 
where there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below 
self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the 
reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc.



I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the 
temperature up to the ignition threshold, and then the thing 
generates 6 or more units of power on its own, I can't see how 
removing the first one could possibly bring the temperature below ignition.


First of all, I don't believe the 6X ratio, it's looking like a bit 
less to me, because of factors that have been discussed in many 
places. But let's assume that.


To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the 
reaction generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like 
combustion. You need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.


No, it doesn't generate "even more heat." Initiation is not truly 
abrupt, not to 6X power, as we can see from the temperature behavior. 
(We actually can't see the final adjustment, no data has been 
provided for that. It can't be seen in the chimney temperature 
profiles, because they are already nailed to boiling.


Look at it this way. If we assume a reaction rate that depends on 
temperature, increasing with increased temperature, there would be a 
temperature at which the reaction generates just enough heat to 
maintain that temperature under the conditions, which includes a 
cooling chamber at the boiling point.


This would be an equilibrium temperature, but it would be unstable, 
because, if any condition varies, the reaction would either quench as 
it cools or run away as it heats, assuming that runaway is possible.


There would be a temperature below that at which the reaction would 
not be generating that much heat. The heater(s) are used to bring the 
reaction chamber to a desired temperature, known to be below the 
self-sustaining temperature. Running closer to the equilibrium 
temperature, the device becomes more potentially unstable. The 6X 
ratio, apparently, represents a compromise temperature, below 
self-sustaining, requiring external heat to be maintained. Much 
higher ratios have been reported, along with some fear (real or 
pretended) of runaway.


I'm becoming very uncertain about the E-Cat design itself. If it's 
true that the external heater is heating the cooling chamber, its 
only function would be to speed up the process of reaching operating 
temperatures, and that only a little. In the Kullander and Essen 
demo, input power was noted as being only a little more than the 300 
Watt rated heating power of the outer band heater. What's heating the 
reaction chamber to the higher temperatures, then?


I'd been thinking of a reversed design, with the reaction chamber 
being on the outside, so that the band heater heated it, with cooling 
being on the inside. The insulated wires? Temperature sensor in the 
reaction chamber, necessary for control. This idea about the band 
heater, though, would require the band heater itself to go to 
probably over 400 degrees. Is that sensible? Any sign that this thing 
was getting that hot?


It's like opening a can of spaghetti and finding that half of the 
pasta is actually worms. "Gee, it looked like pasta to me!"


Easy test for temperatures like that: touching it with some water, 
those who witnessed open demos. That water should instantly sizzle 
and vaporize. Spit will do.


I can't resist this:

A certain Italian engineer/inventor/entrepreneur:

"What you doing? You spit on my invention? You snake, you clown, you 
spy! Leave and never come back, you and everyone like you!" 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime
> having this anywhere near this liquid water content.
>

It depends on your life experience. It is certainly part of Mitra et al's
experience as documented in IEEE Sensors Journal 11 (2011) 1214, where they
not only produce steam more than 95% wet by mass, but find a way to measure
it.

Keep the eyes open to what everyday experience teaches us about the physical
> world we live in.
>

The sort of wet steam that I'm talking about is produced in confined
conduits with rapidly moving steam; just the sort of thing that could exist
inside the ecat, and not the sort of thing that is part of most people's
life experience; at least not that they would be aware.


As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness,
> but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our
> encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way.
>

Why exactly would you expect your experience with buoyancy in a static,
unconfined fluid inform your idea of what happens with a rapidly moving
2-phase fluid in a confined volume?

>
> The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen
> floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?
>

I don't claim to have seen 97% wet steam (by mass); I claim its existence in
the ecat is entirely plausible -- even likely. In any case, even styrofoam
is denser than 97% wet steam (by mass), and I don't know any solids with
lower density than that.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joe Catania]

A major error in my previous post. It should be ~4J/gK x 70K= ~300J/g whereas 
heat of vaporization is ~2200J/g so obviously the inlet cold water will not be 
able to provide 100% of the cooling to condense the steam but only about 10%. 
But perhaps the large bulk of water in the E-Cat could provide the rest of it. 
I fail to see the purpose of the inlet temp sensor. Perhaps there was a sensor 
more toward the middle of the E-cat that Rossi decided to eliminate because it 
showed less than 100C and would have raised flags amongst the critical public.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Joe Catania 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:43 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement


  Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the 
increased pressure.
- Original Message - 
From: Damon Craig 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement


The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but 
futher along in the device toward the exit.

For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the 
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet 
where the pressure is less than that where it originates.


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

  I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its 
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the 
metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which 
will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam 
formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joe Catania]

Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the increased 
pressure.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Damon Craig 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 6:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement


  The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher 
along in the device toward the exit.

  For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the thermometer 
is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet where the 
pressure is less than that where it originates.


  On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its 
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the 
metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water which 
will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the steam 
formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation temp. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.
>
> Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
> steam containing 90% by mass water?
>

I don't think you read what I wrote. The density of water vapor at 100C is
1700 times lower than that of liquid water. That means that even steam that
has 97% liquid by mass in it has a density 50 times less than water. You
can't swim in that.

Steam that is 90% liquid by mass is 99.4% vapor by volume. That means the
density is about 200 times less than water. You see, density involves mass
and volume, and very wet steam is still mostly vapor by volume.

Think about that before you make ridiculous comments about buoyancy.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

"the burden of proof lies with the claimant"

it does?

1) prove it.

2) in having made the burden-of-proof argument, are you obligated to me to
prove it?

3) what is your burden/penalty if you decide not to oblige me?


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>> Cude, Lomax:
>>
>> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
>> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>>
>
> Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.
>
>>
>> One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy,
>>
>
> Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.
>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

Damon, little two sec googling with cell phone gave me this link:

http://brewery.org/library/SteInjCS1295.html

It says that all boiling chambers produces about 98% dry steam. Therefore
wetness measurement that was 1.4-1.2% feels very reliable. I think that
wetness depens slightly on temperature difference between heating element
and water, but if this is the case, difference is rather small.

—Jouni
On Jul 22, 2011 2:36 PM, "Damon Craig"  wrote:

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Do you have an online reference or text reference to the 1-2% value for
typical wetness of steam?

I would like to have a reference source.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of
> 1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is
> lots of spilling and water droplet density is high.
>
> —Jouni
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

I don't know how to visually estimate the wetness of steam. Why do you think
it's less than 5%?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Damon,
>
> This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of
> the steam is a moot point. The mass of  liquid in any of those video
> is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose
> would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this.
> It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power
> sources.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

Craig, indeed that is true, liquid water does not contribute to the pressure
at all, because water does not gently flow out of the E-Cat, but is spilled
due to rather violent boiling at kW range in closed container.

Only thing that contributes for the pressure is steam flow pressure out of
the E-Cat and in the hose. Steam flow resistance is roughly the same in all
E-Cat setups, therefore steam temperature is depended directly and
comparably on total water heating power.

It was well established that wetness of the steam was something in order of
1-2% that is typical for normal boiling in closed container where there is
lots of spilling and water droplet density is high.

—Jouni

Ps. Craig, although Joshua's ultrawet steam is crack pot theory, he is
right, because 90% steam is not dense at all, but you measured it
volumetrically, i.e. you kept the volume constant. But do not play Joshua's
own game, because as discusser, he is a perpetual motion machine, whose
purpose is to flood as much as possible so that any meaningful discussion is
overflown. Volumetric measurement is completely irrelevant, because it
depends heavily on pressure.
On Jul 22, 2011 2:00 PM, "Damon Craig"  wrote:
> The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but
futher
> along in the device toward the exit.
>
> For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
> thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the
outlet
> where the pressure is less than that where it originates.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:
>
>> I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
>> characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem
that
>> the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of
water
>> which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
>> steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation
>> temp.
>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up
> to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of
> power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly
> bring the temperature below ignition.
>
> I don't either.

Do have a sound argument that says it can't happen? I don't. I'm looking for
it.

A good of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction is the ignition of gun
powder. Taking away the match will not stop the reaction.

A counter example is the evolution of tunsten vapor from a heated light bulb
fiaiment. If, somewhere in the filament is a length that is two or three
percent smaller in diameter than the rest, the filament will eventually burn
through at this spot.

The narrow section runs a little hotter. Because it runs a little hotter,
the tungsten in this section vaporizes a little faster than the rest of the
filament. This causes it's resistance to decrease faster than the rest of
the wire.

This in turn causes it to vaporize faster, so there is positive feedback.
Eventually the tiny difference in diameter will cause the filament to fail
at this point. And this is how most light bulbs eventually fail.

But it's easy to control. We just turn off the light switch and we've turned
off the run-away reaction.

In the same way a heat source that stimulates an small exothermic reaction
can be controlled if it requires a large source of heat.

SoHow is this quantified, and does it disclude the claims
made of Rossi's gadget as non physical?




> To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction
> generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You
> need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.
>
> Yes, another good example of an uncontrollable exothermic reaction.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

The steam temperature is not measure at the location of evolution but futher
along in the device toward the exit.

For those of us adhering to the Water Flow-though Hypothesis, the
thermometer is further toward the water surface at the height of the outlet
where the pressure is less than that where it originates.


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

> I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
> characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
> the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
> which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
> steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation
> temp.
>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

I think I'll have to take this one step at a time.

Do you all realize that you could swim up into the sky in
steam containing 90% by mass water?

It is not a part of our life experiences to have witnessed steam at anytime
having this anywhere near this liquid water content. Keep the eyes open to
what everyday experience teaches us about the physical world we live in.

As there is not information on the WWW on what to expect on steam wetness,
but we can resort to our life experiences in boyancy in regards to our
encounters with steam to infer what we should expect in a rough way.

The key word is boyancy. What is the densest thing you have ever seen
floating in a vapor of steam, Joshua?


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>>  Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore
>> the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.
>>
>
> What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most
> likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply
> to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of
> the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is
> from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of
> the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as
> fine droplets (mist).
>
>
>>
>>
>> Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
>> by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.
>>
>
> Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means
> the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times
> less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely
> plausible and is studied extensively in the literature.
>
>
>> Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my
>> estimate.
>>
>
> And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water
> through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist
> humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at
> all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air.
>
> I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.
>>
>
> Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not
>> that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it
>> would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so
>> often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat
>> itself.
>>
>
> What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in
> calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface
> tension is made. It is negligible.
>
>>
>>
>> The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara
>> Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
>>
>
> That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with
> air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the
> air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind.
> Entrainment!
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>
>  On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig <
>> de**cra...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Cude, Lomax:
>>
>> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
>> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>>
>>
>> Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.
>>
>
> Okay, who is making the claim that we are examining here? Rossi? Rossi has
> zero responsibility to us
>
>
Well, Rossi is making claims and providing evidence. We are examining the
evidence and some of us find that it doesn't support his claims. I don't see
how we can use his evidence to prove his claims are wrong, and if his
evidence doesn't support his claims, I don't see why anyone should prove his
claims wrong.

If someone claims he can fly by flapping his arms, but can't demonstrate it,
who would bother to try to prove that it's not possible?

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> Cude, Lomax:
>>
>> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
>> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>>
>> One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as
>> resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having
>> greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding
>> about 6.
>>
>> Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically
>> reasonable to either of you?
>>
>
> It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature response
> of the active material.
>
> The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with
> increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where there
> is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below self-sustaining
> temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the reactor becomes cooler,
> and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc.
>

I don't get that. If it takes one unit of power to bring the temperature up
to the ignition threshold, and then the thing generates 6 or more units of
power on its own, I can't see how removing the first one could possibly
bring the temperature below ignition.

To me, if the thing that initiates the reaction is heat, and the reaction
generates even more heat, it will sustain itself, just like combustion. You
need matches to start fires, but not to sustain them.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

I was under the presumption that there a few here that understood elementry
physics. Good Grief!

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:
>
>>  Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore
>> the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.
>>
>
> What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most
> likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply
> to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of
> the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is
> from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of
> the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as
> fine droplets (mist).
>
>
>>
>>
>> Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
>> by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.
>>
>
> Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means
> the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times
> less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely
> plausible and is studied extensively in the literature.
>
>
>> Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my
>> estimate.
>>
>
> And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water
> through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist
> humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at
> all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air.
>
> I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.
>>
>
> Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not
>> that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it
>> would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so
>> often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat
>> itself.
>>
>
> What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in
> calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface
> tension is made. It is negligible.
>
>>
>>
>> The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara
>> Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
>>
>
> That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with
> air, but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the
> air. And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind.
> Entrainment!
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joe Catania]

I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its 
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that 
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water 
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the 
steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation 
temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to 
condense the steam. SAlso the  temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly 
from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room 
temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the 
inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising 
steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g  of cooling is needed to remove the heat of 
vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and 
possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just 
take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH 
probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for 
corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter.
- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement



At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore 
the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize 
that.


I have to say that "really wet steam" is not implausible, Joshua has made 
a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure 
implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber 
with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 
degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks 
like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the 
vaporization rate!


Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid 
by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% 
mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was 
interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.


Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have 
functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize 
wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would 
make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two 
phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also 
look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would 
not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam.


I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high 
wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we 
include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively 
dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at 
the E-Cat fires up!


Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not 
that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems 
it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so 
often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat 
itself.


Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given 
bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance 
isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks.


The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara 
Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.


Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a 
stationary "steam." Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be 
flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up.


There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joe Catania]

I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its 
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that 
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water 
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the 
steam formation temp so that the steam over the ambient steam formation 
temp. Next, the steam has to rise through cooler water which will begin to 
condense the steam. SAlso the  temp of the steam bubble will cool slightly 
from its slight expansion. Some of the overlying water is coming in at room 
temp. with about 70K x 80J/gK= 5600J/g necessary to raise the temp of the 
inlet water to 100C, this amount would also be available to cool the rising 
steam bubble. Only ~2500J/g  of cooling is needed to remove the heat of 
vaporization of the steam to condense it. Also some splash carryover and 
possible film formation on outlet tube would augment this. Rossi should just 
take off the outlet hose and plug in the flow velocity attachment to the RH 
probe he uses. Steam volume could be calculated from that allowing for 
corrections due to any dribble that dosen't make it thru the flow meter.
- Original Message - 
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" 

To: ; 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement



At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore 
the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize 
that.


I have to say that "really wet steam" is not implausible, Joshua has made 
a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the pressure 
implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam inside a chamber 
with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 100.6 degrees, 1 
degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a consistent picture? It looks 
like it is. If we knew more exact numbers, we could calculate the 
vaporization rate!


Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid 
by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10% 
mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was 
interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.


Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still have 
functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to minimize 
wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design something that would 
make really wet steam. That steam would probably separate into the two 
phases, more distinctly, depending on flow rate, probably. It would also 
look like mist immediately on exit from the steam escape valve. It would 
not look like live steam, as would, say, 5% wetness steam.


I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high 
wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, if we 
include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be relatively 
dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists at some point at 
the E-Cat fires up!


Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not 
that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems 
it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so 
often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat 
itself.


Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given 
bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of ignorance 
isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks.


The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara 
Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.


Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are assuming a 
stationary "steam." Rather, the whole mess, steam and water, may be 
flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up.


There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:58 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig 
<decra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cude, Lomax:

To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do 
what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.



Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.


Okay, who is making the claim that we are examining here? Rossi? 
Rossi has zero responsibility to us


What we have been trying to do is to analyze available evidence, from 
all the sources, to try to get a handle on what is happening. It's 
necessarily a hazardous business, because we can't just run down to 
the lab and make some measurements, and very little has been actually 
confirmed.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:55 AM 7/21/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig 
<decra...@gmail.com> wrote:


Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% 
liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.



Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That 
means the density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, 
about 50 times less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% 
quality) is entirely plausible and is studied extensively in the literature.


Yeah, I *sort of* understand this stuff and still I forget. Joshua is 
right. Completely. That does not mean that 97% steam is likely, but 
it is certainly possible.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:56 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

Cude, Lomax:

To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do 
what it is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.


One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as 
resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction 
having greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a 
factor exceeding about 6.


Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound 
physically reasonable to either of you?


It's plausible as a control method, depending on the temperature 
response of the active material.


The active material will presumably have an increased reaction with 
increased temperature. If we raise the temperature to the point where 
there is the 6X evolution of heat, we may still be below 
self-sustaining temperature. So if the extra heat is removed, the 
reactor becomes cooler, and as it cools, the heat generation slows, etc.


This is far simpler than other possibilities, my opinion, this is why 
Rossi is doing it. Controlling the reaction in other ways, though, 
could allow the reactor to operate in a self-sustaining region, so 
that continuous heating isn't needed. That requires having other 
means to rapidly quench the reaction. Reportedly, nitrogen has been 
used, flushing the reaction chamber with nitrogen to rapidly shut 
down the heat. Setting up a means for rapidly increasing cooling 
should do the trick, too. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:22 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory 
anymore the steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I 
didn't realize that.


I have to say that "really wet steam" is not implausible, Joshua has 
made a decent case for it. However, I'm now looking at what the 
pressure implications would be from converting 5 g/sec of steam 
inside a chamber with a half-inch orifice and a temperature of, say, 
100.6 degrees, 1 degree above ambient boiling point. Is this a 
consistent picture? It looks like it is. If we knew more exact 
numbers, we could calculate the vaporization rate!


Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% 
liquid by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in 
it. Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in 
my estimate. I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.


Personally, I have no close contact with steam. Fortunately, I still 
have functional skin left. Boiler chambers are generally designed to 
minimize wetness of steam, but it's not impossible to design 
something that would make really wet steam. That steam would probably 
separate into the two phases, more distinctly, depending on flow 
rate, probably. It would also look like mist immediately on exit from 
the steam escape valve. It would not look like live steam, as would, 
say, 5% wetness steam.


I have no doubt that with deliberate design, one could get very high 
wetness. 97% seems pretty difficult to me. But the same mass ratio, 
if we include water overflow, could easily be 97%, and there would be 
relatively dry steam above liquid water. That ratio obviously exists 
at some point at the E-Cat fires up!


Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, 
but not that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing 
it. It seems it would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break 
surface tension so often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the 
argument would defeat itself.


Ugh. There isn't any requirement that the droplets be at any given 
bouyancy. Introducing serious complication in the presence of 
ignorance isn't the path to knowledge. One step at a time, folks.


The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a 
Niagara Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.


Sure it would. You've forgotten something, mass flow. You are 
assuming a stationary "steam." Rather, the whole mess, steam and 
water, may be flowing rapidly, keeping it quite mixed up.


There are other approaches to the problem that are far more sound. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> The mass of  liquid in any of those video
> is visually less 5%, if that much.


You should get a job working for turbine manufacturers. They go to a lot of
trouble to evaluate steam quality, when all they need is for you to look at
it.


> But forget about it, people won't listen to this.
>

That's because it is whacky.


> It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power
> sources.
>

No need to invoke hidden heat sources if there is no evidence for hidden
heat.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> Cude, Lomax:
>
> To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it
> is reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.
>

Evidence is the responsibility of the guy making the claim.

>
> One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy,
>

Until there is evidence of excess heat, this is not necessary.

>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore the
> steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.
>

What gives you that idea? To my mind, really wet steam is still the most
likely explanation for what is observed in Rossi's demos. My earlier reply
to Lomax was devoted to making this point. By the time it reaches the end of
the hose, I suspect there is probably some separation of phases; that is
from entrained droplets to some flowing liquid. Lewan collects about half of
the input liquid in his bucket. The rest of the liquid probably comes out as
fine droplets (mist).


>
>
> Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
> by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it.
>

Please. 97% liquid by mass is still only 2% liquid by volume. That means the
density would be .02*1g/cc + .98*(1/1700)g/cc = .02 g/cc, about 50 times
less dense than water. This sort of wet steam (3% quality) is entirely
plausible and is studied extensively in the literature.


> Even 10% mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my
> estimate.
>

And what is your estimate based on? Probably not on forcing steam and water
through a conduit using a pump. The mist produced by an ultrasonic mist
humidifier contains only liquid (at first). There is no vapor produced at
all. The fine droplets evaporate after they are suspended in the air.

I was interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.
>

Obviously the droplets are not buoyed by the steam. They are entrained.


>
>
> Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not
> that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it
> would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so
> often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat
> itself.
>

What is huge? It takes far more energy to vaporize it. In fact in
calorimetric measurements of steam quality, no consideration of surface
tension is made. It is negligible.

>
>
> The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara
> Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.
>

That mist, like the mist from a cool humidifier is of course mixed with air,
but what you do see is that the droplets are in fact suspended in the air.
And when it's windy, the mist is carried along with the wind. Entrainment!

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Rich Murray]

Wherever the input power resistor is, its gradual surface
deterioration and fractal cracking will accelerate the flow of
electric current along the outside of the resistor, increasing the
direct transfer of heat energy into the input cooling water, 2 cc/sec
into a perhaps 200 cc interior volume, so 1 % mass of the contained
H2O is forced in as liquid by the input pump every second, while 1 %
of the contained H2O mass exits every second as a complex chaotic
mixture of hot water, froth, bubbles, mist, invisible dry steam, H2
and O2 from water electrolyzed by the electric currents on the surface
of the heating resistor -- the thermometer happens to be in a hot spot
that measures a location within the chaos that is, well, hotter...
always possible for there to be a stable hot spot in a complex fractal
chaos witch's pot.

For too high input electric power, the resistor corrosion results
eventually in direct shorting, arcing, and explosion, as Rossi admits
happened 17 times, if my feeble wits be trusted...

Be careful, O ye would rush to run your very own witch's pot!

In mutual service,  Rich Murray
rmfor...@gmail.com  505-819-7388

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Damon,
>
> This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of
> the steam is a moot point. The mass of  liquid in any of those video
> is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose
> would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this.
> It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power
> sources.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Daniel Rocha]

Damon,

This is what I tried to explain before. Discussing about wetness of
the steam is a moot point. The mass of  liquid in any of those video
is visually less 5%, if that much. More than that, the liquid hose
would pour bubbles. But forget about it, people won't listen to this.
It seems they forgot these experiments can still have hidden power
sources.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Cude, Lomax:

To you two, and myself, its fairly obvious this device doesn't do what it is
reported to do, but we have no solid, unrefutable evidence--yet.

One presumption is that an auxillary source of heat energy, such as
resistive heating, is capable of controlling an exothermic reaction having
greater heat output than the auxillary heat supplied by a factor exceeding
about 6.

Does this thermal energy gain obtained in this manner sound physically
reasonable to either of you?

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

OK. Excuse my caution.

I am simply not comfortable helping witch hunters hunt witches.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet
>> steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was "a red herring",
>> and the water was simply flowing through it.
>> Then you turn up using the same phrase.
>>
>
> I've been using it for some time. I'm not looking back, though. What I see
> is that the issue of steam quality "successfully" distracted a lot of
> people.
>
>
>  Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all
>> set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story
>> wide open. Are you helping him?
>>
>
> If he reads my stuff, he might get some ideas that will help him, but
> historically, he's been pretty upset by what I write, since I've criticised
> his "journalism." Long story. Krivit does what he does, he's good at certain
> things, not so good at others.
>
> Most of us are like that, right?
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Look, guys. If no one is pursuing the "really wet steam" theory anymore the
steam wetness issue is pretty much moot. Sorry if I didn't realize that.



Originally, you may recall, numbers caste about were as high as 97% liquid
by mass. This is dense enough a chunk of oak would float in it. Even 10%
mass exceeds our usual experiences of steam wetness in my estimate. I was
interested in buoyancy, not entrainment in a moving fluid.



Steam wetness is still an interesting question, in and off itself, but not
that interesting here, unless there is anyone still arguing it. It seems it
would take a huge amount of energy to randomly break surface tension so
often to generate buoyant droplets, such that the argument would defeat
itself.



The densest suspensions one might likely find are at the base of a Niagara
Falls and I don't think this would float a cork.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

>  The overall question is "How much of the water is actually vaporized?" And
> there isn't an answer. No steps were taken to demonstrate this critical
> aspect of the demonstrations.
>

On this, we are in complete agreement.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:50 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
I wouldn't call it an overflow issue, but a lot of people were wise 
to only a small fraction of the water being vaporized a long time ago.


I certainly didn't invent that idea. You could be correct with your 
idea that there would be a lot of "froth." What I saw being ignored 
was direct water flow, that some level of this would be expected. The 
overall question is "How much of the water is actually vaporized?" 
And there isn't an answer. No steps were taken to demonstrate this 
critical aspect of the demonstrations.


The demonstrations were such as to create an appearance of very 
substantial heat. The reality is ...

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

If all you had were small bits of various density styrofoam and various
means to boil water, I think some of you could eventially come up with the
answer to: "how wet does steam get under conditions X?"

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Damon Craig  wrote:

> Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get?
>
> I don't  know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome
> volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will
> break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of
> these will be fround in terms of droplet size at a level above the
> surface is a duanting theoretical task.
>
> I think it's best to find emperical answers with a bit of suspended
> material such as the styrofoam I suggested, and you-all seem to reject as
> meaningless. A little imagination could be in order.
>
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:
>
>> You've [Lomax] said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why
>> can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor?
>> Your idea of a filled chimney with water "overflowing" makes no sense to me
>> when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to
>> get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Or, to ask a little more precisely: How wet does steam get?

I don't  know the answer to this. However, it takes energy to overcome
volumetic tension (commonly called surface tension). How much water will
break off a boiling surface into small suspendable droplets, and how many of
these will be fround in terms of droplet size at a level above the
surface is a duanting theoretical task.

I think it's best to find emperical answers with a bit of suspended material
such as the styrofoam I suggested, and you-all seem to reject as
meaningless. A little imagination could be in order.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Joshua Cude  wrote:

> You've [Lomax] said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why
> can't the steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor?
> Your idea of a filled chimney with water "overflowing" makes no sense to me
> when you think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to
> get through this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
> This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to
> calculate fairly accurately, if we know the diameter of opening for the
> hose. As boiling point of water inside E-Cat is what is measured with the
> probe, then we can deduce the pressure inside E-Cat, because steam pressure
> contributes mostly for total pressure, because backpressure in the hose is
> essentially zero due to gravitational downhill (at least with Lewan's E-Cat
> where water went to the blue bucket at the floor.)
>
If the chimney is filled and overflowing, which you now think is the correct
analysis, then the water depth in the chimney can explain the elevated
boiling point.

We need some 600 wats for heating water inflow to boiling point. Then we can
> calculate how much power we need to increase pressure inside E-Cat to
> explain elevated boiling point. My gut feeling says that we need extra power
> some kilowatts, so there is clearly extra heat present. This clearly
> falsifies Krivit's criticism by one order of magnitude as he assumes that
> there is just few hundred wats for generating steam and elevating the
> pressure.
>
First, your gut feeling, especially if it is completely unsupported,
falsifies nothing. Second Krivit was not quantitative about the power he
thought the output steam represented. He was merely questioning the
conclusions because no evidence of steam dryness was provided, and claimed
that the liquid content of the steam could change the claimed excess heat by
*as much as* 2 orders of magnitude.

> To confirm this hypothesis on E-Cat, we should have strong correlation
> between alleged power output and measured boiling point (we have the same
> hose in all demonstrations). That is, because pressure is directly
> proportional to amount of generated steam.
>
I don't think that's true. With the chimney filled with water, the height
will produce an increase in the bp by a fraction of a degree. With pure
steam, the pressure required to get through the various fittings, expanders,
reducers, and elbows could cause a similar fraction of a degree increase in
the bp. What happens in between is pretty hard to predict, but the fact that
the temperature is very flat shows that from the very onset of boiling (at
600W) the pressure is pretty constant.

> Overall, I think that Rossi has adjusted the water inflow such a way that
> more than 60% of water goes through phase change.
>
This represents a major change in your thinking. Until yesterday, you
insisted that the output had to be at least 95% dry steam. Nothing else was
possible.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Rich Murray]

thermal electrochemical corrosion of the electric input power heating
resistor in the Rossi device: Rich Murray 2011.07.19
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.htm
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/90
[ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ]


https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?hl=en&shva=1#drafts/1311fbb2b67e473f

[Vo]: Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Vortex-L@eskimo.com discussion group

Thanks, Joshua Cude, for your clear, earnest interpretations.

What is known about the heating resistor -- manufacturer, shape, mass,
construction, electric conductors, insulating ceramics, exact
dimensions, location within the device, exact descriptions of the
electric power cables to it, exposure to water flow or H2 gas?

What are the exact dimensions, shapes, and composition of the device,
insulation, inlet, outlet, Pb shielding, Cu walls, stainless steel
walls, Ni micropowder, etc.?

I imagine that the catalyst is a real red herring, with no actual effects.

I imagine that the resistor ceramic is susceptible to cracking from
thermal stress due to uneven heating and cooling in space and time,
expansion of the conductors with increasing electric power and
resulting temperatures, and cooling at the resistor leads along the
thick electrical conductors.

These cracks open the devil's door within the witch's cauldron.  The
city water becomes rapidly more electrically conducting, as
evaporation at hot spots concentrates ordinary minerals as dissolved
ions, which readily plate out as ordinary boiler scale.  The network
of cracks evolves quickly, tending to grow as "trees" from each input
electrode end to the other, as the 230 volt AC becomes applied across
a smaller and smaller separation -- all of this, most likely, along
the surface of the resistor, where layers of print and enamel will
facilitate the initial cracking, where mineral ions from the input
water flow will keep increasing in concentration and thus increase the
electrical conductivity in complex positive feedback chaotic
processes.

The complex network of surface cracks causes the electrolysis of water
into H2 and O2 as nano to micro bubbles, free to recombine or to
combine with other chemicals anywhere in the water volume of the
device.

Recombination of H2 and O2 on the metal thermister or thermometer
could release local heat that would give misleading readings.

Meanwhile as temperature rises within the resistor, its metallic
conductors will respond with increasing resistance, while at the same
time the tree-like networks of conducting surface cracks are growing
in overall fractal volume and closer to each other, increasing the
effective available electric potential for their nano to micro scale
growing tips -- so more and more of the applied electric power will be
flowing into this network of rapidly growing, rapidly heating surface
nano to micro cracks -- thus heating the frothing water and leading to
complex hot flows of H2O gas, along with H2 and O2, which could result
in higher temperature readings for a thermometer that happens to be in
a hot spot in the device.

This surface electrochemical corrosion scenario could explain the
start of overall rise in measured water temperature with constant
input electric power at the 60-70 deg C level -- the input heating
resistor being  "O ring" weak point in the Rossi device.

Once conducting cracks directly link the two electrodes, shorting and
arcing will explode the resistor, perhaps subverting the ability of
the constant power electric supply to limit extreme transient flows,
while also releasing chemical energy from complex chemical reactions,
and also promply melting and disrupting the stainless steel container
and its 50 gm Ni micropowder, catalyst, and absorbed H gas, creating
explosive reactions among many chemicals.

This scenario may also apply as a conventional explanation for many
types of CF or LENR devices.

However, claims of transmutations, isotopic shifts, and radiations
have been made for similar processes in high voltage power cables.

So, it is possible that electrochemical corrosion can perhaps create
nano to micro scale reaction regions that sustain CF or LENR
anomalies.


self-organizing networks can develop simple test kits for metal
isotope anomalies in 'water tree' corrosion of thin polyethylene
films, re T Kumazawa 2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.03
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm
Friday, June 3, 2011
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/86
[ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ]


reactive gas micro and nano bubbles complicate Widom-Larsen theory re
electrolytic cells -- metal isotope anomalies in 'water tree'
corrosion of power cable polyethylene insulation, T Kumazawa et al
2005 -- 2008 Japan: Rich Murray 2011.06.02
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/20

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jouni Valkonen]

Abd ul-Rahman wrote: "My conclusion is that there is very likely *some*
overflow water, but it might be small. I have no way of telling how much
there is, the demonstrations were not set up to make it possible to tell."

This is probably correct analysis. I think that this is possible to
calculate fairly accurately, if we know the diameter of opening for the
hose. As boiling point of water inside E-Cat is what is measured with the
probe, then we can deduce the pressure inside E-Cat, because steam pressure
contributes mostly for total pressure, because backpressure in the hose is
essentially zero due to gravitational downhill (at least with Lewan's E-Cat
where water went to the blue bucket at the floor.)

We need some 600 wats for heating water inflow to boiling point. Then we can
calculate how much power we need to increase pressure inside E-Cat to
explain elevated boiling point. My gut feeling says that we need extra power
some kilowatts, so there is clearly extra heat present. This clearly
falsifies Krivit's criticism by one order of magnitude as he assumes that
there is just few hundred wats for generating steam and elevating the
pressure.

To confirm this hypothesis on E-Cat, we should have strong correlation
between alleged power output and measured boiling point (we have the same
hose in all demonstrations). That is, because pressure is directly
proportional to amount of generated steam.

Overall, I think that Rossi has adjusted the water inflow such a way that
more than 60% of water goes through phase change. Here I again refer to
Lewan's famous blue bucket and estimation that condensation is quite
significant, because steam keeps water in the bucket at 99.9°C for a 3
hours, so lots of cooling will occur there during the test.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

>
> Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam
> easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. And the
> question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support a whole person
> with air flow, all you have to do is get the air flow running at roughly 90
> mph, i.e., "terminal velocity." So?


Well, he did say float it over a pot of boiling water, in which case the
steam flows upward. He didn't mention buoyancy, and "floating" can be used
to describe a person supported with air flow. In fact, the ping pong ball
demo is usually called the "floating ping pong ball". "Floating" is
routinely used to describe astronauts floating weightless, which has nothing
to do with buoyancy. But I have no idea of the relevance of any of this to
the ecat.


>> You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't
>> the steam be wet;
>>
>
> The steam is wet. that's why the question is a red herring! It's wet, but
> *probably* not "very wet," i.e., enough to have a major impact on energy
> calculations.


What I meant was, why shouldn't it be very wet?


> The E-cat starts with water running through, the entire pumped flow is
> running out the hose. It's turned on and the water starts to heat. What
> happens? First of all, what's happening before boiling starts? Here is my
> thinking: water is at the level of the opening to the outlet hose, so it is
> spilling into the hose. There is air above the water, initially. The opening
> to the hose never fills entirely with water. Rather water runs out in a
> trickle matching the pump rate, runs down into the hose, and accumulates
> there until it reaches the drain level, and then it runs out the drain. If
> siphoning doesn't occur, this will be, steady state, water running down into
> the hose, and the same rate of water flowing out the drain. There is air
> space remaining, all the way down into the hose to the level of the drain.
> Below that there is water.
>
> When steam generation starts, pressure will develop in the E-cat and the
> hose, steam will start to flow out above the water.


Stop there. The steam is formed in the ecat. It has to get through a small
diameter pipe and then the chimney which is (initially) filled with water.
The steam takes up much more volume than the water. As it passes through the
water, there will be violent churning. If the steam occupies more volume
than the water, you no longer have a chimney filled with water. If the steam
occupies 10 or 100 times the volume, then the picture of a chimney filled
with water and the water trickling into the hose just doesn't fit.


> Water will continue to flow out the drain as before, reduced in volume by
> whatever water has boiled. The water vapor from boiling will be ordinary
> steam. If it's frothy, that's from turbulence inside. I rather doubt it's
> frothy, as such. Rather, this is steam bubbling up from the cooling chamber
> through water to the level of the outlet hose opening. It then escapes above
> the flowing liquid water. The water level will drop below the outlet opening
> only if the input flow is below the steam generation rate.


It's this bubbling that bothers me. Bubbling somehow refers to the gas
rising, governed by buoyancy. But that simply isn't fast enough to get the
steam out in time. The volume of steam is probably more than 10 times that
of the water. Depending on how much faster it moves than the water, it will
in fact occupy a much larger fraction of the chimney volume than the water.
When the gas volume exceeds the liquid volume by an appreciable amount, I
don't think you can call that bubbling any more. The bubbles will merge
leaving liquid bubbles (droplets) within the mainly gaseous flow, as well as
some liquid along the walls. I think this sort of volume of steam will
basically push everything in front of it through as a mist or aside against
the walls, and the turbulence will form some kind of very wet steam. The
literature on 2-phase flow is pretty clear on what you get when you force
two phases through a conduit of known diameter. The problem is we don't know
the conduit diameter, or if the chimney has a nozzle, or a coil of small
diameter tube, which will produce a mist. There is a real benefit to Rossi
in producing entrained mist in the ecat, because it will be easily mistaken
for steam, and it will not be collected as a liquid if anyone happens to
examine the output.

The steam is "wet" because steam generated from boiling like this is
> practically always wet unless special devices are used to separate the water
> from the vapor. So there are three outflows: liquid water, as a mass of
> water, flowing as water, water vapor, and entrained liquid water as mist.
>

Right, but in ordinary boiling, the entrained mist comes from what really is
bubbles formed near the element rising due to buoyancy and breaking at the
surface in a volume of water m

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 05:42 PM 7/19/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:


Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see 
if it will float over a boiling pot of water.



Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, 
because it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of 
boiling water will probably be well under 5% wet.



But the steam has upward momentum. Enough power in the pot with the 
steam going through a small enough hole, and you could float 
styrofoam. You can float a ping pong ball with a hair drier, and it 
is more dense than air. (It doesn't even have to be vertical, thanks 
to Bernoulli.) [And no, I'm not saying the principle only existed 
after he identified it.]


Sure, if you sufficiently obstruct the flow, you could lift styrofoam 
easily. I was referring to a *piece* of styrofoam, presumably small. 
And the question was about bouyancy, not about flow. You can support 
a whole person with air flow, all you have to do is get the air flow 
running at roughly 90 mph, i.e., "terminal velocity." So?


Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I 
don't. I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet, 
by mass percentage, it's a huge red herring,



You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why 
can't the steam be wet;


The steam is wet. that's why the question is a red herring! It's wet, 
but *probably* not "very wet," i.e., enough to have a major impact on 
energy calculations.



 i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor?


Wet steam is the norm, unless special measures are employed to stop 
that. It's not necessarily easy, and Rossi had no motive to even try.


Your idea of a filled chimney with water "overflowing" makes no 
sense to me when you think that steam many times more voluminous 
and/or faster has to get through this standing water. Lazily 
bubbling through would not cut it.


Okay, Joshua, apparently I need to explain this to you, too.

The E-cat starts with water running through, the entire pumped flow 
is running out the hose. It's turned on and the water starts to heat. 
What happens? First of all, what's happening before boiling starts? 
Here is my thinking: water is at the level of the opening to the 
outlet hose, so it is spilling into the hose. There is air above the 
water, initially. The opening to the hose never fills entirely with 
water. Rather water runs out in a trickle matching the pump rate, 
runs down into the hose, and accumulates there until it reaches the 
drain level, and then it runs out the drain. If siphoning doesn't 
occur, this will be, steady state, water running down into the hose, 
and the same rate of water flowing out the drain. There is air space 
remaining, all the way down into the hose to the level of the drain. 
Below that there is water.


When steam generation starts, pressure will develop in the E-cat and 
the hose, steam will start to flow out above the water. This pressure 
will force the water in the hose out. Steam will be cooled in the 
hose, though, and the water accumulated in the hose may be a bit 
cooler than boiling. Some amount of steam, however, will bubble up 
through water in the end of the hose at the drain. The exact balance 
is very difficult to predict, the exact behavior.


However, what we will have at the E-Cat end is quite simple, as long 
as the flow rate isn't so low that the E-Cat boils away more than is coming in.


Water will continue to flow out the drain as before, reduced in 
volume by whatever water has boiled. The water vapor from boiling 
will be ordinary steam. If it's frothy, that's from turbulence 
inside. I rather doubt it's frothy, as such. Rather, this is steam 
bubbling up from the cooling chamber through water to the level of 
the outlet hose opening. It then escapes above the flowing liquid 
water. The water level will drop below the outlet opening only if the 
input flow is below the steam generation rate.


The steam is "wet" because steam generated from boiling like this is 
practically always wet unless special devices are used to separate 
the water from the vapor. So there are three outflows: liquid water, 
as a mass of water, flowing as water, water vapor, and entrained 
liquid water as mist.


All of these are at the same temperature as they leave the E-Cat. 
That's the characteristic temperature of boiling water, at the 
pressure present inside.


At any point here, once boiling is established, open the steam valve 
at the top of the chimney, and what do you see? You see steam, quite 
possibly "live" as to what it looks like. (That is, very low mist 
content, so it's quite invisible until it cools from air contact.)


If you drain the hose and look at the end, held up, you will see mist 
and maybe some live steam coming out, depending on the cooling that's 
taking place in the host itself

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 04:55 PM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the 
wet steam hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was "a 
red herring", and the water was simply flowing through it.

Then you turn up using the same phrase.


I've been using it for some time. I'm not looking back, though. What 
I see is that the issue of steam quality "successfully" distracted a 
lot of people.


Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, 
all set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow 
this story wide open. Are you helping him?


If he reads my stuff, he might get some ideas that will help him, but 
historically, he's been pretty upset by what I write, since I've 
criticised his "journalism." Long story. Krivit does what he does, 
he's good at certain things, not so good at others.


Most of us are like that, right? 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
wrote:

>
>  Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it
>> will float over a boiling pot of water.
>>
>
> Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, because
> it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of boiling water will
> probably be well under 5% wet.
>

But the steam has upward momentum. Enough power in the pot with the steam
going through a small enough hole, and you could float styrofoam. You can
float a ping pong ball with a hair drier, and it is more dense than air. (It
doesn't even have to be vertical, thanks to Bernoulli.) [And no, I'm not
saying the principle only existed after he identified it.]

>
> Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I don't.
> I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet, by mass
> percentage, it's a huge red herring,


You've said this several times. But you have not supported it. Why can't the
steam be wet; i.e. a mist of droplets entrained in water vapor? Your idea of
a filled chimney with water "overflowing" makes no sense to me when you
think that steam many times more voluminous and/or faster has to get through
this standing water. Lazily bubbling through would not cut it.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
> I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot
> of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around
> pretty quickly.
>

There are gradients in pure water, sure. Always below or at the bp. There
are also gradients in pure dry steam. Always at or above the bp. But there
are no temperature gradients in a mixture of steam and liquid water, as long
as there are no pressure gradients. A homogenous mixture (smallish drops)
will be at the boiling point, and such a mixture is to be expected when you
produce a gas orders of magnitude more voluminous than the liquid in a
confined volume.

>
> I meant only that when it is fulling up, the cold water cools it somewhat,
> but when it is full, not only does the cold water cool it, but a nearly
> equal volume of hot water leaves.
>

And when it is boiling an equal mass of steam leaves.



> If flow rate is 5 ml/s, it is as if you add 5 ml of cold water and then
> remove another 5 ml of hot. Perhaps this does not make much difference,
> depending on the total volume.
>

It's the power balance. It's how Rossi and you and everyone else calculates
the power. The rate of cold coming in, hot water and/or steam going out. At
the bp, a slight change in power is simply accommodated by a change in the
ratio of steam and water.

>
> Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he
> is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he
> turns up the power.
>

Pretty sure he is dishonest then. Because he certainly claims not to in all
but the January demo. If we both agree he's dishonest, then there is no
reason to believe he has invented a cold fusion device.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

In my more-or-less last communication with Krivit, I told him the wet steam
hypothesis, inspired by an abused humidity meter, was "a red herring", and
the water was simply flowing through it.
Then you turn up using the same phrase.

Krivit has his wall of shame on his blog--a trophie wall of photos, all
set-up and ready to go in the hopes he will be the one to blow this story
wide open. Are you helping him?
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
>
>> Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:24 AM 7/19/2011, Damon Craig wrote:

Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax.


Arrggh. Classified with Krivit! Ah, well, even a stopped clock is 
right twice a day. This is once for me, I still get to be right once more




Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water 
vapor? Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look 
stupid, doesn't it?


Depends on the "steam quality." On dry steam, of course not, the 
density is too low. But 100% wet steam is, in fact, pure liquid 
water, so a cork would float on it. Very wet steam, though, probably 
isn't stable, the water droplets will coalesce and fall. There is a 
semantic issue here


Next stupid question?

Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see 
if it will float over a boiling pot of water.


Extra question answered, free of charge. I won't bother trying it, 
because it won't float, because the steam coming off a pot of boiling 
water will probably be well under 5% wet.


Craig seems to think that I consider wet steam a big problem here. I 
don't. I think the steam is probably no more than a few percent wet, 
by mass percentage, it's a huge red herring, Krivit fell for this. 
The elephant in the living room is overflow water, which will be at 
the boiling point, but which will not have vaporized, leading to a 
miscalculation of power on the idea that this water was vaporized, 
when it wasn't.




Rossi's steam is very dry by the wet-steam-argument standards.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
<a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. 
Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I 
am pretty sure he turns up the power.



How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the 
temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases.


Did Craig's questions relate somehow to the response he quoted? 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Damon Craig]

Here's a bone for you and Krivit, Lomax.

Do you believe a cork will float on stream saturated with water vapor?
Thinking about it sorta makes the saturated steam theory look stupid,
doesn't it?

Why don't you find a piece of cheap, light styrofoam packing and see if it
will float over a boiling pot of water.

Rossi's steam is very dry by the wet-steam-argument standards.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he
>> is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he
>> turns up the power.
>>
>
> How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the
> temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases.
>

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:29 PM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. 
Maybe he is trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I 
am pretty sure he turns up the power.


How does he know when it overflows? You've been assuming that the 
temperature will drop. No. Not unless boiling ceases. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be
> cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat,
> with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet.
>
> Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this be
> the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool flowing water
> as you claim?


I expect it is well mixed from the heat alone. There are gradients in a pot
of hot water and it is hot near the bottom, but the water moves around
pretty quickly. That is one of the things I observed calibrating the
thermocouples the other day. There are larger gradients in ice slurry,
unless you vigorously stir it.



> When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam
>> (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you
>> can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This
>> is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a
>> constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that.
>>
>
> Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you
> talking about?


I meant only that when it is fulling up, the cold water cools it somewhat,
but when it is full, not only does the cold water cool it, but a nearly
equal volume of hot water leaves. If flow rate is 5 ml/s, it is as if you
add 5 ml of cold water and then remove another 5 ml of hot. Perhaps this
does not make much difference, depending on the total volume.



> Further, we have no evidence that power is "increased or decreased" in the
> later demos.


Well, Rossi is changing the power when he twiddles the controls. Maybe he is
trying to keep it stable. But anyway if it overflows I am pretty sure he
turns up the power.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:46 AM 7/18/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* 
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in 
the E-Cat will rise.

Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point.


That's an error, I'm sure. Raise water to the boiling point. It does 
not vaporize. To vaporize it requires additional energy. Okay, okay, 
some water will vaporize below boiling, but it carries away heat as 
if it were boiling.


Two issues are being mixed here.

Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this 
water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in 
temperature will occur.


No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and 
it wouldn't be.


So, I have boiling water in the E-Cat, under some level of back 
pressure because the steam must escape through the hose. You are 
saying that the water in the E-Cat is cooler than the steam? How does 
that happen?



Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over 
a considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As 
long as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to 
the boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low 
enough that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same.


It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the 
boiling water which flows out.


Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would 
obviously be cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature 
gradient in the E-Cat, with cooler water near the inlet and hotter 
water near the outlet.


Only water rising to the outlet pipe would flow out. So wouldn't this 
be the hottest water in there? What would cool it to produce cool 
flowing water as you claim?


As  you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold it right at the 
knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep it 
boiling while hot water flows out.


When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with 
steam (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work 
with and you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise 
the water level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When 
it is overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, 
you can't do that.


Jed, there is a constant stream of cold water coming in, what are you 
talking about? Further, we have no evidence that power is "increased 
or decreased" in the later demos. It was changed in the January demo, 
it seems. There is no way of observing the water level in the E-Cat, 
to determine how much to increase it or decrease it. In the Kullander 
and Essen demo, the temperature increases until it hits boiling and 
it's nailed there. No feedback is possible on that temperature. If it 
happened later, great. But we weren't provided with that data.


This is the result you see in the data from several of the 
high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The 
temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is overflowing.


Is the temperature constant there? "Overflowing" can cover a range of 
conditions, there would be overflow with boiling and overflow without 
boiling. If an experiment is controlled to keep the temperature "just 
below boiling," that could easily be done, with feedback from the 
coolant temperature. That's not done here, but that only means that 
the experiment has been taking into the "boiling" range. Not that it 
has gone to dry steam. With dry steam, no overflow, the temperature 
would again start to increase unless somehow the chamber is kept full 
to the same level. By mysterious means.


Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you 
insist on doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also 
better to increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some 
occasions. These other tests prove that the steam tests were right, 
as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi said.


We agree that increased flow rate, no boiling, is clearer. In that 
case, we don't have much of an issue with vapor/liquid ratio.


Given that a huge issue with Rossi is the *level* of the results, the 
deficiencies in the demonstrations are quite important. I've pointed 
out that, in the extreme, the deficiencies could erase the apparent 
excess heat. I'm not claiming that this is likely, but that it's 
possible; it might take more than one artifact. Or more than one fraud.


At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is 
better in many ways.


Seems better to me.

Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run 
in heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the 
input power for "a while." I asked him how long is a while? How many 
minutes and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It 
is a shame he did not use a video camera or wri

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>  Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* full
>> vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the E-Cat will
>> rise.
>>
> Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point.
>
>
>
>  Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this water?
>> It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in temperature will
>> occur.
>>
>
> No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it
> wouldn't be.
>
>
>  Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a
>> considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long as the
>> chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the boiling point of
>> water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough that *some water boils*,
>> the temperature will remain the same.
>>
>
> It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the boiling
> water which flows out. As  you yourself say, it would be impossible to hold
> it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with just enough heat to keep
> it boiling while hot water flows out.
>

> When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam
> (like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and you
> can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water level. This
> is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is overflowing with a
> constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do that.
>
> This is the result you see in the data from several of the high-temperature
> flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The temperature tends to hang
> around just below boiling, because it is overflowing.
>
> Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on
> doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to increase
> the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These other tests
> prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as Rossi and Levi
> said.
>


I don't even think you believe the nonsense you write. You just spew words
that sound sorta right so that you can make a pretence of continuing to
support the unsupportable. Then you put your fingers in your ears when
people (on your side) try to set you straight. Anything between 600W and 5
kW (for Krivit's ecat) produces a mixture of steam and boiling water at the
boiling point.  That's not a knife edge. What you (pretend to) claim -- that
it is all boiled all the time giving a completely stable power output --
*that's* a knife edge. This is really so basic and simple, that I don't
believe an accomplished person such as yourself, doesn't understand it. It
must be a pretence.



>
> At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better in
> many ways.
>

Unfortunately all the better tests are hidden from the public.


 Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in heat
> after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input power for
> "a while."


That's not heat after death; that's thermal mass. Say it takes 300C in the
ecat to just boil the water, and 1500C to boil all the water. At any
temperature in between the output is gonna be at the boiling point. Then if
you goose it for a while to bring the temp up to 400C or so, it will take a
little while to cool off to 300. And in that time the temperature will stay
at the boiling point. Simple.




> I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes and seconds? He did not
> know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame he did not use a video
> camera or write down the duration. It is hard to estimate, but I think
> boiling should have stopped, and the temperature should have fallen rapidly
> after a minute or so. I say this because the specific heat of iron and
> copper is about 10 times lower than water so there is not much thermal mass,
> and an immense amount of energy is removed by boiling.


Look at how slow it heats up in the early stage, and how slow it cools off
(below  boiling) in the January demo to get an idea of the thermal mass.

The temperature range while the temperature is at boiling point is much
larger than the 80C or so in the heating up and cooling off phases. So, the
time to cool off could easily be longer (up to 7 times longer) depending on
how close to complete vaporization you start at. So this "heat after death"
proves nothing.


> Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on a gas stove.
>

Not so quickly with an electric stove though.


>
> If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would be
> proof of anomalous heat.


Not a chance. That's a fraction of the time it takes to cool from boiling to
ambient. So the power would have to start from much less than double the
boiling onset power, and still far away from complete vaporization to
explain it with therma

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* 
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the 
E-Cat will rise.

Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point.


Eventually, some will spill out. What is the temperature of this 
water? It's the same temperature as the vapor before! No change in 
temperature will occur.


No, is it significantly cooler, unless it is boiling vigorously, and it 
wouldn't be.


Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a 
considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long 
as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the 
boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough 
that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same.


It would cool because cold water would be coming in replacing the 
boiling water which flows out. As  you yourself say, it would be 
impossible to hold it right at the knife edge just above boiling, with 
just enough heat to keep it boiling while hot water flows out.


When you have boiling water inside plus some headspace filled with steam 
(like a mostly-full teapot), then you have some space to work with and 
you can increase or decrease the power to lower or raise the water 
level. This is what you do when boiling vegetables. When it is 
overflowing with a constant stream of cold water coming in, you can't do 
that.


This is the result you see in the data from several of the 
high-temperature flow calorimeters used in Italian experiments. The 
temperature tends to hang around just below boiling, because it is 
overflowing.


Close-to-boiling is a difficult domain for calorimetry. If you insist on 
doing this, I recommend reflux calorimetry. It is also better to 
increase the flow rate, which Rossi has done on some occasions. These 
other tests prove that the steam tests were right, as I said -- and as 
Rossi and Levi said.


At Defkalion they leave it in liquid state at all times, which is better 
in many ways.


Another certain technique is to turn off the power and have it run in 
heat after death. Julian Brown reported that Rossi turned off the input 
power for "a while." I asked him how long is a while? How many minutes 
and seconds? He did not know, but he estimated 2 minutes. It is a shame 
he did not use a video camera or write down the duration. It is hard to 
estimate, but I think boiling should have stopped, and the temperature 
should have fallen rapidly after a minute or so. I say this because the 
specific heat of iron and copper is about 10 times lower than water so 
there is not much thermal mass, and an immense amount of energy is 
removed by boiling. Boiling stops quickly when you turn off the flame on 
a gas stove.


If it continues boiling for 5 minutes without input I am sure that would 
be proof of anomalous heat. I did a test boiling 2 L of water the other 
day in a pot with a glass cover and a K-type thermocouple. Less than a 
minute after cutting off the heat the boiling stopped, and 5 min. later 
the water temperature was down several degrees and the headspace down ~5 
deg C. That was the case even though the metal pot was pretty heavy and 
of course much hotter than boiling temperature.


It is a shame Brown did not observe heat after death for 5 or 10 minutes.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Joshua Cude  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>>
>> I do not argue with ghosts.
>
> I don't blame you, after the pathetic "wet steam is not possible" salvo.

Ah yes, those ghosts which grab splashy droplets and lift them out of
the reactor.  Indeed, what spiritual thermodynamics!

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:24 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:

>
> I do not argue with ghosts.


I don't blame you, after the pathetic "wet steam is not possible" salvo.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

>
>> Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very
>> carefully.
>
>
> No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people
> quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense.
>

I prefer it that way. I certainly don't write for your benefit, and it
allows me to counter your nonsense with my blather without getting into long
drawn-out blather contests.

>
>
> From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
>>> demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
>>> maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, he adjusts the power.
>>>
>>
>> See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an "out."
>
>
> Anything is "conceivable" but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother
> worrying about it.
>

You just suggested he adjusts the power, and in all but the January demo, he
claims it's constant. He's clearly being dishonest if he is doing as you
claim he is.

>
> So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud
> have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of
> vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct:
>
> "This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not
> produce wet
> steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry
> steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is
> very simple and very basic physics."
>

Ah yes, the forbidden power region theory. You should submit that to the
Nobel committee. The ecat cannot possibly produce 2 kW of power, even in
passing, because then the output would have to be a mixture of steam and
water, and that's impossible, because cooking pasta produces dry steam.



> However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to
>> reach, from an engineering perspective . . .
>
>
> Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on
> the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming
> through, and the temperature drops several degrees.
>

So, it goes from 5 kW (complete vaporization) to 600 W (below boiling) in a
heartbeat. Some trick, that!


> What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum
>> power.
>
>
> Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam
> which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating
> because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it
> goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water.
>

Once the ecat outer walls reach constant temperature (during the power up
phase), the power only goes in to keeping them hot, which is to counter
whatever is lost through the insulation; not much by the way he is touching
it.


>
> Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at
> location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure
> is negligible with this device.
>

Some pressure is necessary to produce flow, and for the vertical part of the
ecat. That's enough to explain the higher bp. The perfectly flat temperature
is far better evidence that it is at the bp, than the absolute measurements
of temperature and pressure.



>  As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's all
> you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The temperature,
> atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device guarantee that nearly all
> the water was vaporized.
>

You're taking your physics from someone who learned it cooking pasta?



> I have already said far too much on this subject.
>

And so much of it is completely wrong.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

>
> Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test
> apply to another.



No. I'm objecting to Rothwell making exactly that assumption.

I have no problem with Rothwell arguing that the 18-hour test proves the
ecat works. If the numbers are true, it does seem like compelling evidence.
But he has used the 18-hour test to claim it proves the January demo worked.
That's my objection. It proves no such thing.


> Even if device characteristics were not different, to make the device
> operate with high flow rate would take presumably higher reactor power
> input, otherwise the reactor temperature would lower, underr reasonable
> assumptions.


Exactly. So, if the conditions are different, the power is different. So, it
doesn't prove anything about the January test.

But by the way, if it is the same ecat, and being cooled more effectively,
and having lower input power, how exactly would it run with higher power?

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:54 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is 
difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective . . .



Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an 
eye on the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling 
water coming through, and the temperature drops several degrees. It 
would not be close to boiling if the flow is too fast for it to boil.


Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost* 
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in 
the E-Cat will rise. Eventually, some will spill out. What is the 
temperature of this water? It's the same temperature as the vapor 
before! No change in temperature will occur.


Basically, if there is constant heat, flow rate can be varied over a 
considerable range and the temperature will remain constant. As long 
as the chamber doesn't run dry, temperature will be nailed to the 
boiling point of water. And as long as the flow rate is low enough 
that *some water boils*, the temperature will remain the same.


Jed, this is about the umpteenth time I've repeated this, and others 
have repeated it as well. Boiling water regulates temperature, very 
well. The temperature of boiling water doesn't change no matter how 
fast I boil, it, as long as there is still water!




i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's report that guarantees that all 
that water was vaporized.



Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg 
C at location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure is 
negligible with this device.


If this were true, Jed, then we'd not see exact regulation of the 
temperature. Oddly, in one of the tests we do see temperature rise 
above 100 a bit erratically. In that test, the outlet hose was 
immersed in water, this could have created more back pressure


As Valkonen points out, and as any elementary textbook shows, that's 
all you need to know. Rossi is quite right about that. The 
temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the device 
guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. People who do not 
understand elementary physics will not agree, but they are wrong.


I have already said far too much on this subject.


That's correct. Jed, you shown enough to demonstrate that, for some 
very odd reason, difficult for me to understand except that I know 
this can happen to people when they are distracted, you don't 
"understand elementary physics," because you are making statement 
after statement that appears to contradict elementary physics, such 
as this idea that if there is overflow water, the temperature of the 
E-cat will drop.


Why would it drop? After all, water at boiling will carry away less 
heat than steam at boiling.


In fact, the temperature will remain constant, until and unless there 
is so much water flowing through that the heating can't raise it all 
to boiling temperature. In the overflow scenarious I've described, 
all the water is heating to the boiling point, but beause the heat 
isn't quite enough to boil it all, some (eventually) overflows. 
That's minimum overflow. It could actually be almost full overflow, 
the entire water flow pouring out the hose, and as long as the 
temperature were raised to the boiling point with just a smidgen more 
heat, the temperature in the chimney would still be boiling, for the 
pressure inside. (Notice that if there is overflow, the temperature 
probe would be immersed in liquid water. You can't tell from 
temperature if you are in water or in steam at equilibrium with 
water. If there is any boiling at all, the water and the steam will 
be at the same temperature.


The idea that the steam was hotter than boiling and was therefore dry 
is based on an idea that the water is all being boiled as soon as it 
enters the E-Cat cooling chamber, i.e., the chamber is at higher than 
boiling temperature. Such a temperature would be very difficult to 
control, it would rise substantially above boiling, not just a 
fraction of a degree The very stable temperature seen in most of 
the plots is a sure sign that this is wet steam or steam and water in 
equilibrium.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:

>> Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very
>> carefully.
>
> No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people
> quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense.


ROFL!  Same here.  Blithering idiocracy from someone who is too
chickenship to post with his true identity.  WTF scares him?  The
truth?

I do not argue with ghosts.

T

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jed Rothwell]

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax  wrote:


> Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test
> apply to another.


He is. Partly my fault, since I quoted 17 kW without specifying which test I
meant. People should look here for the numbers:

http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm



> Cude is correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed.
>

No, he is wrong. It was not assumed, it was measured by several methods,
such as keeping an eye on the weight scale. I do not know about the Krivit
demonstration but in other tests people made sure the flow rate was
constant.


Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very
> carefully.


No can do. He is in my kill file. I only see snippets when other people
quote him. Life is too short to read such blather and nonsense.


>From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
>> demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
>> maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core.
>>
>>
>> No, he adjusts the power.
>>
>
> See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an "out."


Anything is "conceivable" but fraud is so unlikely I am not going to bother
worrying about it.

Levi et al. spent a month working with this device. I think the only way it
could be fraudulent would be if they are in cahoots with him, and they are
hiding the fact that he adjusts the flow rate or there is a hidden wire, or
something like that. I do not think they could overlook this, because if it
were me there instead of them, I would *instantly* notice if Rossi changed
the flow rate. Perhaps they are monumentally stupid and he has fooled them.

I have no means of detecting fraud if Levi et al. are taking part in it. In
that scenario, they might have invented the Feb. 10 test out of whole cloth
-- it might be a complete lie. The assertion that this might be fraud is not
easily falsifiable at present. But it will soon be resolved one way or the
other. If this is fraud, Defkalion is also committing fraud; their factory
will never open; and a year from now we will know they are liars. Also, if
it is fraud, people such as Brian Ahern who think they have seen anomalous
heat from Rossi-type cells must be wrong, and eventually they will report
their mistake. I do not think it is possible that Rossi is committing fraud
yet by some fantastic coincidence people who replicate him get real
results. So fraud will be revealed soon, and there is no point to
speculating about it or worrying about it.

So far, all of the reasons presented here that supposedly point to fraud
have been blather, along with all of the reasons to dispute the heat of
vaporization of water. Jouni Valkonen is 100% correct:

"This is nonsensical speculation. . . . And we know that tea pots do not
produce wet
steam. It is very safe conclusion to make that E-Cat produces 95-99% dry
steam. That means that energy calculations are accurate up to 95%. This is
very simple and very basic physics."


However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is difficult to
> reach, from an engineering perspective . . .


Naa. It is a piece of cake. Just listen to the boiling and keep an eye on
the temperature. As soon as it overflows you have non-boiling water coming
through, and the temperature drops several degrees. It would not be close to
boiling if the flow is too fast for it to boil.


What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be maximum
> power.


Sure. Of course that is what he is reporting. He is assuming 100% dry steam
which is an over-estimate. On the other hand, he is severely underestimating
because he only takes into account heat that reaches the water. A lot of it
goes to heat the eCat outer walls and room air, rather than the water.


Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound
> doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't change,
> because there could be valving or obstruction within the E-Cat. These pumps
> are designed for constant flow, but they cannot maintain it if flow is
> obstructed.


Actually, this particular type of pump is pretty good at maintaining a
steady flow against different pressures. Better than peristaltic pump.
Anyway, they used a weight scale as flowmeter in the steam tests, and a
flowmeter-flowmeter in the liquid flow tests, so there is no question about
the flow rate and the fact that it was steady. No need to consider that.


i.e., there is nothing about Lewan's report that guarantees that all that
> water was vaporized.
>

Nothing except the facts that Lewan reported: water boils at 99 deg C at
location, and the outlet was hotter than that. Back pressure
is negligible with this device. As Valkonen points out, and as any
elementary textbook shows, that's all you need to know. Rossi is quite right
about that. The temperature, atmospheric pressure and the shape of the
device guarantee that nearly all the water was vaporized. People who do not
un

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:13 PM 7/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Joshua apparently wrote:

> Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
> Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
> his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
> the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
> at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
> the temperature of the steam substantially.


This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of 
water converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 
atm. Therefore, the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the 
water to boiling plus what it takes to vaporize it. In the January 
14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes 
to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per second. 17 kW was how much 
they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test, during most of the test.


The displacement pump was used in the steam tests but not the Feb. 
10 liquid water test. I believe you set that pump to whatever speed 
you want, up to some limit.


Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one 
test apply to another. Even if device characteristics were not 
different, to make the device operate with high flow rate would take 
presumably higher reactor power input, otherwise the reactor 
temperature would lower, underr reasonable assumptions. Cude is 
correct about constant flow rate, though, as being assumed.


On the other hand, Cude's statement is true, as stated. if 12 kW was 
equilibrium, such that water was being neither boiled away nor 
running over, 17 kW would have rapidly boiled away all the water, if 
the flow rate remained the same, so that any new water coming in 
would be flash vaporized, because the whole cooling chamber would 
increase in temperature above boiling, and the steam would increase 
above boiling as well.


Jed, it's important to read statements from critics like Cude very 
carefully. You can be trapped into rejecting what's true, and it will 
make you look foolish. I make mistakes like that from time to time, 
and the only remedy I know is prompt admission, yes, I screwed up.


OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
<orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:


The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a 
seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... 
and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab 
would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a 
wall because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting 
each and every


single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the 
same degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined 
to do when exploring uncharted territory.



That is what I have heard about him.


From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core.


No, he adjusts the power.


See, Jed, that could also be fraudulent, though there is an "out." 
Basically, in the January demo, #2, in what has been published, I see 
adjustment of the power, turn-on and turn-off of the heater, as I 
recall. My sense is that the controller is designed to respond to a 
temperature sensor that reports reactor chamber temperature to the 
controller, and that it then turns the heater on and off, and it 
might adjust the current to a temperature to create steady state 
conditions, i.e., "just right."


However, "just right" in terms of exact full vaporization is 
difficult to reach, from an engineering perspective, unless there is 
also feedback reporting to the controller from the cooling chamber, 
such as a level sensor, or perhaps temperature. If temperature of the 
cooling chamber were being used, though, we would probably see the 
operation of the feedback loop, with cycling of the chamber temperature.


What has been reported and used in calculations, then, would be 
maximum power. Rossi may think it unimportant that the maximum power 
figure is being used, rather than true input.


Or, remember, maybe he's blowing smoke instead of steam. Jed, I have 
no fixed opinion on that. All I've noted is that the demonstrations 
don't show what they purported to show, because of incomplete 
observation and/or reporting.


 He did not change the flow rate in any test. You can tell the flow 
rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump is at the 
same rate the whole time. You can tell they measured the flow 
correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable method.


Jed, you really are not paying attention. If it's true that the sound 
doesn't change, that doesn't guarantee that the flow rate doesn't 
change, because there could be valving or obstruction within the 
E-Cat. These pumps are designed for constant flow, but they cannot 
m

RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Jed:

> No, he adjusts the power.

Same thing then. The key point being Rossi was constantly monitoring and
manually adjusting the power according to current conditions.
(Seat-of-the-pants adjusting, that is.) 100.1 C steam output could then
still be possible without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

>From Abd:

> If he wants us to believe him, he'd behave differently,
> I suggest; therefore I conclude that he doesn't care if
> we believe him, and he may even be pleased that he's
> being so broadly rejected. If he were a simple scammer,
> by the way, he'd not behave this way, most likely.

Yup. Keep'em guessin. Meanwhile, keep smoozing with all your financial
backers behind closed doors. Get all your ducks lined up.

* * *

FWIW: My current speculation on Rossi is that, yes, he probably has stumbled
across a breakthrough. (Well... I hope so.) However, it would not surprise
me if we eventually discover the fact that as history writes the book on
this account we learn that the predictability of generating the "Rossi
Effect" was still uncomfortably iffy at times. Granted, Rossi may still be
light years ahead of all the competition, including BLP. But the speculated
unpredictability for which I am proposing here may still have been just
enough to cause problems in the design, engineering, and ultimate
commercialization of his eCat modules. It still would not surprise me unduly
if Defkalion misses their highly anticipated October dog and pony show. I'm
willing to wait a reasonable amount of time - to let the fix the bugs.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:10 PM 7/17/2011, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:

From Joshua:

>> OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson;

>> My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the
>> volume of water entering the reactor core could vary.

> Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
> Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
> his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
> the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
> at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
> the temperature of the steam substantially.

Again, I suspect my original premise would indeed be mistaken if the inflow
of water always remained fixed throughout the January demo. So far, no one
on this list seems to have felt motivated enough to either verify or falsify
if this really was the case.


Rossi has frequently made calculations that assume constant water 
flow. If he knows that the flow is not constant, that would be 
deceptive. But he has not stated how the flow he selects is chosen.


The observers who checked water flow likewise seem to assume constant 
flow, they seem to have checked it once. If the sound of the pump is 
constant, a certain noise being made every pump cycle, it could be 
reasily assumed that flow is constant, but the problem with possible 
valving in the E-Cat, or possible partial obstruction that wouldn't 
be blown away by the pump pressure (limited to 3 atm?), reducing 
flow, isn't addressed.


It would be easy to do, but would require modifying the way the 
water/steam leaves the E-Cat. Long hose <> good calorimetry. 
Verification of steam quality and lack of liquid water overflow, 
close to the chimney, far better. Or other measures, as suggested by Jed.



The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a
seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and
intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would
possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because
he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every
single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree
that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring
uncharted territory.


Those habits exist for a reason. Patent issues, for example. To each 
his own, though.



From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. He might have
performed adjustments based on an intuitive feel as to how the reactor core
is currently behaving . He's probably very familiar with how the contraption
behaves under a number of circumstances. Well... let me put it this way. If
I were Rossi, that's what I might have done. The point being *IF* one
accepts the possibility that Rossi's eCats do indeed generate a lot of
excess heat one would realize that it would be very bad for the "engine" to
run out of radiator fluid in the middle of a demonstration. You would then
end up with a seized up totally destroyed engine... or in Rossi's case a
potential melt down, and irrevocable permanent damage to the reactor core.
Regardless of whether one wants to believe such accounts are true or not, we
have been told by Rossi that there have been meltdowns in the past as he was
trying to figure out the right recipe.


Sure. However, if he's adjusting the water flow, he's either being 
deliberately deceptive or allowing blatant errors to pass by. 
Remember, he's got no obligation, at all, to not be deceptive, until 
and unless he's selling something where he's decieved the buyer. We 
are accustomed to, in the field of cold fusion, with scientists, who, 
we assume, adhere to standards of scientific ethics. Rossi isn't a 
scientist and he has no such obligation, no matter how much some of 
us might rant and rave about it.


If he wants us to believe him, he'd behave differently, I suggest; 
therefore I conclude that he doesn't care if we believe him, and he 
may even be pleased that he's being so broadly rejected. If he were a 
simple scammer, by the way, he'd not behave this way, most likely.


My very tentative conclusion from all the evidence and considerations 
is that there is excess heat, all right, but the amount is not 
determinable from the demonstrations, the Levi test in February being 
the most convincing and, of course, there weren't very many 
independent observers there, if any. And even the Levi test has 
possible problems But I'm depending for that overall judgment on 
circumstantial evidence, much like Jed and Ed Storms. I absolutely 
don't blame anyone for being skeptical about this, I simply urge 
caution on all sides.



It would indeed be useful if someone could clarify if the water intake had
always been fixed throughout the entire demonstration... or not as the case
may be.


It is o

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

>
> From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
> demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
> maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core.


This is getting comical. Skeptics have proposed that some of the
measurements may have been misrepresented to help explain the observations
without invoking any exotic reactions. Now supporters (including Rothwell)
seem to be admitting that maybe the reported measurements are not consistent
with Rossi's claims of anomalous energy, but suggest that maybe Rossi is
misrepresenting the measurements. Sure, maybe if Rossi secretly turns the
power off, then the boiling water would suggest anomalous heat. But why
would he do that?

Anyway, if we both agree that Rossi is flaky, and we can't trust his
reported power or flow rate, then there seems little point to try to
understand what he observes, or to pay any attention to what he claims.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Joshua apparently wrote:
>
>
>> > Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
>> > Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
>> > his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
>> > the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
>> > at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
>> > the temperature of the steam substantially.
>>
>
> This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water
> converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore,
> the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what
> it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not
> ~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per
> second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test,
> during most of the test.
>

I get all of that. But you said: "The 18-hour tests with flowing water
proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW."

And yet, in January it produced less than 12 kW. That is inconsistent.

But it's worse than that, because of course, you will argue that the device
does not have to be consistent, and the 18 hour test shows it can give 17
kW, so it should be able to produce less.

It's worse, because the 18-hour claim was that the power varied between 15
and 20 kW, and in 18 hours, never went below 15 kW, and even went as high as
120 kW. Yet in the January demo, Rossi claims it produces 12 kW (or 12.4 or
whatever) without variation for 40 minutes (actually it was stable for only
18 min). Can this be the same device. It looks implausible to me; perfectly
stable one day and wildly erratic the next. In fact the claims of the
18-hour test suggest he was using something else entirely; maybe a
coal-fired blast furnace for all we know


>
> No, he adjusts the power. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You
> can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump
> is at the same rate the whole time.
>

This appears to be consistent with all reports, although, it is possible to
change the flow rate without changing the pulse frequency, by adjusting the
stroke volume.


> You can tell they measured the flow correctly because they used a weight
> scale, which is the most reliable method.
>

But we have to believe their measurements, and these would be the simplest
to misrepresent. And in the Krivit demo, he reports the flow rate on the
video in the middle of the run, before it is weighed at the end. There seems
to be pretty compelling evidence that the reported flow rates are
exaggerated in several of the tests. The most compelling is when the flow
rates exceed the maximum delivered by the pump they use, even when the
frequency is *less* than the maximum the pump can use. Esowatch gives
chapter and verse.

In short, I accept that the flow rates are constant, but I am skeptical of
the reported values. Large misrepresentations would be difficult,  but if
you take out the factor of 7 Rossi gets by claiming dry steam, it only
leaves small, plausible misrepresentations in flow and power, and/or small
chemical energy in the ecat to explain everything observed.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jed Rothwell]

Joshua apparently wrote:


> > Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
> > Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
> > his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
> > the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
> > at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
> > the temperature of the steam substantially.
>

This is backward. The heat is computed by measuring the amount of water
converted to steam. The steam was just over 100 deg C at 1 atm. Therefore,
the amount of energy is what it takes to heat the water to boiling plus what
it takes to vaporize it. In the January 14 steam test output was ~12 kW, not
~17 kW. ~12 kW is what it takes to heat and vaporize 5 g of water per
second. 17 kW was how much they measured in the Feb. 10 liquid water test,
during most of the test.

The displacement pump was used in the steam tests but not the Feb. 10 liquid
water test. I believe you set that pump to whatever speed you want, up to
some limit.

OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson  wrote:


> The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as
> a seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous...
> and intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab
> would possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall
> because he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and
> every

single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same
> degree that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when
> exploring uncharted territory.
>

That is what I have heard about him.



> From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
> demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
> maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core.


No, he adjusts the power. He did not change the flow rate in any test. You
can tell the flow rate did not change because the pulsing sound of the pump
is at the same rate the whole time. You can tell they measured the flow
correctly because they used a weight scale, which is the most reliable
method.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Joshua:

>> OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson;

>> My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the
>> volume of water entering the reactor core could vary. 

> Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
> Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
> his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
> the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
> at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW would have increased
> the temperature of the steam substantially.

Again, I suspect my original premise would indeed be mistaken if the inflow
of water always remained fixed throughout the January demo. So far, no one
on this list seems to have felt motivated enough to either verify or falsify
if this really was the case.

The thing about Rossi is that he strikes me personally as a
seat-of-the-pants kind of engineer. Very observant, spontaneous... and
intuitive. I could see how working with Rossi in a research lab would
possibly drive other researchers (of the meticulous kind) up a wall because
he's probably not in the habit of carefully documenting each and every
single procedural step he is about to take - at least not to the same degree
that most scientists and researchers might be inclined to do when exploring
uncharted territory.

>From my POV it is conceivable that Rossi, while monitoring the January
demonstration, might have occasionally adjusted water inflow to help
maintain a consistent volume of water within the reactor core. He might have
performed adjustments based on an intuitive feel as to how the reactor core
is currently behaving . He's probably very familiar with how the contraption
behaves under a number of circumstances. Well... let me put it this way. If
I were Rossi, that's what I might have done. The point being *IF* one
accepts the possibility that Rossi's eCats do indeed generate a lot of
excess heat one would realize that it would be very bad for the "engine" to
run out of radiator fluid in the middle of a demonstration. You would then
end up with a seized up totally destroyed engine... or in Rossi's case a
potential melt down, and irrevocable permanent damage to the reactor core.
Regardless of whether one wants to believe such accounts are true or not, we
have been told by Rossi that there have been meltdowns in the past as he was
trying to figure out the right recipe.

It would indeed be useful if someone could clarify if the water intake had
always been fixed throughout the entire demonstration... or not as the case
may be.

In any case, I have no need to make excuses for Rossi's work habits - good
or bad. If Rossi's claims turn out to be true, then they are true. If not,
they aren't.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume
> of water entering the reactor core could vary.


Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken. Rossi uses a
pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all his calculations
(including Krivit's video of him calculating the power) assume constant flow
rate. And if the flow is constant at 5 g/s (in the January demo), then 17 kW
would have increased the temperature of the steam substantially.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Jed Rothwell]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:

Pure steam, hotter than 100C, is a stable effluent:  If the power 
output varies a little bit, you'll still be making pure steam at some 
temperature above 100C.


Pure steam, at 100C, is *not* stable:  If the output power varies just 
a little, you'll either be making a mixture of water+steam (if the 
power drops) or superheated steam (if the power increases).


To maintain the output in an unstable state you either need phenomenal 
good luck or you need active feedback.


Yes, but this is not hard to arrange. When you steam artichokes for an 
hour, you have to peek into the pot from time to time to make sure the 
water level is not too low (add more water), or it has not stopped 
boiling (raise the heat). Rossi does this by watching the temperature. 
When it starts to drop, there's too much water so he turns up the heat. 
When it starts to rise, he turns down the heat. You do not need 
second-by-second adjustments to do this.


The shape of the e-Cats is telling. There is plenty of space for boiling 
liquid water at the bottom, a large chimney, and the temperature sensor 
is at the top. Very little unvaporized water will escape from this 
system. It would be easier to keep the water level right with glass tube 
on the outside or a water-level sensor, but Rossi tends to do things the 
hard way. It is certainly not impossible to do it by listening and 
watching the temperature. I have enough experience steaming artichokes 
to know that.


The Defkalion reactor primary cooling loops are all liquid phase, and 
they stay liquid even when the application calls for water steam. They 
use glycol or some other liquid with a high boiling point. This makes 
much more sense than Rossi's manual minute-to-minute adjustments for 
boiling water.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Joshua, Stephen,

I have no desire to incessantly argue my POV - till I'm blue in the
face. As I've stated many times in the past, I might be wrong.

In any case I think I now understand where our mutual misunderstanding
might lie. There appears to be a semantics problem, one that may have
obfuscated our mutual perception of the situation.

My perception on the reactor core has always implied that the volume
of water entering the reactor core could vary. Obviously, I could be
very wrong on this key point. I thought it was obvious to any observer
reading my posts that I was implying that there would always be a
sufficient amount of water being fed into the internal reactor core in
order to make sure it never ran dry. To be more precise, I was
implying that the VOLUME of liquid water within the core would remain
relatively stable, or fixed. Obviously, if the reactor core gets
hotter, but the amount of water entering remains fixed the amount of
water converted into steam would increase. This would subsequently
REDUCE the volume of liquid H2O within the reactor core, and more
gaseous H2O would end up being exposed to internal surface area of the
reactor core for longer periods of time, and yes, indeed, I agree with
both Josh and Stephen, that the H2O gas should increase in
temperature. Indeed, simple conservation of energy explains this.

OTOH, if the volume of liquid H2O within the reactor core can be
maintained at a constant volume, it would obviously imply that the
volume of water being fed into the system would have to vary/increase
as the reactor core temperature increased - to compensate... and I
believe my original premise would then be more accurate.

To be honest, I have not studied carefully the actual numerical
figures given in the January test, and that is my fault. I could be
wrong on this point but I will assume the January test states that the
amount of water being fed into the January test was always maintained
at a fixed volume flow. Is this correct? If so, my original premise
would not apply here.

Feel free to verify my conclusion, or disagree with it. ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Orionworks wrote:

Joshua,

I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
errors I might have made in my reasoning. I was astonished to discover
that the jest of your replies struck me as being just as much of a
"seat-of-the-pants" explanation as you apparently accuse me of doing.

  JC:

After all the water is converted to steam,
you can't convert any more water into steam.

You seem to be implying that there is a point where there might not be
any water left in Rossi's reactor core. Where did you come up with
that premise? I was always under the impression that there is ALWAYS a
supply of water replenishing what has been converted into steam.
What's your point?


Holy Mike, Steve, you're totally overlooking the obvious.  Think about 
it for a minute -- it's a simple energy balance problem.


The water flow rate is fixed, and if the flow is insufficient to carry 
off all the heat as steam at 100C, then, by golly, the heat's still 
gotta come out, and the steam's going to exit the beast hotter than 100C.


You can argue all day about what the internal structure of the thing 
must be and where which drop of water flashes over to steam and what the 
internal pressure might have been, but really none of that matters -- 
all you need is total output power and water flow rate, and you can tell 
immediately what's going to be coming out the other end: hot water at 
less than 100C, water mixed with steam at 100C, pure steam at 100C, or 
pure superheated steam.


Hot water's easy to produce: the effluent phase is stable.  If you're 
making hot water and the output power varies a little bit, you'll still 
be making hot water.


Water mixed with steam at 100C is stable:  If the output power varies a 
little bit you'll still be producing water mixed with steam at 100C. 
 The output power can apparently vary over a range of about a factor of 
7, and you'll still be producing water mixed with steam at 100C (I 
haven't checked the arithmetic on that claim but it's certainly in the 
right ballpark).


Pure steam, hotter than 100C, is a stable effluent:  If the power output 
varies a little bit, you'll still be making pure steam at some 
temperature above 100C.


Pure steam, at 100C, is *not* stable:  If the output power varies just a 
little, you'll either be making a mixture of water+steam (if the power 
drops) or superheated steam (if the power increases).


To maintain the output in an unstable state you either need phenomenal 
good luck or you need active feedback.


To assert that the output is maintained in an unstable state but that 
there is no active feedback you need ... chutzpah.



I should have
stated more clearly the fact that as more energy (thermal heat) is
presumably generated within the reactor core a higher VOLUME of H2O
gas would naturally be produced. This translates to the simple fact of
physics where (assuming there is no deliberate containment going on) a
higher volume of gas has no choice left but exit the reactor core
chamber more quickly than it would do if the reactor core was cooler.
Therefore, the rapidly exiting H2O gas doesn't have much time to
absorb additional heat from the walls of the reactor core.


PV = nRT, guy.

Higher volume == higher temperature.

You can't have a larger volume of steam coming out without making the 
steam hotter, too.  Turn it around:


   V = nRT/P

Pressure is fixed (1 atm), R is fixed (it's a constant), n is fixed by 
the flow rate ... so if V goes up, T must go up, too.


And as I said, you can argue 'till you're blue in the face over exposure 
times and wall temperatures, but all you're doing is obscuring the basic 
simplicity of the problem, which is captured completely by the energy 
balance.


If there's more heat produced than the exact amount needed to exactly 
vaporize the water, and no more, the steam temperature will be higher -- 
probably quite a bit higher, as the specific heat of steam is very small 
compared to the heat of vaporization of water.

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Joshua,
>
> I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
> errors I might have made in my reasoning.


And yet you responded to everything except the part where I explained the
errors in your reasoning at the end of the post. Namely, that the input
power must equal the output power or the ecat will heat without bound.


I was astonished to discover
> that the jest of your replies struck me as being just as much of a
> "seat-of-the-pants" explanation as you apparently accuse me of doing.
>

The balance-of-power argument is completely quantitative, and it is not
seat-of-the-pants. In fact, you could calculate the expected temperature of
the steam based on the claimed ecat power (17 kW) and the flow rate (5 g/s):

P1 = Total ecat power (including electrical) = 17 kW
P2 = Power to heat water to boiling =  5*4*80 W = 1.6 kW
P3 = Power to vaporize water = 5*2200 W = 11 kW
P4 = Power to heat steam = 5 * 2 * delta T W/K

At equilibrium, P1 = P2 + P3 + P4

Solving for delta T gives 440C, so the steam would have to be at 540C.

This calculation is the same as the calculation that Rossi does except for
the extra step needed because the power here is assumed to exceed the amount
necessary to vaporize all the water.


> For example:
>
> > The air in a furnace also has free rein to exit
> > immediately, and still it gets hotter.
>

Yes, this is a seat of the pants argument, but it was used to illustrate
that even a seat-of-the-pants argument can show that the steam must get
hotter. But it was not my only argument.


> In my view, your counter argument - where you use the heating of air
> passing through a furnace to make your point, is not an appropriate
> analogy to use with Rossi's eCat configuration. Heating "air" as it
> passes through a furnace most certainly gets hot, very quickly so.
> Thank heavens it does! I live in Wisconsin, and it gets pretty darn
> cold up here in February. But your analogy doesn't take into account
> the fact that in Rossi's reactor configuration, the furnace "air"
> doesn't have to contend with passing a gauntlet of nearby liquid
> water, which by the very nature of its state can never be above 100C
> at sea level.
>

The steam doesn't pass a nearby gauntlet of liquid. At some point in the
ecat, the water has all changed to steam, and from there on, the steam
contacts only the hot walls of the ecat.

I don't see why you think contact to water at 100C is so much more of an
influence than contact with the ecat walls at say 1000C, anyway.


>
> > After all the water is converted to steam,
> > you can't convert any more water into steam.
>
> You seem to be implying that there is a point where there might not be
> any water left in Rossi's reactor core. Where did you come up with
> that premise? I was always under the impression that there is ALWAYS a
> supply of water replenishing what has been converted into steam.
> What's your point?
>

OK. Let me try to explain what I mean by all the water is converted to
steam. I thought it was self-evident because Rossi has been saying it all
along.

We don't know the exact geometry of the ecat, but it doesn't matter, so we
can model it, at least for this purpose. Think of the heating ecat as a
horizontal tube, say 10 cm long with heating wire around it (cold fusion
wire, if you like). The tube can even be clear so we can see what's going on
inside of it. Put it in a vacuum so the heat is not conducted away.

The water passes through the tube and gets heated by it. If the heating
power is high enough, then all the liquid that enters leaves as dry steam.
(This is Rossi's claim.) That's what I mean when I say "all the water is
converted to steam". If you increase the power, you can't convert more water
to steam; the water just gets converted earlier in the tube. So, in Rossi's
scenario, the last of the liquid is converted to steam at the 10 cm mark of
the tube. If you increase the power, you don't get more steam (how could
you?), the water is simply converted to steam earlier in the tube. So, maybe
the last of the liquid water might get converted to steam at the 5 cm mark
in the tube. Then the steam will travel the remaining 5 cm of the tube as a
pure gas in contact with the hot walls of the tube, and will therefore get
hotter.

So yes, there will always be water entering the tube, but the point at which
it is all converted to steam will vary depending on the power.

That's my point.



> It was at this point that I arrived at the astonishing realization
> that any sense of intimidation I might have felt in regards to most of
> your conjectures was misplaced. How do you come up with a scenario
> where "all" the H2O in the reactor core would possibly be in the gas
> state? When does that ever happen? Fresh new water constantly replaces
> the rapidly expanding & exiting steam. The reactor core is never empty
> of water.
>

Right. At th

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Joshua,

I waited in anticipation to see if you could help explain to me the
errors I might have made in my reasoning. I was astonished to discover
that the jest of your replies struck me as being just as much of a
"seat-of-the-pants" explanation as you apparently accuse me of doing.

For example:

> The air in a furnace also has free rein to exit
> immediately, and still it gets hotter.

In my view, your counter argument - where you use the heating of air
passing through a furnace to make your point, is not an appropriate
analogy to use with Rossi's eCat configuration. Heating "air" as it
passes through a furnace most certainly gets hot, very quickly so.
Thank heavens it does! I live in Wisconsin, and it gets pretty darn
cold up here in February. But your analogy doesn't take into account
the fact that in Rossi's reactor configuration, the furnace "air"
doesn't have to contend with passing a gauntlet of nearby liquid
water, which by the very nature of its state can never be above 100C
at sea level.

> After all the water is converted to steam,
> you can't convert any more water into steam.

You seem to be implying that there is a point where there might not be
any water left in Rossi's reactor core. Where did you come up with
that premise? I was always under the impression that there is ALWAYS a
supply of water replenishing what has been converted into steam.
What's your point?

>> This means any converted gas will simply exit
>> the reactor core even faster than before.

> What it means is that the water is converted to steam
> earlier in the ecat. Since all the water is already
> converted to steam, it will not move any faster (except
> to the extent that it gets hot and expands, which you
> argue doesn't happen), but the created steam has to
> pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and the
> heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must
> get hotter.

It was at this point that I arrived at the astonishing realization
that any sense of intimidation I might have felt in regards to most of
your conjectures was misplaced. How do you come up with a scenario
where "all" the H2O in the reactor core would possibly be in the gas
state? When does that ever happen? Fresh new water constantly replaces
the rapidly expanding & exiting steam. The reactor core is never empty
of water.

To be honest the terminology I used was a bit clumsy. I should have
stated more clearly the fact that as more energy (thermal heat) is
presumably generated within the reactor core a higher VOLUME of H2O
gas would naturally be produced. This translates to the simple fact of
physics where (assuming there is no deliberate containment going on) a
higher volume of gas has no choice left but exit the reactor core
chamber more quickly than it would do if the reactor core was cooler.
Therefore, the rapidly exiting H2O gas doesn't have much time to
absorb additional heat from the walls of the reactor core.

I've come to the conclusion that it is pointless for me to carry this
conversation on any further with you, Joshua. My time is finite, and I
have no desire spending it endlessly trying to correct
misrepresentations you may have made (intentionally or
unintentionally) concerning my POV on the matter.

Maybe my conclusions are right, and maybe they aren't. Or maybe I'm
only partly right. I dunno. I'm content to wait it out.

You think you're right? By all means, remain right, but not on my dime.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:32 AM 7/15/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Jed Rothwell 
<jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:


It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour 
tests with flowing water proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.


If it did, then the steam should have been a few 
hundred degrees C in the January test, and not 
100C. But of course it doesn't prove anything 
other than that Rossi and Levi are capable of making unproven claims.


There is nothing wrong with making "unproven 
claims." The problem here is with Rothwell 
asserting such claims as if they were proof. We 
have already seen certain errors asserted by 
Rossi and Levi, even vehemently asserted. Thus we 
don't consider claims from them as if they were 
clear evidence. They are claims, simply. For better and for worse.


They may be true, they might represent errors, 
including undiscovered and unknown errors. Some 
possibilities have been asserted, but 
"possibility" is certainly a proof of nothing, 
other than this: a possibility, if not yet found 
to be preposterous, indicates lack of proof of the contrary.



The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells are producing lots of steam.


A little steam.


Some steam, is what a neutral observer might say, 
eh? How much steam? The question is an important 
one, unless it can be shown conclusively that all 
the water is being boiled and that the steam is 
reasonably dry and that there is no liquid 
leakage to the output hose and that the input 
flow is accurately measured for the period involved.





The precise amount of steam does not matter 
because if there was not excess heat, there 
would be water at 60°C and no steam at all.



No. In the Lewan demo, the flow rate was lower, 
and the input power was enough to bring the 
water to the boiling point. So that means only a 
small deception, and not a nuclear reaction, is 
needed to explain the little puff of steam.


or small error. "Deception" is a big word, which 
we should avoid in kindergarten. Maybe even later, much later


If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you 
have no reason to believe any of the other data, 
so you might as well drop the subject.



If you *do* believe the 18-hour test data, there 
is no reason to pay any attention at all to the 
steam demos, and *you* might as well drop the 
subject. The attention that you do pay to the 
public demos shows you have less confidence in the 18-hour test than you claim.


I agree that Jed would be better off dropping 
this, he's reduced to making non-arguments like 
"nonsense." And he seems to want others who don't 
accept his arguments to stop discussing the 
issues, which is not a good sign as to the strength of his own position.


He might be basing this on non-public 
information, but, then, the rest of us are stuck 
with something. We don't have that information, 
so do we trust Jed's conclusions from it? And we 
see his reasoning process with public 
information, and find it defective. So ... Jed, 
you aren't going to convince us by ranting about 
nonsense and asserting that, to maintain some 
skepticism here, we must be claiming that others 
are lying. Those are the signs of someone who isn't arguing rationally.


Doesn't mean you are wrong, it means that you 
aren't recognizing that the rest of us don't have 
the same information as you, and you won't 
convince us unless we have a similar access to information.


If you don't like the steam tests, and you 
actually believe this garbage about people 
boiling away water with 7 times less energy than it normally takes,



No. The claim is the water is boiling with 
exactly as much energy as it normally takes, 
which is 7 times less energy than is needed to 
boil it away. It's a tricky concept, I know, but 
I hold out hope that if I say it often enough, 
you might stop pretending you don't understand 
it; that you'll take your fingers out of your 
ears and stop jabbering incoherently to keep you 
from hearing what you really don't like to hear.


Jed, Cude is a pseudo-skeptic, or at least has 
been one, but even a stopped clock is right twice 
a day, so if the stopped clock says it is "3 PM," 
and it is 3 PM, it's foolish to tell the stopped 
clock it's wrong, out of habit. 

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 09:53 AM 7/15/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

And this has been said to you many times, Jed, 
and you keep repeating that this is "nonsense."


It is all nonsense and bullshit.


Sure, with proper specification of the "it." Nice to be able to agree.

 The 18-hour tests with flowing water proved 
that the large cell is producing ~17 kW.


"tests." That's one non-public test, done by Levi 
and Rossi. A single demonstration (or even a 
series of personal experiments) might ordinarily 
be considered a certain kind of "conclusive," 
i.e. the method appears straightforward, the 
conclusions sound. An example would be the Pam 
Boss neutron findings. But that is not normally 
considered "proof." We reserve that term for what 
is reported by multiple independent observers, in controlled experiments.


Nothing like that has been permitted. You know that, Jed.

What I and others have been examining is not the 
18-hour test, but the public tests based on assumptions of complete boiling.


The Lewan video proved that the smaller cells 
are producing lots of steam. The precise amount 
of steam does not matter because if there was 
not excess heat, there would be water at 60°C and no steam at all.


Jed, you seem to be conflating a series of 
demonstrations, mixing characteristics. Maybe not.


I had not recently read the Mats Lewan report of 
the April demo. I will examine it and the video 
separately. Jed, something you don't seem to 
understand. My position has rapidly become that 
certain publicized demonstrations failed to show, 
conclusively, the amount of excess heat -- if any 
-- being generated by the device. You are crying 
"bullshit," but then, as proof, you cite yet 
another demonstration. The other demonstration 
might totally show that the claimed excess heat 
was real, suppose for a moment it does. This is 
*irrelevant* on the issue of whether or not the 
first demonstrations showed that.


You are confusing "truth" with "what a particular 
demonstration shows."  No wonder you had so much 
trouble on Wikipedia! (Wikipedia's theoretical 
standard for inclusion is not "truth," but what 
is found in "reliable sources," and, note: what 
you think a reliable source "proves" is not what 
can be included. Rather, for science articles, 
especially, to present conclusions requires 
reliable "secondary sources," which examine 
claims and judge them. Wikipedia's *actual* 
standards are far more socially complex


If you do not believe the 18-hour test data, you 
have no reason to believe any of the other data, 
so you might as well drop the subject.


So, Jed, you believe that data. That's fine, you 
are a believer, right? I do not *reject* the 
data, but neither do I believe it. A 
pseudoskeptic, here, would reject it. My position 
is, I hope, normal scientific skepticism. I give 
the data the benefit of the doubt, i.e., I 
operate on an assumption that the researcher is 
presenting what he observed. I may or may not 
agree with the researcher's conclusions.


Jed, if you don't understand this, you need to 
finish your lunch, or you won't understand the 
legitimate skepticism that exists in some areas, 
you will confuse it with pseudoskepticism.


If you don't like the steam tests, and you 
actually believe this garbage about people 
boiling away water with 7 times less energy than 
it normally takes, or 20 times, or 1000 times 
(the numbers keep changing) then I suggest you 
forget about the boiling tests and look at 
liquid water flow tests of these machines only.


Your comment assumes the very assumptions that 
are being questioned, the amount of water boiled 
away. I'd love to look at liquid water flow tests 
of these machines, but the data is not available.


Look, it's very simple: do you believe that the 
*public demonstrations* should be adequate to silence skepticism on this?


That is a very different question from the 
question you seem to be answering: "Do you 
believe that real excess heat existed in the public demonstrations."


Can you see why people might rationally remain 
skeptical, based on the public demonstration 
data, and, further, why they then would not 
deeply trust the private data? (Data? What data? 
That's what Krivit asked for and did not get, right?)




- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Joshua Cude]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mark Iverson  wrote:

> **
> JC stated:
> "...and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get
> hotter."
>
> What makes you think that the walls of the vertical section (i.e., the
> 'chimney') are at a higher temperature than the walls of the horizontal
> section that has water at a much lower temperature entering, and the liquid
> water has a MUCH larger specific heat than the vapor in the chimney?
>

I was not talking about the walls of the chimney. I was talking about the
walls of the ecat, which is presumably the only source of heat inside the
contraption. If the ecat is vaporizing all the water, then before it leaves
the ecat, the water is in the gas phase. If the ecat power significantly
exceeds the power needed to vaporize all the water (17 kW vs 12 kW), then
the steam will have to pass by the hot walls of the ecat in the gas phase,
and it will therefore get hotter. If it doesn't get hot enough to remove the
additional 5 kW, then the ecat will have to get hotter causing the water
vaporize earlier, giving the steam more time and hotter walls to take the
heat from. This process continues until either the steam *does* remove the 5
kW, or the ecat melts.



> The majority of the heat from the exterior heater around the reactor
> section willl be flowing back towards the cooler section where the cold
> water is entering... that is where the largest delta-T is.
>

The hypothetical 17 kW comes from inside the ecat. And anyway, once there is
enough heat to vaporize all the water, the heat will have to flow into the
steam or get hotter itself.

RE: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Mark Iverson]

JC stated:
"...and the heated walls are at a higher temperature. So, it must get hotter."
 
What makes you think that the walls of the vertical section (i.e., the 
'chimney') are at a higher
temperature than the walls of the horizontal section that has water at a much 
lower temperature
entering, and the liquid water has a MUCH larger specific heat than the vapor 
in the chimney?   The
majority of the heat from the exterior heater around the reactor section willl 
be flowing back
towards the cooler section where the cold water is entering... that is where 
the largest delta-T is.

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement

[Rich Murray]

[ duplicate from parallel discussion }

Well, since now it is pretty clear to many of us that none of the
demos provide proof of excess heat, then the judgement call is whether
to decide that there is no Rossi excess heat.

I came up intuitively, out of my sensitive vapors, with the scenario
that Rossi found that increasing the electric power input to the
heating resistor, deep inside the active core of his reactor, still
outside the 50 cc stainless steel chamber, full of nanopowder Ni and a
catalyst, at some high level of power produced dozens of explosions,
which he attributed to runaway LENR, converting N 62 and Ni 64 to Cu
63 and Cu65, with, if I recall his most recent interview correctly,
0.1 to 0.5 Mev gammas, easily shielded by a few cm of Pb, from
intermediate radioactive isotopes with half-life up to a maximum of 20
minutes.

I visualized with increasing  input electric power with time of
operation,  increasing thermal conductivity resistance from the
stainless steel chamber and the heating resistor (probably something
like NiCr wire inside a high temperature insulating ceramic), due to
decreasing heat flow transfer rates.

1. In the chamber, even 1 % mass of the 2 gm/sec input water flow
being boiled into steam would produce 34 cc/sec steam, enough to
bubble and froth the water in the chamber, steeply decreasing its
ability to conduct heat by radiation, conduction, or complex
convection -- so at some point of increasing input energy, the complex
situation will reach and pass a trigger point of instability, leading
to steeply increasing heat retention, temperature rise, melting of the
metals, explosion of the resistor, complex chemical reactions from O2
dissolved in the city input water, H2 in the Ni nanopowder, Fe, Cu,
Cr, Ni, the catalyst, and the resistor ceramic components, the Pd
shielding, and finally the exterior insulation and Al, and atmospheric
O2 and N2  -- do we know the actual volume inside the reactor, the
witch's cauldron for the witch's brew?

2. The failure of the heating resistor would allow sudden transient
added electrical arcing and shorting of the power supply, feeding the
reactions and sustaining very high temperature chemistry -- which thus
is a promising target for precise measurements.

3. The preliminary buildup of water, froth, mist, and steam within the
3 m of black opaque output pipe will increasingly impede the exit
flow, facilitating a transient standstill in the device and setting
the stage for thermal explosion.

4. Gradually over time, and more quickly just prior to explosion,
mineral scale from city water will build up on the interior surfaces
of the reactor, especially the hotter resistor and stainless steel
reaction chamber, decreasing heat transfer.

5. Over years of solitary, tenacious, blind effort, Rossi would have
evolved a setup that allowed a stable demo with hours of operation,
fixed water flow, constant electric input, stable 100 deg C output
flow temperature, and an output at the end of the hose that could be
attributed to nearly complete vaporization of the water flow in the
device, thus justifying a claim of 7 fold excess heat.

In lieu of so far unconvincing evidence for nuclear reaction
radiations, transmutations, or isotopic shifts, or of control runs
without the catalyst, or videos of the flow in a transparent output
pipe, it is for me reasonable to assert this scenario as both
plausible and commonsense enough to justify asserting  that the Rossi
device will be famous as a case of contagious scientific delusion.

It is important, for the safety of intrepid experimenters, to
publicize this possible thermal explosion scenario.

In mutual service,  Rich Murray
rmfor...@gmail.com 505-819-7388