Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Most of those postings are providing some models, some calculations… something of substance which, although however speculative, at least that speculation is backed by some numbers. There's nothing magical about numbers. With data of unknown or bad quality as the input, calculations are not necessarily helpful. I can't follow the nuclear physics discussions and calculations but I am conversant enough with heat transfer and fluid flow to follow those. If I'd had something to add to them, I would have. Now, just sorting by number of posts, Jed comes in way at the TOP!! (He needs to get laid more often) J MaryYugo comes is second with 531. Your attention to my posting frequency is touching. Many if not most posts were in direct response to someone responding to me. Should I ignore responses to keep posting frequency lower? There are VERY few of those, and if you are specifically referring to our ‘poster from down under’, AussieGuy, with about half the posting rate as you, HE IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE ENTIRE LIST THAT HAS ACTUALLY MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO BUY ONE, AND HAS AGREED TO PROPERLY TEST AND REPORT HIS FINDINGS! Even with all your redundant postings, I would not be singling you out if you were putting together a group to buy and test an E-Cat; or taking time and money to have traveled to Italy to see first-hand. I would be applauding you…. First of all, nobody has ever reported succeeding in buying an E-cat so I have reason to doubt that AussieGuy's arrangements are even worth the cost of the phone calls he's made. Everything he reports is unsubstantiated claims and projections Rossi provides. That's not much more of a contribution than one can get simply reading Rossi's bizarre blog. Second, how do you know what I did or didn't do? As it happens, I did discuss with several people the possibility of putting together an effort to visit Rossi and get a proper test. I also had what I hope were helpful private email discussions with Jed Rothwell regarding possible instrumentation and methods for such a test with respect to a group he was trying to form. That was before I joined the Vortex email list. Reading mainly what Jed had to say privately and in public, it became clear to me that Rossi had no intention of allowing a proper independent test of his device and the people I was talking to about a trip to Italy lost interest. There's little point in getting a repeat of Krivit's dismal experience with Rossi, or NASA or Quantum's. I believe the group Jed was assisting came to somewhat similar conclusions because they apparently declined to visit Rossi and/or Defkalion as well. My first response to this point was handled in a previous posting about an hour ago, but let me summarize: 1) Vortex-l was founded TO DISCUSS UNCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS; LENR, and more specifically the e-Cat, falls into that category. If you want to discuss conventional physics, then what the hell are you doing here? I think that discuss includes valid criticism and disapproval as well as adulation. 3) Tell me Mary, what useful technical knowledge have we gained from ANY of your 531 posts in the last month??? Nothing that comes to mind; nothing I didn’t already know way back in January after the first Rossi demo. Perhaps you don't find my discussions relevant or helpful. You're free to ignore them. Others may find the parallel between Steorn and other scammers and their actions useful. Yet others may benefit from my past experience with calorimetry and my suggestions for doing it correctly, something which Rossi appears to avoid with studious precision. “Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper block on which to move his thermocouples around.” At least he got off his ass and took time to learn something, and share that knowledge… YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT BITCH, WHINE AND MOAN about the same few things. That's your interpretation. Other may vary. A bad simulation is no more useful or interesting than no simulation. Inasmuch as it may mislead, it's worse.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: No, Mary, the endless repetition from the same person of the same old thing is what annoys me. In one of your posts, where you interspersed your comments with the other person’s, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we get it, ok? Fine. But apparently a lot of people don't get it because they keep assuming Rossi is necessarily or most likely telling the truth. My point was that you have no problems with their repetition. Due to your limited experience with this forum, and contrary to what you have suggested, in many instances this forum HAS HELPED to bring to light the problems or errors made by people making extraordinary claims I don't recall making any criticism of the forum as a whole. anything but a mutual admiration, or ‘true believers’ society. Most of the regulars have an extensive amount of time invested in technology careers, and then have spent a lot of their spare time researching and even experimenting with unconventional things. The fact that many Vorts feel there is enough evidence to warrant govt funding of LENR research is NOT because they ‘believe’ it; it’s because they have read the papers and discussed the possibilities, talked to the scientists, attended conferences, and MADE UP THEIR OWN MIND that there is a reasonable chance that SOMETHING unusual is happening which needs further, dedicated effort. I have no problem with funding LENR research using normal and equitable criteria for deciding what gets funded from proposals. How many LENR papers have you read? How many conferences have you attended? How many scientists have you emailed? If the question isn't simply rhetorical, the answer is some and it was not encouraging. Well, I'd better correct that to reflect that I have not attended any LENR conferences. LENR papers seem to be written mainly for other LENR researchers and as such are hard and tedious, for the most part, for others to read. I read a few recommended by Jed Rothwell and others and found some promising but the work seemed not to have been replicated even though it took place some years back. I found other work to be reported in an extremely opaque manner with hard to interpret charts, tables and even conclusions and sometimes inadequate reporting of materials and methods. It would be nice if the various LENR researchers would work together instead of competing for some presumed billions of dollars at the end of the rainbow. It would be nice if they produced clear and informative reports. That's just a casual view. I have not made a study of the field and do not plan to. I know very little about nuclear physics and never claimed to know much about it. My interest in Rossi is due to his robust and extravagant claims as well as his unusual methods of testing and demonstrating and his strangeness. I am not criticizing Rossi's claims because they are LENR or cold fusion. I know how to perform the type of calorimetry needed to evaluate Rossi's device and what Rossi has done is bad calorimetry. I know scams and Rossi acts in every way like a classical investor scammer. Now, if you want to label those of us with that opinion as ‘true believers’, be my guest, but we have done more to educate ourselves about the material than you or Cude combined. Perhaps so but in some cases, it doesn't seem to have helped much. For some reason you think that it’s a major catastrophe if some newbie on this forum happens to see a supportive post, and goes away with a, god-forbid, positive impression of LENR/Rossi/DGT! Its bordering on a pathological sense that it’s your duty to make sure that doesn’t happen… that’s fine too, and it is your right to try to save people from their own ignorance or stupidity, if that’s the way you enjoy spending your free time, but I for one would graciously request that you do it on some other forum! No worries. I am getting bored with Rossi. Unless and until he does another dog and pony show, I will be paying him less attention.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
I think it is not necessary to test something that is known and expected from theory and experience. If there is no thermal flow, then there are no temperature differences, this is known from physics. So especially when the measurment location is wrapped with thermal isolation a thermoelement fitted on a tube or on a hose will measure the water temperature. The only necessary condition for this is: the thermal coupling to the water must be stronger than the thermal coupling to environment. It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. This 60 degree location was definitely too close to the thermoelement. It is a waste of time to discuss this, because a skilled engineer would easily recognize and would avoid such a unclear situation. It is also clear, a thermoelement must not have /multiple/ undefined and unknown electrical contact to the environment in a multichannel measurement system. Its a waste of time to discuss this, because it can be easily avoided. Best regards, Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 00:04 Betreff: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe I wrote: Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice dual input thermocouple, with a T1 - T2 mode, so I will try it again with a copper hot water pipe, with and without insulation and so on. I will do this under the kitchen sink. Varying water temperatures do not matter because I am looking for a difference between T1 and T1 (when they are mounted differently), and the response is quick. I have insulated all of the hot water pipes in my house foam pipe insulation. Look it up at Lowe's. It works remarkably well. Anyway, I'll try it with and without that, in air, under bubble wrap and a few other ways. I have different kinds of probes too. I use a shielded probe for cooking turkey. I'll just use the regular ones for this test. I can compare the actual fluid temp to the pipe temp if you like. I'll bet it is the same to within 0.3 deg C. You people should do stuff like this, instead of blabbing for weeks at a time about magic pots full of water that do not cool down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. That is incorrect. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I did some tests last night with a flexible hot water pipe tied to a cold water pipe, under insulation, with the sensor on the outside of the hot water pipe. Tying the two together and putting them under the insulation had no measurable effect on the surface temperature. The only thing that affects the temperature is the hot water flowing through the pipe. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
- Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 15:59 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. That is incorrect. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influen ce%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I did some tests last night with a flexible hot water pipe tied to a cold water pipe, under insulation, with the sensor on the outside of the hot water pipe. Tying the two together and putting them under the insulation had no measurable effect on the surface temperature. The only thing that affects the temperature is the hot water flowing through the pipe. This depends from the thickness of the pipe wall. If the wall is thin, the coupling to the water is very strong and other factors can be neglected. If the wall is thick, then the crosscoupling increases. If the geometry is unknown, then the crosscoupling is unknown. The easiest way to avoid this problem, is: make the distance much longer than the pipe diameter. Then everybody sees there is no relevant crosscoupling. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
- Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 15:59 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: It is necessary to think about unexpected effects: It is clear, in Rossis setup there was a thermal flow and an unwanted temperature difference close to the thermoelement. If the steam inlet was 100 degree and the water outlet was 20 degree then inbetween in the middle symmetry point the temperature MUST be (100+20)/2 = 60 degrees. This is simple to see from the symmetry. That is incorrect. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influen ce%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. If the calculation comes to another result then the calculation is wrong or uses unusual assumptions about geometry and temperature flow.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
[I sent this message with 2 itty-bitty photos attached. It probably bounced.] Okay. I did some rudimentary tests with thermocouples taped to the outside of flexible braided 1/2 inch pipes under my bathroom sink. I can supply the gory details if anyone is interested. Summary: I measured in the evening from 8:42 to 10:19 p.m., and again in the morning from 8:00 to 8:31 a.m. I used an Omega HH12B dual probe thermocouple and two red liquid thermometers. See: http://www.omega.com/pptst/HH11B.html I taped two probes to the outside of the hot water pipe, with plastic Band-Aids, then covered them with foam pipe insulation. This is a crude method. Rossi's insulated tape is better. I measured the water temperature as it flowed into the sink using a red liquid thermometer. These pipes are well insulated. Much better than copper or steel pipes. The difference between the water temperature and the pipe surface temperature was typically around 7°C. There is a surprisingly large difference in temperature from one location on the pipe to the other. It ranges from ~2.4 to ~3.0°C. Where the T2 probe was taped, I tied the hot water pipe and cold water pipe together with string, wrapped them in shipping tape, and then wrapped the whole thing in foam pipe insulation. [DO NOT SEE the two photos NOT attached.] T1 is higher up on the pipe, T2 is below, where the pipes are tied together. T1 heated up faster and remained persistently warmer. The T2 probe is on the side opposite the cold water pipe. Tying the pipes together and insulating them together made no measurable difference to the temperature registered at the T2 location. I think I can measure a difference here of ~0.2°C. There was no measurable difference between these three situations: With hot water running -- 1. T2 location by itself (not tied to the cold water pipe) 2. T2 tied to the cold water pipe, no cold water flowing 3. T2 tied to cold water pipe with cold water flowing With hot water off, cold water running, after a night of cooling-- 4. T2 tied to cold water pipe. A slight change of ~0.1°C may have registered after 5 min. The cold water was 16°C, ambient 18°C. With no water flowing T1-T2 was initially ~0.0°C ~0.1°C (a bias) and after 5 min. of cold water it occasionally registered 0.2°C. This arrangement was rather noisy because of changes in the hot water temperature. These were more rapid than I expected they would be. I ended up using the MIN/MAX feature for 5-minute segments. In most cases I compared T1 to T2, which eliminates the effect of hot water temperature changes. I also compared T2 to itself over 5 minute segments. I did this with and without cold water flowing. In some cases I zeroed out the difference with the REL key before starting 5 minute measurements. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
- Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for two reasons: 1) the secondary flow rate was much higher than the primary, moving the equilibrium point closer to the hot side 2) the primary flow rate is unknown, and quite possible variable, moving the equilibrium point back and forth 3) the primary flow is sometimes steam, sometimes water, sometimes both. If the steam were to immediately condense in the brass fitting, it would impart the same energy as water at hundreds of degrees celsius, driving the equilibrium closer to the cold side. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:09:53 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
for two reasons:... errr... the third reason was a backup reason Should either of the first two reasons be disqualified before competition, the third reason knows whole routine. From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:20:07 -0600 Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for two reasons: 1) the secondary flow rate was much higher than the primary, moving the equilibrium point closer to the hot side 2) the primary flow rate is unknown, and quite possible variable, moving the equilibrium point back and forth 3) the primary flow is sometimes steam, sometimes water, sometimes both. If the steam were to immediately condense in the brass fitting, it would impart the same energy as water at hundreds of degrees celsius, driving the equilibrium closer to the cold side. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:09:53 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
All this discussion would be moot if Rossi had bothered to make a run using the electrical heater to calibrate the measurement system. It wouldn't rule out cheating but it would rule out cheating by deliberate or accidental measurement errors.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
2011/12/8 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: [I sent this message with 2 itty-bitty photos attached. It probably bounced.] Use something like http://imgur.com/ then share the link. mic
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing. we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that's enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue. Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it's a point you HAVEN'T made before. =m From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 8:25 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe All this discussion would be moot if Rossi had bothered to make a run using the electrical heater to calibrate the measurement system. It wouldn't rule out cheating but it would rule out cheating by deliberate or accidental measurement errors.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 17:20, schrieb Robert Leguillon: Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple for two reasons: 1) the secondary flow rate was much higher than the primary, moving the equilibrium point closer to the hot side 2) the primary flow rate is unknown, and quite possible variable, moving the equilibrium point back and forth 3) the primary flow is sometimes steam, sometimes water, sometimes both. If the steam were to immediately condense in the brass fitting, it would impart the same energy as water at hundreds of degrees celsius, driving the equilibrium closer to the cold side. Yes this is true. If the thermal resistance against the massflow is not symmetric, then there is no precise symmetry. But we have seen hot water outflow before. Also air bubbles can make problems. if the heat exchanger is partially filled with air, the thermal coupling increases. So we have other unknown parameters discovered. This arrangement is not good enough to do an industrial test for a gas boiler. Its therefore a waste of time to calculate this precisely, too much unknown factors. These problems can be easily avoided. Fit 30 cm of copper pipe to the heat exchanger or insert a piece of copper pipe into the hose at a reasonable distance and measure the temperature there. Thermal insulation can be used to avoid heat loss, but because the absolute temperature was not much above ambient, not much loss is expected. Anyway, thermal isolation is cheap and would eliminate the influence of ambient air. Peter Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 17:09:53 +0100 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe - Original Nachricht Von: Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 08.12.2011 17:00 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: How can you say this is incorrect? Do you know everything, great master? I can say that because Houkes knows what he is doing, other experts agree with him, and it has been my experience that the water temperature in a pipe dominates the surface temperature even when there is another pipe or hot body nearby. As for example, in a calorimeter where the inlet and outlet sensors are close, and both under insulation. Or in the tests I did last night. Air temperature and heat conducted by the pipe do not play much of a role. There is symmetry, and so the temperature distribution must be symmetrical. This is EASY to see. Evidently not. If your experts dont see this simple fact, then they are not experts but buggy calculation machines. I have calculated many linear networks, by hand, 35 years ago, when computers could not do this. I know how to simplify a linear network. best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing… * *** we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that’s enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue… Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it’s a point you HAVEN’T made before. Rossi's failure to provide adequate data when it is easy to do so really annoys you, does it? I can understand why you dislike being reminded about it. The real waste of bandwidth is the endless repetitious guessing about what Rossi really did and really showed. You are very unlikely to determine it by rehashing the inadequate data from a bad experimental design and from the insufficient and unreliable information Rossi and the observers provided. It's simply GIGO. And Mark, you don't seem to object about bandwidth when people endlessly project what they will do with an E-cat when they get it. Or when they theorize at length *how* it works when nobody can be sure *that* it works. In fact, most people who do this have never seen an E-cat, have no reliable means to project what if anything it will do, and from what we have seen so far, may never have one to do anything with. After all, who has one to play with at the moment except a single anonymous and very possibly mythical customer? And we're to believe he is getting 1300 E-cat modules? After the inadequate demonstration of leaky plumbing running at half power connected to a generator that Rossi put on October 28? The customer is to do what with it exactly? The practical application is? That sale story is credible? Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper block on which to move his thermocouples around. That's what Rossi used.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Thermal insulation can be used to avoid heat loss, but because the absolute temperature was not much above ambient, not much loss is expected. Anyway, thermal isolation is cheap and would eliminate the influence of ambient air. 1. Rossi's thermocouple was well insulated. 2. Ambient air has little influence even when you use only a Band Aid to insulate the thermocouple. The water temperature dominates. Perhaps if you had a fan blowing on the thing that would have a measurable effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper . . . My tests were rudimentary. But in my opinion, they helped a hell a lot more than weeks and weeks of blabbing, handwaving, and empty speculation. For example, people here imagine that trapped air under the insulation might have a measurable effect on a thermocouple. That is nonsense. I knew it was nonsense. I have now demonstrated it is nonsense. There was a heck of a lot more trapped air with the foam pipe insulation I used than there would be with Rossi's black tape, but it still did not make any measurable difference. Frankly, I have no doubt Houkes is right and the rest of you do not know what you are talking about. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The water temperature dominates. Perhaps if you had a fan blowing on the thing that would have a measurable effect. Perhaps if the thermocouple were in contact with or very close to a very hot steam duct at the input end of the primary loop of the heat exchanger it would have measurable effect?
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 20:13, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Thermal insulation can be used to avoid heat loss, but because the absolute temperature was not much above ambient, not much loss is expected. Anyway, thermal isolation is cheap and would eliminate the influence of ambient air. 1. Rossi's thermocouple was well insulated. Yes, of course. 2. Ambient air has little influence even when you use only a Band Aid to insulate the thermocouple. The water temperature dominates. Perhaps if you had a fan blowing on the thing that would have a measurable effect. Yes, as I wrote it is cheap and easy and therefore it should be done. When it is cheap and easy to do then I am a perfectionist ;-) It avoids mismeasurements when there are airbubbles at the measuring position. This is another problem with Rossis arrangement. The measuring point was close to the highest point in the water flow and it can happen that air bubbles accumulate at this point. This increases the thermal resistance against the water and increases the effect of thermal crosstalk. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Here are a few photos: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/T2%20before%20insulating.jpg http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/T1%20and%20T2%20insulated.jpg http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Measuring%20water%20temp%20in%20sink.jpg By the way the hot water temperature varied from around 55°C up to 65°C. Sample data 9:09 PM Hot water 65°C Start 5 min. MIN/MAX measuring Delta T (T1-T2) 9:15 PM Max 2.5, Min 1.6, T1-T2 1.0 Instantaneous reading T1 57.5°C, and T2 56.1°C, Delta T 1.4°C Ambient 22°C The point is: This T1-T2 MIN/MAX range over 5 min. sample did not change significantly when the T2 was by itself, or tied to the cold water pipe, or tied with cold water running through the cold water pipe. It did not change when the hot water temperature rose or fell. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 20:19, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Mary Yugomaryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper . . . My tests were rudimentary. But in my opinion, they helped a hell a lot more than weeks and weeks of blabbing, handwaving, and empty speculation. For example, people here imagine that trapped air under the insulation might have a measurable effect on a thermocouple. That is nonsense. I knew it was nonsense. I have now demonstrated it is nonsense. Yes this is nonsense, if the thermoelement is in close thermal contact to the metal. If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. If the thermoelement is electrically isolated, then it is also not nonsense. Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? Everybody who defends this is in danger to disqualify himself. There was a heck of a lot more trapped air with the foam pipe insulation I used than there would be with Rossi's black tape, but it still did not make any measurable difference. Frankly, I have no doubt Houkes is right and the rest of you do not know what you are talking about. He is right only if his wellmeaning assumptions are all true. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps if the thermocouple were in contact with or very close to a very hot steam duct at the input end of the primary loop of the heat exchanger it would have measurable effect? Perhaps it would if it were very close, but it was not close. You can see in the photos it was a good distance away. The temperature was only 35°C after all. The inlet pipe full of steam was way hotter than that. Houkes is right. Live with it. I have measured the surface temperatures of steel pipes close to a boiler. The boiler was MUCH hotter than the water. The pipe surface was within a degree of the water temperature as shown on a dial thermometer nearby. Those braided pipes under the sink are remarkably well insulated. The pipes were about 7 to 10°C cooler than the water. However the steel nut holding the two pipes together (shown in photo) was a lot hotter than the pipes. I should have measured it. I could not touch it, whereas I could easily hold the braided pipe (56 or 57°C). Copper pipes under a sink are the least well insulated thing you can have. You should get some foam insulation. That saves a lot of money and the time it takes waiting around for the hot water. There is remarkable variation in temperature from one spot to another on that braided pipe. I do not know why. It is not an artifact of the thermocouple because both thermocouples agree when held at the same location. I thought it was because I did not have the thermocouples firmly pressed against the pipe but that does not appear to be the case. You do not find such variation in steel or copper pipes. By the way, an air bubble under the insulation will have no measurable effect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Houkes is right. Live with it. When you no longer have to insist repeatedly that something is right, there might be a chance that it in fact is.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. I doubt that. I would like to see you prove it. I do not think this would cause even a 0.1°C difference. Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? No, I do not. I have measured temperatures on pipes several times. As far as I know, this method works fine. Actually Rossi did a better job than most people do. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Miles and others showed this with a copper sheathed calorimeter with an air space at the top and thermal gradients inside. Probably braided pipe does not work as well. If you are so sure this was horrible I suggest you do a test and prove it. Even a rudimentary test such as the one I did shows it is not horrible. Rossi's methods were much better than mine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here are a few photos: How does this simulate a copper heat exchanger with steam at the input end where as it happens, the T out thermocouple is also located nearby? As Peter Heckert and others observed, simply locating the T out thermocouple downstream and out of the heat exchanger area by at least a few inches, or inside a T fitting downstream so it would be in the water would have solved that particular measurement issue. Rossi didn't do it and I don't recall complaints from any of the observers you are relying on for credibility.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 20:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. I doubt that. I would like to see you prove it. I do not think this would cause even a 0.1°C difference. Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? A thin piece of plastics. This is also good for electrical isolation. Of course this will have no effect, if there is not another heatsource nearby and if the thermoelement is covered with thermosisolation. Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? No, I do not. I have measured temperatures on pipes several times. As far as I know, this method works fine. Actually Rossi did a better job than most people do. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Yes, this is true. And if there is another heat source nearby, the pipe will average this also ;-) Miles and others showed this with a copper sheathed calorimeter with an air space at the top and thermal gradients inside. Probably braided pipe does not work as well. I expect that Miles and others had installed the thermoelement in an equilibrium place without heatgradient as required. This is correct. Dont forget, there was another heat source (the steam input) nearby. Thermoelements must be installed in an area where a thermal equilibrium can be expected. If you are so sure this was horrible I suggest you do a test and prove it. Even a rudimentary test such as the one I did shows it is not horrible. Rossi's methods were much better than mine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: How does this simulate a copper heat exchanger with steam at the input end where as it happens, the T out thermocouple is also located nearby? Actually, I was more trying to simulate air trapped under the insulation with the hot and cold pipes right next to one another. I cannot easily bring copper pipes together, so I used these flexible braided ones. I just tied 'em together. They are much closer than the hot and cold ends of the heat exchanger. To simulate a heat source close to a copper pipe, I suppose I could put a heat source around the pipe a few inches away from the measuring point. I'll let you do that. Why should I have all the fun? If it is your hypothesis that this does not work, you should prove it. Putting a heat source ~4 away on a copper pipe would bring it much closer than Rossi's arrangement, because the heat exchanger design would not be good if the heat conducted to the cold end on the outside of the pipes. The fact that heat exchangers work well -- they exchange heat efficiently -- means there is not much heat conducted by the metal surfaces of the pipes from the hot end to the cold end. If there was significant amount of heat conducted by that path, it would not be exchanged (that is, it would not heat up the cold fluid). It would be lost to the surroundings. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? A thin piece of plastics. This is also good for electrical isolation. Like Saran wrap? (What you wrap sandwiches with.) I will try it on a copper pipe. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Yes, this is true. And if there is another heat source nearby, the pipe will average this also ;-) Nope. Not upstream or downstream very far. The air trapped in the pipe has only a tiny thermal mass and it is the same temperature as the water so it cannot affect things. In an axial area whole pipe is the same temperature, even if there is air in part of it. That is what you see with Miles' calorimeter, which is essentially a copper pipe open at the top. Fig. 4, p. 55: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf If you measure the temperature of a pipe with a great deal of water flowing through it a short distance from a hot boiler, the water temperature predominates. I expect that Miles and others had installed the thermoelement in an equilibrium place without heatgradient as required. He installed several thermocouples at various locations in the copper sheath. They all registered the same temperature to better than 0.01°C as I recall. The copper acts as an integrator as Miles puts it. In this system the heat all originates at the cathode. That is true whether there is excess heat or only electrochemical heat. There is no active stirring (no magnetic stirrer). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On 11-12-08 03:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Putting a heat source ~4 away on a copper pipe would bring it much closer than Rossi's arrangement, because the heat exchanger design would not be good if the heat conducted to the cold end on the outside of the pipes. The fact that heat exchangers work well -- they exchange heat efficiently -- means there is not much heat conducted by the metal surfaces of the pipes from the hot end to the cold end. If there was significant amount of heat conducted by that path, it would not be exchanged (that is, it would not heat up the cold fluid). It would be lost to the surroundings. You may have missed the point. It's a counter flow heat exchanger (as they typically are) which means the EFFLUENT from the secondary circuit in the heat exchanger (which is the secondary hot side) is immediately adjacent to the INLET for the primary circuit (which is the primary hot side). In fact, the *goal* of the heat exchanger is to conduct heat from the primary to the secondary pipes, as rapidly and completely as possible. Consequently, the primary inlet and the secondary outlet are placed in extremely intimate contact as soon as they enter the heat exchanger. (When most normal people imagine a heat exchanger they think of a device where the two flows are going in the same direction, but that's actually a far less effective design than the counterflow scheme which is used in practice.) The issue is that, assuming the exchange of heat isn't perfect, the secondary outlet may actually have been substantially cooler than the primary inlet, in which case heat traveling through the surfaces of the pipes (and, possibly, other parasitic paths) may have caused the thermocouple to read some temperature between the value for the secondary effluent and the primary inlet, which would give an inflated value for the secondary effluent reading. This can happen, once again, because the two flows are necessarily adjacent at that point, due to the design of the heat exchanger. In fact, heat leaking to the *cold* side, as you suggested, would tend to produce a lower overall power measurement, because the temperature increase across the exchanger would be reduced. It's also far less likely, because the cold and hot sides are typically separated by the full length of the exchanger. (These comments relate to any use of a counter-flow heat exchanger with thermocouples used to determine the heat gain across the secondary circuit. How the power output of the E-cat was actually calculated is something else again; from first principles, it seems like it should be possible to do that more accurately by looking at the heat gain across the E-cat itself and ignoring the heat exchanger.)
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 21:31, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? A thin piece of plastics. This is also good for electrical isolation. Like Saran wrap? (What you wrap sandwiches with.) IDont know. The thermoelement must not make a hole into it. When I measure electronic PCB's then I have sometimes to avoid, that the thermoelement makes a shortage. I cover it with a thin piece of silicon hose and apply a thermal isolation. This works. Because the wires of the element also conduct heat to the ambient, the isolation must cover some cm of the wire. Of course, I dont do precision measurements. An error of 5 degrees would not hurt much if the semiconductor has 100°. We have a thermal security headroom of 25-50% under worst case conditions. I know, what happens when the thermoelement has good or has bad contact, and I know if I need additional isolation or not. So you need not to do this experiment for me. I do not measure waterpipes, but semiconductors, but the problem is the same. I will try it on a copper pipe. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely.Dont know Yes, this is true. And if there is another heat source nearby, the pipe will average this also ;-) Nope. Not upstream or downstream very far. The air trapped in the pipe has only a tiny thermal mass and it is the same temperature as the water so it cannot affect things. In an axial area whole pipe is the same temperature, even if there is air in part of it. That is what you see with Miles' calorimeter, which is essentially a copper pipe open at the top. Fig. 4, p. 55: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf If you measure the temperature of a pipe with a great deal of water flowing through it a short distance from a hot boiler, the water temperature predominates. I expect that Miles and others had installed the thermoelement in an equilibrium place without heatgradient as required. He installed several thermocouples at various locations in the copper sheath. They all registered the same temperature to better than 0.01°C as I recall. Then there was no gradient. This is fine. If you heat one end of the pipe and cool the other end, then you get a gradient and another temperature at each location. A water flow would partially smear this gradient, but if you have air in the pipe, the gradient will increase.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: In fact, the *goal* of the heat exchanger is to conduct heat from the primary to the secondary pipes, as rapidly and completely as possible. Sure, I get that. Consequently, the primary inlet and the secondary outlet are placed in extremely intimate contact as soon as they enter the heat exchanger. (When most normal people imagine a heat exchanger they think of a device where the two flows are going in the same direction, but that's actually a far less effective design than the counterflow scheme which is used in practice.) I saw that! Isn't that nifty? Counter-intuitive at first but it makes sense. The issue is that, assuming the exchange of heat isn't perfect . . . Well of course it isn't. Nothing is. but as I recall, the specs for this one showed much higher efficiency than some online guide heat exchangers I found, which was probably way out of date. This is remarkably efficient. , the secondary outlet may actually have been substantially cooler than the primary inlet, in which case heat traveling through the surfaces of the pipes (and, possibly, other parasitic paths) may have caused the thermocouple to read some temperature between the value for the secondary effluent and the primary inlet, Sure, that may be a problem. But parasitic paths are reduced to a minimum in a good design. That's my point. Any parasitic path reduces efficiency. I think you should take a close look at Houkes, if you have not done so already. If you find a problem, tell us what is wrong with it. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
This is exhausting. You're going to blindly believe any evidence supporting your conclusion, and if I were to give you 10 distinct reasons that the thermocouple placement is crap, you'll try to dismiss one, and assume it negates the rest. Rossi is using a herringbone liquid counterflow heat exchanger. It is meant for recovery of heat between two liquids. Even without phase change, it is difficult to produce point-specific analysis. It is worth mentioning that there are companies that produce proprietary software to analyze the liquid heat transfer in these units, and it's not something that Google calculator can do for free. So, I'm going to oversimplify this by design. Let's give you some numbers to show you how futile this is, and how Houke's method is insufficient to model the dynamic environment in which the thermocouples reside: 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15 l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s 2) We don't know the pressure is, while the steam is trying to force itself out of the E-Cat, through the criss-crossing walls of the exchanger, while there collects condensed water in front of it, being forced out of the exchanger, down the table, across the floor, under the doormat, pushing any slugs of water in the way, out into the parking lot, and down the drain, but you've said it's about 1 ATM, so let's go with that. If the E-Cat is outputting 100% dry steam at 121.7C that condenses immediately, cooling to the output temperature at the secondary of 32.4C, it transmits: [((121.7C - 100C) x (.48cal/gram specific heat of steam)) + 540cal/gram latent heat from phase conversion + ((100C - 32.4C) x 1cal/gram specific heat of water) = 618 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 2,577 kcal/sec Now, what if, I know this is a stretch, not all heat transfer occurs immediately? If steam is still present after the beginning of the manifold, the steam rushing by may only impart the energy it takes to cool to 100C: (121.7C - 100C) x .48cal/gram = 10.416 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 43.43472 cal/sec That's a pretty big difference of heat energy imparted to the brass manifold. The manifold is one continuous metal block that BOTH hot and cold water flow through, albeit in their own dedicated channels. The two circumstances do not require any power output change in the E-Cat to occur. If any of the power available at the steam input is not immediately whisked away, it will necessarily heat up its environment (the manifold). Notice that it would take 650C water to impart the same amount of energy as 121.7C steam condensing to 32.4C. Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 14:53:18 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If there is an air gap of 0.1mm between metal and thermoelement, then it is not nonsense. I doubt that. I would like to see you prove it. I do not think this would cause even a 0.1°C difference. Can you suggest a way to deliberately introduce such a small gap? Perhaps with a thin piece of paper instead of an air gap? Dont you see that Rossis arrangement was horrible and disqualifies him and Levi and Focardi to do such measurements? No, I do not. I have measured temperatures on pipes several times. As far as I know, this method works fine. Actually Rossi did a better job than most people do. Your other assertions about bubbles of air in the pipe are untrue. The metal of a steel or copper pipe averages out the temperature quite nicely. Miles and others showed this with a copper sheathed calorimeter with an air space at the top and thermal gradients inside. Probably braided pipe does not work as well. If you are so sure this was horrible I suggest you do a test and prove it. Even a rudimentary test such as the one I did shows it is not horrible. Rossi's methods were much better than mine. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Like Saran wrap? (What you wrap sandwiches with.) IDont know. Polyethylene nowadays. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saran_(plastic) I probably do not have Saran wrap, but I have something similar. The thermoelement must not make a hole into it. I will use a couple of layers wrapped around the pipe, with the sensor on top of that. The stuff is strong. It will make no hole. I will place the other sensor nearby directly exposed to the pipe. I will use the hot water copper pipe. [Miles] installed several thermocouples at various locations in the copper sheath. They all registered the same temperature to better than 0.01°C as I recall. Then there was no gradient. This is fine. You are wrong; there are strong gradients in the liquid. Far greater than 0.01°C. The electrolyte is not mixed, except by electrolysis. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Jed, seriously: If you say, Rossis thermomeasurements are fine, does this mean that you dont see the possibility for easy and cheap improvements? All points that are discussed here can be eliminated by better thermoelement placement almost without efforts and costs. If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. Rossi has chossen an arrangement that is complicated to verify and to analyse. A little bit more worse, and it would not deliver any reasonable results. So he has choosen the most worse and doubtful placement that was possible. Your experiments will not change anything about this fact. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: This is exhausting. You're going to blindly believe any evidence supporting your conclusion . . . Well, two different methods give approximately the same answer is better than zero methods that you can cite. Rossi is using a herringbone liquid counterflow heat exchanger. It is meant for recovery of heat between two liquids. Yup. Most of the heat transfers to the liquids. Not the metal shell around it. Something above 90% as I recall. That leaves only 10% for parasitic paths. Even without phase change, it is difficult to produce point-specific analysis. Probably true, but the thermocouple is a good distance from the herringbone heat exchanger channels, so I don't see why you are concerned about them. If any of the power available at the steam input is not immediately whisked away, it will necessarily heat up its environment (the manifold). Yes, of course. Wasn't it 95% efficient? So 5% escapes. Most of it radiates from the insulation. No doubt some of it conducts along the pipe and reaches the thermocouple. Not much though. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If you say, Rossis thermomeasurements are fine, does this mean that you dont see the possibility for easy and cheap improvements? Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? Here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm QUOTE: Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor must have produced large amounts of anomalous heat, for the following reasons: . . . When a poorly insulated metal vessel is filled with 30 L of boiling water, it begins to cool immediately. It can only grow cooler; it cannot remain hot or grow hotter; that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . Unfortunately, this test was marred by problems that made it impossible to accurately determine how much energy was produced. Peak power was nominally 8 kW but the instruments were so imprecise it might have been lower or much higher, perhaps 10 kW. Problems included: poorly placed instruments; the arrangement of the outlet hose that prevented accurate independent verification of temperature and flow rates; critical parameters such as flow rates not instrumented or recorded . . . These problems could have been fixed at in a few hours, at minimal expense. The test could easily have been arranged to answer most skeptical objections . . . All points that are discussed here can be eliminated by better thermoelement placement almost without efforts and costs. I was probably the first to point that out, before the test, to Rossi himself. I have said that dozens of times. If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. I not only admitted it, I emphasized it in my report. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. If you think they do, I suppose you do not know much about measuring temperatures. I invite you to demonstrate your assertions with actual tests, rather than words. I will check your claim about plastic wrap. I do not think it will cause a measurable difference. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Am 08.12.2011 22:17, schrieb Jed Rothwell: If somebody does not admit this, then he must be a blind mouse. I not only admitted it, I emphasized it in my report. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. They do negate the findings. To prove a billion dollar invention, a little bit more care is required. This is not acceptable and triggers unnecessary doubts. I pay not ten dollars for this. I use more care and brain when I measure a semiconductor with 5° accuracy. If you think they do, I suppose you do not know much about measuring temperatures. I know enough. This is a simple measurement. Not much accuracy is required to prove a COP of 6. But he did not manage to solve this simple problem. I invite you to demonstrate your assertions with actual tests, rather than words. No. Rossis methods are so crappy, he must proof the correctness. I will check your claim about plastic wrap. I do not think it will cause a measurable difference. I also dont think. It does not matter, because the precise construction of Rossis arrangement and the temperature gradient is unknown. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: This is exhausting. You're going to blindly believe any evidence supporting your conclusion, and if I were to give you 10 distinct reasons that the thermocouple placement is crap, you'll try to dismiss one, and assume it negates the rest. Rossi is using a herringbone liquid counterflow heat exchanger. It is meant for recovery of heat between two liquids. Even without phase change, it is difficult to produce point-specific analysis. It is worth mentioning that there are companies that produce proprietary software to analyze the liquid heat transfer in these units, and it's not something that Google calculator can do for free. So, I'm going to oversimplify this by design.SNIP etc. etc. Thanks for that, Robert. I hope Jed reads it with care several times. I am a bit surprised he didn't know about counterflow. I've mentioned it here before and assumed he knew how it was laid out. I even linked the Wikipedia entry about it. If you want to measure an accurate T out of the secondary circuit with such a device, it has to be done preferably inside the liquid and the thermocouple *must* be placed some distance downstream of the secondary outlet and away from the hot parts of the heat exchanger and also away from the steam pipe leading to the primary fluid loop input. Rossi, some would say by intent, did not do that.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for that, Robert. I hope Jed reads it with care several times. I am a bit surprised he didn't know about counterflow. Since I discussed the counterflow here previously, you are bit mistaken. I suggest you explain how a heat exchanger that is ~95% efficient could conduct a great deal of heat on the outside to a themocouple beyond the outlet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Did you read what I wrote about this? What I wrote SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES?!? Unfortunately repetition does not make it true. Although some experts question these results, most believe that the reactor must have produced large amounts of anomalous heat, for the following reasons: I don't like your sampling methods, but it's a shame we have to rely on beliefs. . . . When a poorly insulated metal vessel is filled with 30 L of boiling water, it begins to cool immediately. What kind of description is poorly insulated metal vessel? How poorly. What's its mass? Its thermal mass? It can only grow cooler; it cannot remain hot or grow hotter; that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . . On average yes. But if the inside starts hotter, the outside can certainly become warmer. You can prove this with a space heater. Pull the plug while the surface is still warming up, and it will continue to warm up for a while. It's especially possible if you have a vapor - liquid equilibrium, where the temperature will be determined by the pressure. For example, if a closed container, the bulk of which is at a few hundred degrees, contains boiling water, and you close the exit so the pressure increases. The temperature of the water goes up. And the 2nd law remains intact. Unfortunately, this test was marred by problems that made it impossible to accurately determine how much energy was produced. Peak power was nominally 8 kW but the instruments were so imprecise it might have been lower or much higher, perhaps 10 kW. 1 kW is consistent with the data. However, these problems -- bad as they are -- do not negate the findings. They introduce enough uncertainty so the evidence does not prove Rossi's claims.
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
At 12:54 PM 12/8/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Coming in late on this. General comments : your plastic-pipe situation is a poor model of Rossi's copper heat-exchanger manifold. Let's give you some numbers to show you how futile this is, and how Houke's method is insufficient to model the dynamic environment in which the thermocouples reside: 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15 l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s 2) We don't know the pressure is, while the steam is trying to force itself out of the E-Cat, through the criss-crossing walls of the exchanger, while there collects condensed water in front of it, being forced out of the exchanger, down the table, across the floor, under the doormat, pushing any slugs of water in the way, out into the parking lot, and down the drain, but you've said it's about 1 ATM, so let's go with that. If the E-Cat is outputting 100% dry steam at 121.7C that condenses immediately, cooling to the output temperature at the secondary of 32.4C, it transmits: [((121.7C - 100C) x (.48cal/gram specific heat of steam)) + 540cal/gram latent heat from phase conversion + ((100C - 32.4C) x 1cal/gram specific heat of water) = 618 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 2,577 kcal/sec The following comments are based on my uncallibrated Spice simulations -- I don't have the NUMBERS but I did get a good feel of the situation. The 40:1 difference in flow rate did NOT make a huge difference in the temperature profile. I only simulated the case of water-to-water. But I don't think it will be significantly different if there's steam on one side, because the MASS FLOW will be the same, even if the volume is hugely different. At the molecular level both flows are practically standing still. Super-heated steam (was it really 120C for Oct 6?) will simply cool down according to it's specific heat. Saturated steam will NOT condense in that short distance and high flow rate. It will become SUPER-COOLED. See the Russian book for details. Existing drops will grow or shrink depending on their Kelvin radius. But most of them will not be in contact with the walls of the manifold -- until they get large enough to fall out of the stream. If they do fall out then we simply have fluid water at the bottom of the tube and steam (wet or dry) at the top. Now, what if, I know this is a stretch, not all heat transfer occurs immediately? If steam is still present after the beginning of the manifold, the steam rushing by may only impart the energy it takes to cool to 100C: (121.7C - 100C) x .48cal/gram = 10.416 cal/gram x 4.17 g/sec = 43.43472 cal/sec That's a pretty big difference of heat energy imparted to the brass manifold. The manifold is one continuous metal block that BOTH hot and cold water flow through, albeit in their own dedicated channels. The two circumstances do not require any power output change in the E-Cat to occur. If any of the power available at the steam input is not immediately whisked away, it will necessarily heat up its environment (the manifold). Notice that it would take 650C water to impart the same amount of energy as 121.7C steam condensing to 32.4C.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I suggest you explain how a heat exchanger that is ~95% efficient could conduct a great deal of heat on the outside to a themocouple beyond the outlet I think we have some difference of opinion about where exactly and near what and how near this thermocouple was located. That's what happens with sloppy, poorly done, uncontrolled and largely uncalibrated tests. You end up with questionable results. In a lot less time than we have already spend in futile and unconvincing arguments about this, it could have been settled with proper design and procedure to start with. All we really have left at the end of this exercise is still GIGO.
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: 1) We don't know the flow rate of the primary, but Rossi says it's 15 l/h, and you've never known him to lie, so let's assume 15 l/h, or 4.17 g/s I don't think this can be right, because this is already beyond the design flow rate for that pump (12 L/h), and at the end of the run, they *increased* the flow from the pump, according to Lewan's notes. Since the increase in input resulted in an immediate increase in output, it seems reasonable that the ecat was full, and therefore the exit flow rates reported by Lewan should be right. (1 g/s and 2 g/s). (The flow rate can be changed without changing the pump frequency.)
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 12:54 PM 12/8/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Coming in late on this. General comments : your plastic-pipe situation is a poor model of Rossi's copper heat-exchanger manifold. Very poor. I was testing only one aspect of the claim: the effect of trapped air under plastic tape (strapping tape) and foam insulation. People here have claimed that trapped air and metal at a different temperature nearby will significantly affect a temperature measured at the surface of a pipe. I realize I used the wrong kind of pipe. The main thing is, the thermal mass of water going through the pipe is huge compared to everything else. It dominates. In Rossi's system a lot more water is flowing through than I can manage with the bathroom sink. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
No, Mary, the endless repetition from the same person of the same old thing is what annoys me. In one of your posts, where you interspersed your comments with the other person's, I counted 4 or 5 instances where you repeated the same basic point, but 5 different ways. Yeah, we get it, ok? RE: The real waste of bandwidth is the endless repetitious guessing about what Rossi really did and really showed. I wouldn't call it 'guessing'. The majority of the discussions of the data that IS available, is backed up by spreadsheets, FEM modeling, and other sincere quantitative efforts to establish a better estimate as to how likely Rossi's claims are. How many calculations have you done in all of your numerous posts? I strongly suggest you read the founding principles of this discussion group here: Vortex-L email discussion group, unconventional physics amasci.com/weird/wvort.html Did you happen to notice the title (from my web search for vortex-l) has the phrase, 'unconventional physics' in it? Did you happen to notice that the second folder's name in that URL is '/weird/' ? Those two clues alone should make it clear that this is a discussion group that prides itself on discussing the technical aspects of unusual claims. for the most part, we try not to focus on the personalities behind the unconventional claims, nor speculate on personal motives, unless CLEAR FACTUAL evidence exists to question the person's character. We enjoy taking what data we DO HAVE, and discussing it, and EACH OF US, ON OUR OWN, WILL DECIDE HOW MUCH CREDIBILITY WE ASSIGN TO THE DATA/CLAIMS. You seem to think that just because I one day bring up an issue which is supportive of one of the Rossi demos, means that I believe everything he says or has shown. No. In fact, I think I was the one who started the whole question of the close proximity of the secondary thermocouple to the steam inlet. A true seeker of truth is able to bring forth facts which both support or detract from what he/she thinks is going on in any situation. I think most Vorts are very capable of that kind of objective thinking. unfortunately, some are not. Due to your limited experience with this forum, and contrary to what you have suggested, in many instances this forum HAS HELPED to bring to light the problems or errors made by people making extraordinary claims; it is anything but a mutual admiration, or 'true believers' society. Most of the regulars have an extensive amount of time invested in technology careers, and then have spent a lot of their spare time researching and even experimenting with unconventional things. The fact that many Vorts feel there is enough evidence to warrant govt funding of LENR research is NOT because they 'believe' it; it's because they have read the papers and discussed the possibilities, talked to the scientists, attended conferences, and MADE UP THEIR OWN MIND that there is a reasonable chance that SOMETHING unusual is happening which needs further, dedicated effort. Others prefer to let the journal editors, or the majority', do their thinking for them. How many LENR papers have you read? How many conferences have you attended? How many scientists have you emailed? Now, if you want to label those of us with that opinion as 'true believers', be my guest, but we have done more to educate ourselves about the material than you or Cude combined. I'm in the process of responding to other points of your post; I'll post that shortly. For some reason you think that it's a major catastrophe if some newbie on this forum happens to see a supportive post, and goes away with a, god-forbid, positive impression of LENR/Rossi/DGT! Its bordering on a pathological sense that it's your duty to make sure that doesn't happen. that's fine too, and it is your right to try to save people from their own ignorance or stupidity, if that's the way you enjoy spending your free time, but I for one would graciously request that you do it on some other forum! If you come across some NEW material on Rossi/DGT or other unconventional physics that you think is interesting, then by all means post it! Then that NEW information can be added to the Collective along with its analysis. -Mark From: Mary Yugo [mailto:maryyu...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 11:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Mary yet again proves that there are now 101 ways to say the same thing. we all agree the tests could have been done much better with little effort. I think that's enough repetition that most readers know your opinion on the issue. Stop wasting bandwidth and our time unless it's a point you HAVEN'T made before. Rossi's failure to provide adequate data when it is easy to do so really annoys you, does it? I can understand why
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Mary: Regarding why I don't mind the comments from people proposing possible ways it IS happening. Most of those postings are providing some models, some calculations. something of substance which, although however speculative, at least that speculation is backed by some numbers. Would you care to count the number of times you have included any calculations in your posts, versus say, AlanF, or RobertL, or Horace, or even Cude? Not to mention that those supportive posts are spread out over at least 8 to 12 people. so yes, there might be close to the number of speculative positive posts as your redundant this-is-very-likely-a-scam posts, but at least there is something to learn from what analyses have been done in those posts compared to yours, which as far as I can see, contain nothing of value that I didn't know after the very first demo or two. Here are a few numbers to go along with this analysis: Below is a sampling of the more 'talkative' Vorts. The date on the right is the date of first posting. ( I changed to Win-7 on 8/13, so my vortex history only goes back that far, but its more than sufficient to make my point) Akira 156since 8/14 AlanF3588/13 AussieGuy28211/7 Dave Roberson 25810/17 Horace 4588/14 Josh Cude24811/14 JonesBeene 75 8/15 Jed1142 8/14 Iverson 1428/19 Mary Yugo 53111/10 FranR74 8/17 RobL 1438/31 Now, just sorting by number of posts, Jed comes in way at the TOP!! (He needs to get laid more often) J MaryYugo comes is second with 531. Jed has done more to be a cheerleader for the LENR community than any other member on this forum, and probably anywhere. He has devoted innumerable hours and significant expense to maintain and keep current the lenr-canr.org website as the repository for LENR materials for anyone wanting to learn more and do their own thinking. He has contributed much of value to the discussions and in keeping us up-to-date on happenings. Now let's look at the number of postings/month. Mary posted all 531 messages in only 1 (one) month, whereas Jed's 1142 were posted over 4 months. So Mary has DOUBLE the posting rate of Jed/month. What can we conclude from that? Besides the fact that Mary needs to get laid twice as much as Jed J, when one looks at the USEFUL new information, or the quantitative analyses, or NONREPETITIVE nature of the content of the person's posts, I think it's obvious who is wasting more bandwidth, and our time. Re: my not objecting when people endlessly project about what they will do with an E-cat when they get it There are VERY few of those, and if you are specifically referring to our 'poster from down under', AussieGuy, with about half the posting rate as you, HE IS THE ONLY ONE ON THE ENTIRE LIST THAT HAS ACTUALLY MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO BUY ONE, AND HAS AGREED TO PROPERLY TEST AND REPORT HIS FINDINGS! Even with all your redundant postings, I would not be singling you out if you were putting together a group to buy and test an E-Cat; or taking time and money to have traveled to Italy to see first-hand. I would be applauding you.. RE: my not objecting .when they theorize at length *how* it works when nobody can be sure *that* it works. My first response to this point was handled in a previous posting about an hour ago, but let me summarize: 1) Vortex-l was founded TO DISCUSS UNCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS; LENR, and more specifically the e-Cat, falls into that category. If you want to discuss conventional physics, then what the hell are you doing here? 2) The vast majority of posts that are analyzing how it works, are people who have taken time to do modeling or spreadsheets with what data we do have, and by taking people's eyewitness reports as accurate, trying to provide some level of confidence that we can apply to the claims. That IS useful because we all learn from it; we learn about FEM, about heat transport in metals and the importance of thermocouple placement. 3) Tell me Mary, what useful technical knowledge have we gained from ANY of your 531 posts in the last month??? Nothing that comes to mind; nothing I didn't already know way back in January after the first Rossi demo. Jed's well intentioned experiments won't help either unless he gets himself a heat exchanger or properly simulates it with a nice heavy steam-heated copper block on which to move his thermocouples around. At least he got off his ass and took time to learn something, and share that knowledge. YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT BITCH, WHINE AND MOAN about the same few things. Despite that, if you come across any NEW info on Rossi/DGT/LENR, positive or negative, then by all means make a post and provide a reference or link so
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Jed, to be a good test you would need to have a hot pipe connected metallically a short distance from the cold pipe you were measuring. It would be ideal if you could obtain a heat exchanger and make a setup very much like Rossi's. I do not think anyone would doubt that the temperature of the pipe exterior would reflect that of the water within unless another source of heat is contributing. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 6:04 pm Subject: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe I wrote: Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice dual input thermocouple, with a T1 - T2 mode, so I will try it again with a copper hot water pipe, with and without insulation and so on. I will do this under the kitchen sink. Varying water temperatures do not matter because I am looking for a difference between T1 and T1 (when they are mounted differently), and the response is quick. I have insulated all of the hot water pipes in my house foam pipe insulation. Look it up at Lowe's. It works remarkably well. Anyway, I'll try it with and without that, in air, under bubble wrap and a few other ways. I have different kinds of probes too. I use a shielded probe for cooking turkey. I'll just use the regular ones for this test. I can compare the actual fluid temp to the pipe temp if you like. I'll bet it is the same to within 0.3 deg C. You people should do stuff like this, instead of blabbing for weeks at a time about magic pots full of water that do not cool down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice dual input thermocouple, with a T1 - T2 mode, so I will try it again with a copper hot water pipe, with and without insulation and so on. I will do this under the kitchen sink. Varying water temperatures do not matter because I am looking for a difference between T1 and T1 (when they are mounted differently), and the response is quick. I have insulated all of the hot water pipes in my house foam pipe insulation. Look it up at Lowe's. It works remarkably well. Anyway, I'll try it with and without that, in air, under bubble wrap and a few other ways. I have different kinds of probes too. I use a shielded probe for cooking turkey. I'll just use the regular ones for this test. I can compare the actual fluid temp to the pipe temp if you like. I'll bet it is the same to within 0.3 deg C. You people should do stuff like this, instead of blabbing for weeks at a time about magic pots full of water that do not cool down. While you're at it, why don't you test using a counter-current heat exchanger in which the hot end of the primary circuit and secondary are within an inch or two of each other? Now move your test junction towards the hot end of the primary. That's where Rossi may have deliberately placed it.Put the thermocouple in contact with the copper block of the heat exchanger near the hot end of the primary. Let us know what temperature you find there. Then, compare that to the temperature of a thermocouple in the center of the flowing stream maybe a foot or so downstream of the hot end of the heat exchanger. I hope this is clear. If not, I may have to draw a **shudder** diagram. I think bad thermocouple placement on a heat exchanger can result in a large error in the measurement of T-out. But hey, do the test and prove it one way or another. If the output pipe was not embedded in a copper block and if the measurement had been downstream considerably distant from the end of the heat exchanger, it might be more credible even though it was not made inside the pipe. You can get a decent approximation of interior temperature from measuring under the insulation on an insulated pipe but only under some conditions.Why are we guessing anyway? Rossi could have heated up the system with his electrical heater, monitored the power and measured the output energy and then we'd know for sure, wouldn't we?
Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:22 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, to be a good test you would need to have a hot pipe connected metallically a short distance from the cold pipe you were measuring. It would be ideal if you could obtain a heat exchanger and make a setup very much like Rossi's. I do not think anyone would doubt that the temperature of the pipe exterior would reflect that of the water within unless another source of heat is contributing. Dave Sorry, Dave. I didn't mean to duplicate your post and you put it much more compactly. Our emails crossed.
RE: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe
Of course. The issue is not whether a thermocouple can be placed under insulation on a pipe. It's a thermocouple being placed at a union with steam (theoretically) on one side and 38C water on the other. I address the insulation only as it spans both the hot and cold side, creating a common air pocket, where the thermocouple is sharing room with the potentially hot brass. Your test with two inputs on the same conductive material, if your using essentially the same equipment, could alleviate other concerns of electrical current between the thermocouple leads, but that's about it. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:22:26 -0500 Jed, to be a good test you would need to have a hot pipe connected metallically a short distance from the cold pipe you were measuring. It would be ideal if you could obtain a heat exchanger and make a setup very much like Rossi's. I do not think anyone would doubt that the temperature of the pipe exterior would reflect that of the water within unless another source of heat is contributing. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 6:04 pm Subject: [Vo]:Will tests surface mounted thermocouples on pipe I wrote: Try placing at thermocouple on a hot pipe, in various spots, under various covers. You will find the differences are insignificant. I did this years ago, working at Hydrodynamics. I happen to have a nice dual input thermocouple, with a T1 - T2 mode, so I will try it again with a copper hot water pipe, with and without insulation and so on. I will do this under the kitchen sink. Varying water temperatures do not matter because I am looking for a difference between T1 and T1 (when they are mounted differently), and the response is quick. I have insulated all of the hot water pipes in my house foam pipe insulation. Look it up at Lowe's. It works remarkably well. Anyway, I'll try it with and without that, in air, under bubble wrap and a few other ways. I have different kinds of probes too. I use a shielded probe for cooking turkey. I'll just use the regular ones for this test. I can compare the actual fluid temp to the pipe temp if you like. I'll bet it is the same to within 0.3 deg C. You people should do stuff like this, instead of blabbing for weeks at a time about magic pots full of water that do not cool down. - Jed
