Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets that are carried into the air by the vapor. Steam can be wet. Live with it. OMG Cude! You are so full of it! Have you ever studied any science? T I have more physics than you will ever know and you have not a foot to stand upon.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I Wrote It takes only a one foot head of water to raise the boiling point of water to 101 C. I forgot to include the observation that liquid water would build-up in the exit hose. With the hose exist above floor level a head of water would obtain rendering a 101.1 reading completely meaningless. Also, the Belognia Italy civic center seems to lie only about 56 feet above sea level, so that's a non-issue, though I don't believe anyone bothered to take a barometric reading to see how ambient pressure could make a difference in the boiling point.
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Damon: What do you mean by this statement??? Water at 100 C does not boil and magically get 0.1 degree hotter as steam. What were they thinking? The temperature of steam can be anywhere from boiling point on up to hundreds of degrees... it all depends on pressure. -Mark _ From: Damon Craig [mailto:decra...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:58 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms E-cats Have No Hair Here is my challenge to the rest of you. I will be looking for evidence myself:- What evidence exists that water does not rise in the chimney and weep or splatter into the exit tube? So far we seem to only have the assurance of our intrepid Phd's operating outside of the domain of their expertise. This obtained: 1) Misapplication of a humidity probe which returned meaningless results. Not even wrong, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli. 2) Invalid interpretation of a thermometer reading. The simple explanation is that liquid water simply overflows out the exit. Interpreting the thermometer reading of 100.1 C as an indication that the chimney contained water in the gaseous phase, no matter how wet, is an error. It takes only a one foot head of water to raise the boiling point of water to 101 C. As well, 0.1 C is less than half the error I have seen in specifications for commercial probes in ideal conditions. Water at 100 C does not boil and magically get 0.1 degree hotter as steam. What were they thinking? I have no idea. But we did get treated to Phd's experimenting and reporting outside their domain of experience. If I am mistaken and one of them is experienced at Calorimetry---well, that person might have some explaining to do.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:59 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: ** What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the heat-capacitor? It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature. It would be able to absorb 2% fluctuations, yes. That's not considerable. Even if it were at 90%, fluctuations of slightly more than 10% would occasionally raise the temperature above the boiling point. Thus, ***IF*** the reactor's heat output is stable enough, it could achieve what they are saying... It would not only have to be stable enough, but the flow rate and starting temperature would have to be chosen accurately enough so that the ecat power would always land just short of point C, and never exceed it. In 5 demonstrations, with different starting temperatures, and different flow rates, it is unlikely that the ecat would always give just under the necessary power for dry steam, and never over. And even if you believe that Rossi is capable of choosing the flow rates that accurately, one wonders why he would. Allowing it to go just beyond point C, even briefly, so the temperature rises (even briefly) to 110 or 120 C, which would take only few per cent or so of additional power (or of reduced flow rate) would be good evidence that the steam is dry. As for the stability, in the 18-hour run, they claim the power briefly increased by an order of magnitude, and then it stabilized to between 15 kW and 20 kW. That means that, *according to them*, the stability is at best 25%, but with order of magnitude spikes. And all of these powers are enough to give steam well above 100C in any of the other runs, including the January demo. But I'm glad that we at least agree now that the stable temperature means that the ecat is somewhere between points B and C on that curve. Rossi has not given evidence that it is near point C, and he could easily do so, it it were. The appearance of the output fluid, and all the data he has presented, is consistent with it being near point B. And the only deviation from perfect regulation occurred in the January demonstration, where the temperature dipped briefly *below* the boiling point in mid-plateau. That is extremely compelling evidence that the ecat operates rather close to point B on your graph.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 04:47 AM 7/5/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong. These conclusions are an indication of what passes for evidence for cold fusion advocates. And are consistent (but much more obviously so) with the sort of definite conclusions drawn about other CF experiments, which are explicitly considered inconclusive (at best) by mainstream science. Joshua Cude is using this as might be expected. He's right, much more obviously so, i.e., there is some over-optimistic analysis being presented. However, I've seen no explicit analysis by mainstream science considering inconclusive, say, Dr. Storms' paper Status of cold fusion (2010), in Naturwissenschaften, which, last time I looked, was a mainstream peer-reviewed publication, not given to wild claims. The inconclusive epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where excess heat evidence was considered conclusive by half the panel, and it's clear that the rest of the panel was rejecting the heat on the basis of lack of convincing *theory*. Obviously, as to convincing theory, we aren't there, neither with the E-Cat nor with other cold fusion claims. But heat/helium is *damn convincing.* (and this has nothing to do with Rossi's Ni-H situation, we don't expect that helium is being produced, though, to my knowledge, nobody has checked.) Cude has long believed that cold fusion is bogus, and that's a belief, not a fact. I can agree with Cude on specifics about, say, relative humidity meters. He is, however, using this to push his own agenda. Oddly, here, Jed Rothwell and many others consider the public demonstrations of the E-Cat are inconclusive, but for other reasons think that the heat is real. Sure. Maybe. But we can't tell from the public data, and this isn't how science is done. Rossi is news, rumor, hype, and secrecy, and it looks like deliberate mystery is part of the show. Given sketchy reports based on the incomplete examination allowed, some of us are trying to stretch these reports into what they are not. Kullander and Essen's report hasn't passed peer review, nor even editing, and it contains some obvious shortcomings. At the end of the horizontal sectionthere is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and also to act as a safety if theheat evolution should get out of control. It's obvious that if the heat evolution should get out of control, the heater cannot act as a safety. Rather, the device operates in a region where supplemental heat is required to maintain operating temperature. So the description of function is incorrect, and this misinterpretation has been repeated by skeptics, pointing out that reducing heat by adding heat is preposterous. (But controlling heat by taking the reactor into a marginal region is not preposterous. Defkalion is apparently using a superior technique, per their claims, of control through hydrogen pressure in the reactor. To heat up the adjusted water flow of 6.47 kg/hour from 18 °C to vapor will require 7256.47=4.69 kWh/hour. The power required for heating and vaporization is thus 4.69 kW. It requires this power generation as an average over the hour. This is on the assumption of complete vaporization. The inlet water temperature was 17.3 °C and increased slightly to 17.6 °C duringthis initial running. The outlet water temperature increased from 20 °C at 10:27 to 60 °C at 10:36. This means a temperature increase by 40 °C in 9 minutes which is essentially due to the electric heater. Thus we have an indication that the electric heater will raise the water temperature 40 degrees C in 9 minutes. Is the cooling water being pumped in during this period? Yes. The temperatures of the inlet water and the outlet water were monitored and recorded every 2 seconds. So the condition is that water is flowing *through* the E-cat, and we have a 40 degree rise in 9 minutes, essentially due to the electric heater. However, Kullander and Essen go on to state: If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. No basis for this statement is given. However, let's look at an apparent source. What is the temperature rise that 300 w heating power will produce in a 6.47 kg/hour water flow? I come up with 40 degrees. So the statement is based on an assumption that the flow rate and input power are correct. The flow rate was determined by filling a carafe, perhaps by disconnecting the input hose from the E-Cat and directing it into the carafe. But the actual flow into the E-Cat could be less, if there is restriction, the exact flow in could depend on pump specifications regarding back pressure, if there is back pressure. If they instead measured flow out of the outlet hose, this would
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 08:50 PM 7/5/2011, Rich Murray wrote: MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right... No evidence at all for excess heat production... From defective evidence to no evidence is a leap. I just looked over the Kullander and Essen report, and what I see is that some assumptions were made. Those assumptions might be true, actually. What the actual data shows, however, is a heat anomaly that appears when the cooling water reaches 60 degrees C. The rate of increase shifts to an increased value that shows roughly doubled heat generation over input power. They appear to be correct that the water would not boil if not for increased heat, though that is not a definitive showing, the heat curve looks like that, and the input power would not be enough to heat the apparent inplut flow more than 40 degrees, taking it to 60 degrees. But that, again, depends on assumptions about input water flow, which wasn't nailed down. Evidence is not proof, Rich. What's confusing some people, such as Jed, and then others debating with Jed, is that Jed claims confidential information regarding Defkalion and other matters, that leads him to conclude that the Rossi results are real. That's evidence for him and not for us. How much we want to believe his conclusions is a matter of personal judgment. For myself, I look at Defkalion and I see what looks like management describing what their engineers have told them is possible. How much of this has been actually realized is unclear. Jed claims that there has been extensive testing, but we don't have confirmation on that, AFAIK, from the actual testing agencies. And what, exactly, was tested is not clear. 3 PM, March 27, 2011: We have operated ten devices supplied by Defkalion for three weeks, now, and they have not blown up, nor do they show any signs of impending failure. The devices did not exceed the rated external temperatures. Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated heat? Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the test specification. We did not see any explosions. We plugged them in to the power strip, added external temperature sensors, left the room, and then turned on the power. You want us to do something else? Memo from Director. No. Never mind. I was just curious. Report: Defkalion device passes safety tests, per specification 38026-D.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 09:45 PM 7/5/2011, Harry Veeder wrote: The Kirvit video *might* be explained in terms of the Tarallo Water Diversion Fake: http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.phphttp://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.php Tarallo suggests that there is a hose leading water out into the outlet pipe, allowing steam measurements. The hose proposed is unnecessary, it would indeed be fakery, but Tarallo is attempting to explain something that isn't necessary to explain, i.e., the measurements through the instrument port. If the chimney simply fills with water to the level of the output hose, a thermocouple inserted into the instrument port will measure, if any water is being boiled, boiling temperature. An RH meter probe inserted there will show the same result as for steam, from the way these meters work. As a fake, this could indeed be used to create an appearance of excess heat where there was only input power heat, in combination with a true bypass inside. I don't see that this has been ruled out. However, once fraud is on the table, there are no limits to possibilities, I started making this point in January or February. This is why we want to see, to be *certain*, independent testing where fakery as described becomes preposterously unlikely. It would be trivial to take the Rossi setup, and add a few dollars worth of plumbing, and make it into a very clear measurement of power. But that has not been done, and I actively do not expect it to be done. Rossi clearly doesn't want a definitive demonstration, and from this I can make *no conclusion* other than ... he doesn't want a definitive demonstration. There are reasons for that which are possible all the way from fakery and fraud to genuine heat combined with economic motives or personal psychology. Harry From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) Or just a small continuous flow of water, though it could become slugs as water fills the hose blocking steam flow, the steam would then force the water out the hose periodically. The water stays in the E-Cat and never leaves it, I don't understand. This really requires possibility 3. It's also possible that input flow is incorrectly measured without fraud, but this depends on details of the testing, and I haven't seen that input flow has been nailed down adequately. It may have been measured correctly, or not, and the difference depends on details of testing that were not disclosed. I should be explicit about a possibility, that Rossi believes that all the water is being vaporized, when it is not. The setups he's created don't check for outflow water, and Rossi has no way of distinguishing outflow water from condensed water. He knows there is condensed water, and he assumes that it is condensed. Has he verified that it is all condensed? The easiest way to assume that it is all condensed (aside from questions about steam quality, which could be a minor issue unless the heat is marginal) is gravity feed, so that feed rate equals boil-off rate, which would be trivial to set up. Has he done this? He'd also get faster turn-on, but not dangerously so. That Rossi uses constant feed rate is a mystery, it is a setup for error (or danger, if that rate is too low).
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The inconclusive epithet is from roughly twenty years ago, and we can see this crumbling by the time of the 2004 U.S. DoE review, where excess heat evidence was considered conclusive by half the panel, and it's clear that the rest of the panel was rejecting the heat on the basis of lack of convincing *theory*. No. It is precisely the DOE review I had in mind when I used the term inconclusive. Only one of the 18 members considered evidence for nuclear reactions conclusive. As for the heat, about half the panel found the evidence compelling, not conclusive. There's a difference. However, Kullander and Essen go on to state: If no additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. No basis for this statement is given. However, let's look at an apparent source. What is the temperature rise that 300 w heating power will produce in a 6.47 kg/hour water flow? I come up with 40 degrees. So the statement is based on an assumption that the flow rate and input power are correct. So clearly a basis for the statement is given. You're contradicting yourself. The discrepancy, which you go on to identify, is that one would expect an asymptotic approach to the 60C temperature, but in fact it is linear. That suggests that either the power is higher than they claim, or the flow rate is lower. Since E and K measured the flow rate themselves, but the power was not monitored, and since we have seen Rossi with his paws on the power control in the Lewan video, I'd suspect the input power was higher than claimed. The flow rate was determined by filling a carafe, perhaps by disconnecting the input hose from the E-Cat and directing it into the carafe. But the actual flow into the E-Cat could be less, if there is restriction, the exact flow in could depend on pump specifications regarding back pressure, if there is back pressure. If they instead measured flow out of the outlet hose, this would establish actual flow, for the period prior to boiling. It's not stated where the water sample was obtained. The pump is designed to give constant flow rate, and no significant back pressure is likely, because that would increase the boiling point (more than by a degree or 2). There is also no continuous monitoring of water flow. It's assumed to be constant, from a single measurement. Again, the pump is designed to give constant flow rate. Of course, it's possible that Rossi changed pump setting, but a change in flow rate during the warm-up period would give a step change in the temperature, which is not observed. So, if he changed it, it would have to have been at the very beginning. A change in power should give a change in slope, which is a little more subtle, but admittedly also not obvious until the 60C mark. So the power change, if it happened, also fits better with a change at the beginning. The change in slope at the 60C may correspond to a second increase in the input power. Roughly, if 300 watts produces a 40 degree rise in 9 minutes, and then a 37.5 degree rise in 4 minutes would indicate total power of 633 watts, or excess power of 333 w. There is little sign of any additional increase in power as the temperature approaches boilingYet later, as heating continues until all water is presumably being vaporized, a period of about three minutes, the apparent heating power must now be 4.38 kW. this must begin some time during the boiling phase, as, presumably, reactor temperature continues to increase. We are not shown reactor temperature, though it is almost certainly being monitored by Rossi's controller. That extra power would be shown in reactor temperature as a very rapid rate of temperature increase. How this high rate of temperature increase is controlled to be exactly that which will vaporize a fixed flow of water, neither allowing excess flow nor allowing reduction of water level in the E-Cat cooling chamber, is mysterious. It's more than mysterious. It's not plausible. The time it takes to reach dry steam depends on the power from the ecat, and the actual temperature of the ecat when boiling is reached, but using some reasonable estimates suggests that the only way to reach 4.4 kW transfer from 600 W in 3 minutes would require the ecat to increase its power output at the moment boiling begins to a level far above 4.4 kW, and then decrease back to 4.4 kW as the equilibrium point is approached, to avoid going beyond dry steam. That would be some feat of engineering indeed. And for no purpose.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I have stumbled upon yet another peculiar engineering design choice. This one I cannot explain as anthing other than a deliberate and studied inplimentation with the sole intent to defraud. Whereas the previous choices might be explained by oversight, or ignorance I see no way to justify this one. It would be easier in terms of cost and labor to route the outlet of the E-car off the top of the chimney. The peculiar choice to route it out of the side means customizing parts as best I can tell. Search among the suppliers of copper pipe fittings. If anyone can find evidence that reducing T such visible is the photographs of the Ecat is manufactured by anyone, let me know. Routing out of the top would require only a couple of pipe reducers and an 90 degree elbow. This choice would not allow water in liquid phase to weep out the exit. Placing it on the top would mean the water would have to rise into the elbow at the top before weeping over into the outlet hose, making it far more difficult to explain to the critical eye.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Joshua, You may recall, I conjectured: ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. ...to which you replied: How can it not? There lies the little pickle of a situation we find ourselves in. Who's right? I did my best to explain my perceptions on the matter. At present I don't think my thoughts were so terribly flawed that I will need to retract them - but we shall see. Truth is, I'm not in a position to prove your perceptions on the matter are incorrect. But then, nor are you in a position to do likewise to me. Under the circumstances it seems to me that a more practical approach would be to watch Defkalion very closely. I hope you are doing so as well. The burning question we all want to know is whether the products Defkalion's claims they are developing will generate heat (energy) cheaply. At present, I can't answer that, and neither can you. Few can. On the surface it appears that Defkalion is forging ahead with plans to roll out the first generation of products based on Rossi's contested e-cats, possibly by the end of this year. I don't know if Defkalion will meet such an ambitious self-imposed end-of-the-year deadline or not. Quite frankly, it would not surprise me if it takes them a tad longer. In my view it is unlikely that Defkalion as a corporate organization is working in isolation. I suspect there is a considerable amount of feedback and peer review going on within various departments, particularly the RD and engineering sections. It seems logical for me to assume that by this stage of the game had Defkalion encountered something fundamentally wrong with the principal attributes of Rossi's e-cats, the entire organization would have folded up by now. That hasn't happened. Against all odds, it seems as if the exact opposite is happening. It's an interesting quandary I'm left to ponder. I can ponder the ramifications of your view on the matter, a view which seems to imply that all Cold Fusion claims (to the best of your knowledge) are bogus, or I can ponder the actions of Defkalion. Why is it that Defkalion seems to be forging... full steam ahead, no pun intended. Such actions seem to contradict in the most fundamental way your premise that Defkalion is betting its existence, it's entire future on a bogus technology, and tragically so. That's not the impression I get. In any case, I hope you can at least appreciate why might want to avail myself to a second opinion, and a third... Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua, You may recall, I conjectured: ... how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. ...to which you replied: How can it not? There lies the little pickle of a situation we find ourselves in. Who's right? I did my best to explain my perceptions on the matter. At present I don't think my thoughts were so terribly flawed that I will need to retract them - but we shall see. Truth is, I'm not in a position to prove your perceptions on the matter are incorrect. But then, nor are you in a position to do likewise to me. Well, your position violates conservation of energy and mine doesn't. As for trying to understand the mechanics of Defkalion and cohorts, I am not qualified. I'm just looking at the demos, and don't see that they demonstrate their claims. That's all. (And when you look at a company like BLP, and see they have gotten at least 60 million in investments, mining the same presumed H-Ni exotherms for 20 years, without a commercial product, it's not that hard to understand the motivations of the Rossians, with or without a product.) Unlike many commenters, I don't think we'll know at the end of the year, or for years after. I think (as you said), there will be delays, and the definitive product will remain just out of reach for a long time, and then may just fade away after a few people have made their fortune. I suspect proving fraud will be difficult. Or it'll all work, and I can stop pouring cash into gas tanks, and the solution to global warming will be at hand. I'd like to see the latter as much as the next guy, but realistically, I don't expect it.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You really should give up on this claim. The manufacturer makes no claim about steam quality. It calculates enthalpy of humid air from the temperature and RH. As Driscoll has argued, a capacitance measurement could not give steam quality.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You really should give up on this claim. The manufacturer makes no claim about steam quality. It calculates enthalpy of humid air from the temperature and RH. As Driscoll has argued, a capacitance measurement could not give steam quality. You're quit right. Either the probe uses a polymer between two capacitor plates that absorbs water and the permeability between the capacitor plates changes accordingly or it measures the permeability directly. If it is a polymer, wet or dry steam makes no difference. The polymer will read 100% humidity in wet or dry steam. If it is measuring vapor directly the increase in capacitance is too high for 100% humidity. So, what's an instrumentation firmware programmer to do in this case? He can either display an overflow condition or call it 100% humidity. Having played the role of an instrumentation firmware programmer yahoo too many times, I would go with the latter choice. Why? The user could very well be using the thing in foggy weather. I still want my instrument to work in fog so I call it 100%. This would be OK. 100% is the humidity in fog.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 11:09 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma**b...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole source of the dispute. Where have you been? Reading all this crap. Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I did, during tens of tests done to measure the amount of not evaporated water (read liquid water, TN) present in the steam produced by “E-Cat” generators, always was made providing results in “% of mass”, since the used device indicates the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. I confirm that the measured temperature always was higher than 100,1°C and that the measured pression in the chimney always was equal to the ambient pressure. The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . Now, you may certainly claim that this *implies* that the device he used can be used to indicate the grams of water by cubic meter of steam. But is that steam quality? He doesn't state that the device is a relative humidity meter. So he definitely does not state that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. He shows no sign of understanding the issue. Therefore using his comment as if Galantini had said that you are wrong, which is what you claimed, isn't being careful. Further, from his lack of understanding of the issue, presenting him as an expert is very shaky. There is no evidence I could find, other than bluster from Rossi, that Galantini would be any kind of expert in this field. He's a chemist. He does not state, there, that the steam is dry. He does not state what the meter read. He does not state what the ambient pressure was, which is critical for determining the boiling point. Note: grams of water per cubic meter of steam is, in fact, a calculated function of the meter he uses. It will display g/m^3. However, this is calculated from the RH and the temperature, and the meter isn't rated to make this calculation for live steam, it seems. No matter what probe. Jed, something has gone off the edge for you, with this. Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. You are deriving conclusions outside the scope of the basic purpose and utility of the instrument. The device really only measures several parameters: relative humidity, and temperature (and, I think, pressure). Everything else is calculated. Steam quality is a complex and difficult-to-measure value, and the meter is not sold for it. There is no accuracy rating of the device, as to RH, at the boiling point. It *calculates* enthalpy assuming that this is air, at RH below 100% and temperatures below boiling, it appears. Where does the brochure state that it measures enthalpy? Again, Jed, I've been over this material and have quoted from these brochures many times. You simply make statements. Where does the brochure state that it will measure the enthalpy ... of steam? I've looked, extensively. Methods for measuring steam quality are very complex, compared to using an RH meter. It appears that if we have steam, any steam, high or low quality, at the boiling point, the meter will say the same value, which is the mass of water vapor per cubic meter, if it still works, which is not guaranteed. That is what it will display below that temperature. The device simply is not displaying liquid water that might be present, it has no way to measure it, it would require very complex sensors, certainly not what an RH meter uses. Here is what Galantini may have done: he used the meter and displayed the g/m^3 of water. He then compared this with the value for dry steam, and, amazing! They were close or the same! So he proclaimed that the steam was dry. It looks like Kullander and Essen may have done the same, but they came up with some (small) level of wetness. That might merely have been the measurement error of the meter! Krivit did speak with Kullander and Essen but obviously
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: *1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.* If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. Someone should inform Storms that at atmospheric pressure, steam is much less dense than water, so that 3.4% of water by mass corresponds to 98 % steam by volume. If steam takes up 98% of the volume, it doesn't seem likely that the chimney would fill with water, and the steam would bubble through it. Maybe Krivit would be willing to help Storms understand the difference between the mass fraction and the volume fraction. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with observation. Condensation of the steam in the hose would of course require dissipating the heat through the hose. Regardless of what may be happening in the chimney, I'm inclined to agree that if the flow rate is 1.9 mL/s, and if the power is 750 or 800W, there would be very little, if any, steam visible at the end of the hose, because it seems reasonable that the hose could dissipate 150W to 200 W. However, the small amount of steam that is visible does not need a nuclear reaction to explain it. A small amount of chemical heat in the ecat, or an easily plausible factor of two misrepresentation in the power or the flow rate could easily account for what is observed. *2. The steam contains water droplets, i.e, was not dry.* Power to heat water to 100° = 592 watt Power to vaporize all water = 1.94 * 2270 = 4404 watt Total = 4997 watt if all water is vaporized Excess power = 4249 watt The only way steam is wet is when water drops are present. If too many drops are present, they fall as rain (precipitate). It is simply impossible to have a large number of drops present. A 5% figure is chosen as an example here ( http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html) because this is a plausible amount. The 5% figure was chosen because that is typical of boilers, where the water is heated directly, and the mist is formed from the bubbling water. It is not by any stretch an indication of the maximum amount of mist that is possible in steam. The situation in the ecat is very different. The water is forced through at a fixed rate, and so when some steam forms, it moves through the conduit along with the flowing water, but at a much higher speed, depending on the tube diameter. Imagine 98 or 99% of the volume occupied by gas, and 1% by liquid as it flows through. A picture of falling rain doesn't really fit with that. For small tubes, this sort of 2-phase flow may result in annular flow, where a thin film of liquid flows along the walls, and the steam flows along the center. For smaller tubes, you get an annular/mist flow, and this can happen when the steam makes up as little as 1 or 2% of the water by mass (Inoue et al., Influence of two-phase flow characteristics on critical heat flux in low pressure, Exp. Thermal and Fluid Science 19 (1999) 172.) We don't know what's in that chimney. It could be a kind of nozzle, that sprays the remaining liquid into the chimney as a mist, which is then carried by the much more voluminous steam through the hose. Or it could simply be a coiled tube with a small diameter to promote the formation of mist. Or there might even be an ultrasonic nebulizer in there. It doesn't really matter. The simple point is that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with Rossi's claim of 5 kW (4.2 from the ecat), but is not inconsistent with a mixture of steam and mist corresponding to a lower flow rate, or higher power input. You know, if the steam were dry, there would have to be a transition from liquid water flowing out of the hose to dry steam, in which the steam quality would go continuously from 0% to 100% dry. And this transition should take quite long; on the order of tens of minutes. If Rossi were confident of his results, he would show this transition, so we could all see what the intermediate situations look like, and how they differ from dry steam. And he wouldn't get so nervous holding the hose up to keep water from coming out. Nevertheless, the conclusion would be the same even if 20% water drops were present. But not if the the fluid consisted of 98% liquid drops, or 95% or even
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? I don't trust that he would report it honestly. Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. So far, there is no indication that Krivit checked the flow rate. Even if he did, I don't trust that Rossi didn't rig it. Remember, he declined your offer to bring your own meters to check it out. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. Most research is subject to independent replication. Rossi's isn't. Even expensive experiments that can't be easily replicated, are subject to far more detailed scrutiny by a far broader spectrum of observers and participants. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No. It really can't. If it could, the manufacturer would promote it that way, because steam quality measurement is big business. But they don't. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. You are substituting hero worship for critical thought. So far, Rossi's record is zero for two. That doesn't sound brilliant to me. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's past indiscretions relates directly to his scientific credibility. His failure to deliver on his claims makes him less believable. If he had murdered someone in a fit of rage or vengeance, that would not bear on his scientific abilities. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. So they say... There is doubt they are real. I doubt they are real. Others do to. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. But the reports from Levy, and E and K are all poor quality. Pathetic quality, really. And they are scientists. Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. The significant doubts about steam quality (which makes a factor of 7 or 8 in the claimed power, not 20 or 1000), about flow rates, and claims of heat input have not been seriously addressed or contradicted. And they could be easily, if the claims were real. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. The temperature was reached as soon as boiling began. You cannot go discontinuously from below boiling to dry steam. The ecat has to heat up. Like it does before boiling is reached.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. I don't believe Galantini is an expert in those meters. And anyway, academics can be wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. No. They make no claim about measuring steam quality. This is your fantasy. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Storms is wrong.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by definition. Molecules of water must achieve sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the intermolecular forces of liquid water. Statistically, some molecules are able to achieve this at room temperature; so, water will evaporate. Immediately upon leaving the surface of water; however, those molecules begin to lose kinetic energy to the surrounding air and begin to condense. If they leave with only sufficient KE to depart the surface, ie 100 C, they will begin to condense immediately. However, molecules do not go walkabout together from the surface. If it's steam, it's dry. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit: http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-** sends-e-mail-about-rossi-**steam-measurements-today/http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/06/20/galantini-sends-e-mail-about-rossi-steam-measurements-today/ Good morning, on the request made to me today, as I have repeatedly confirmed to me that many people have requested in the past, I repeat that all the measurements I . . . The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . That text appears to be scrambled or incomplete. Not sure what 176 Text Code . . . is. In the first test, Galantini used a Delta Ohm monitor to measure the relative humidity of the steam. This is a model HD37AB1347 IAQ with a high temperature HP474AC SICRAM sensor. See: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 The brochure and the experts that Lewan and I have contacted say this instrument measures the enthalpy of steam. I expect they are right and the people who say otherwise here are wrong. I have no further comments on this issue. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: All steam is dry steam when it leaves the surface of water by definition. Where is this definition given? There are very clear, well-defined, concepts related to steam, dry steam, wet steam, and steam quality. A simple google search will help you understand them. Steam is water vapor at 100C. If there are suspended or entrained droplets of liquid, the steam is said to be wet; if not, dry. Steam quality represents the mass fraction of the fluid that is in the vapor state: 100% quality means there no liquid droplets present; 50% quality means that 50% of the water by mass is liquid, and 50% by mass is vapor. 0% quality means all liquid. Of course, 0% quality is just liquid if there are no other gases present, so no one would consider it steam. But note that 1% quality steam is already 94% steam by volume, and so all the liquid could conceivably be suspended as a fine mist in the gaseous steam. Especially if the steam is moving at a high speed. Molecules of water must achieve sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the intermolecular forces of liquid water. Statistically, some molecules are able to achieve this at room temperature; so, water will evaporate. Immediately upon leaving the surface of water; however, those molecules begin to lose kinetic energy to the surrounding air and begin to condense. Condensation occurs at the surface when favorable collisions from other water molecules, and favorable lack of collisions from the gas molecules allows them to break the bonds. The kinetic energy of the molecules can be less than the average at 100C. Once evaporated, the molecules can exist as a gas well below the boiling point. Condensation requires favorable collisions (glancing) with other water molecules (or droplets) so that the short range attractive force has time to bind them together. Condensation occurs continuously (considering the vapor molecules collectively), but so does evaporation, so at equilibrium, there is always some water vapor. If they leave with only sufficient KE to depart the surface, ie 100 C, they will begin to condense immediately. A single molecule of water does not condense, so it is not clear what this means. The vapor, as I said, is continuously condensing. A single molecule has a certain half-life as a gas. However, molecules do not go walkabout together from the surface. Are you saying droplets cannot be formed directly from liquid? In a boiler, which is what you seem to be talking about, steam is formed under water, so there are bubbles, which rise to the surface, and produce small splashes. This turbulence produces droplets in a range of sizes. The smaller ones are carried into the air along with the rising water vapor (steam). Typically, in a boiler, the steam is about 5% liquid by mass, according to the site Storms linked to. Entrained liquid is very bad for pipes, and has been compared to sand colliding with the surfaces and fittings. That's why the question steam quality is extremely important. In a cool mister, there is no steam at all. Fine droplets are simply carried into the air. We don't know what happens in the ecat, but one possibility is that a small mass fraction of the water is vaporized, it occupies a large fraction of the volume, and entrains the liquid as a fine mist. Try to imagine what would come out of that hose if the ecat (in the Krivit test) were producing 1.5 kW. (Say it were replaced with an electric heater with exactly 1.5 kW power.) In that case, 600 W would raise the temperature to boiling, leaving 900W to produce steam. That's only enough to vaporize about 20% of the liquid by mass. You must therefore get a mixture of liquid and gas flowing. The gas would occupy about 99.7% of the volume in the conduit (before condensation). The liquid would occupy about 3 parts in 1000 of the volume. What would you expect to see coming out of the hose? Whatever it is, it's what people call low quality steam; also: wet steam. If it's steam, it's dry. Wrong. Steam can be wet.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Yes Sir. From that article: but such wet-steam conditions have to be limited to avoid excessive turbine blade erosion See also the article vapor quality on wikipedia, in particular the section of steam quality, where you find: The genesis of the idea of vapor quality was derived from the origins of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics, where an important application was the steam engine. Low quality steam would contain a high moisture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisture percentage and therefore damage components more easily[*citation neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed *]. High quality steam would not corrodehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrode the steam engine. Steam engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine use water vapor (steam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam) to drive pistons which create work. The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by *steam quality* (steam dryness), the proportion of saturatedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(chemistry) steam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_quality#cite_note-3 i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Steam can be wet. Live with it. Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam: steam [steem] –noun 1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, this is why wikipedia talks about machines. Steam is dry.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Semantics, I know; but, wet steam is not steam: steam [steem] –noun 1. water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor. Water in the form of an invisible gas or vapor can have droplets suspended in it. That makes it wet steam. Towel: A piece of absorbent cloth. Wet towel: A piece of absorbent cloth with water droplets supported in it. A wet towel is still a towel. Moreover, from the American Heritage Dictionary: Steam: 1 a. The vapor phase of water b. A mist of cooling water vapor. and from dictionary.com: Steam: [...] 3. the mist formed when the gas or vapor from boiling water condenses in the air. Steam can be wet. Live with it. And yes, it is semantics. So both your semantics and your physics are wrong. The criticism of the ecat, independent of your semantic problems, is that what comes out of it is not pure vapor, but a mixture of vapor and liquid, and therefore represents about 7 or 8 times less power than claimed.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Wet steam just exist when there is a 2-fluid flow, No, it can exist under a variety of condtions. Steam is dry. Some steam is dry. Some steam is wet. You just admitted steam can be wet above.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at 100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid state without at least some kind of squirting be constantly be pouring out of the house.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Only inside the hose. Outside it, it is clean. Why should it change as it leaves the hose? Either way, both at horizontal and vertical inclinations of the hose, at 100C and 6m/s, no more than 15% of the mass can be in the liquid state without at least some kind of squirting be constantly be pouring out of the house. I don't know about the 15% limit, but I suspect you're right that in the hose, some suspended liquid would probably settle out. But at one or two g/s flow, this does not have to represent much squirting. That's barely more than a dripping faucet, and seems pretty consistent with what Lewan showed in his video, in which he collected (according to him) about half the input flow as a liquid. No particular squirting was visible. It's also consistent with the Krivit test, in which Rossi held the hose vertically for too short a period for 2 g/s flow of liquid to come out of the hose.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets that are carried into the air by the vapor. Steam can be wet. Live with it.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? Many people seem to claim that the water was not turned to a gas in order to leave the reactor.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Drop a stone into a pond to prove that this is wrong. Or check out a cool-mist humidifier. Turbulent boiling water also produces liquid droplets that are carried into the air by the vapor. Steam can be wet. Live with it. OMG Cude! You are so full of it! Have you ever studied any science? T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method. Oh, it splashed out of the reactor!! Why did I not think of that? No wait! The molecules grew cilia and it walked out of the reactor! /sarcasm The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas. Indeed it will be condensed and visible just above the surface of the water; but, it was converted to a gas first. T
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Really, the water exits the reactor by a mechanical method. The water, in whatever state, is forced through by a pump. That's a mechanical method. The water either overflows the pipe as a liquid or leaves as a gas. Or it leaves as a mist of very small water droplets entrained in the vapor. Remember, if only 2% of the water by mass is converted to vapor, then the vapor occupies 97% of the volume. Again, what would you expect to see if the ecat delivered 1.5 kW of power? The output would have to be a mixture of liquid and vapor to conserve energy.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Wrong. Steam can be wet. No sir. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam Ahem. From the very article you reference, A gas can only contain a certain amount of steam (the quantity varies with temperature and pressure). When a gas has absorbed its maximum amount it is said to be in vapor-liquid equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor-liquid_equilibrium [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam#cite_note-0 and if more water is added it is described as 'wet steam'.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
This is why one should look at the general appearance of a 2 fluid flow to draw a conclusion.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I was always taught that, technically speaking, steam is an invisible gas. However, most of us quite naturally tend to only notice the clouds of water vapor condensing out from the invisible steam as it cools. We tend to incorrectly associate, in the visual sense, those tiny suspended condensed droplets of water as steam. I continue to make this visualization mistake all the time even today, as do most of us, simply because it's convenient to do so, even though technically speaking I know it's inaccurate. To be honest I think the latest semantics battle over the definition of what steam really is, is now in danger of turning into silly pointless argument - is the steam wet or is it dry. Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being expelled directly FROM WITHIN the end of black hose from Rossi's e-cat test. In other words I gather you are arguing from the premise that the steam already contained suspended droplets of condense water within the black hose, and through guilt by association, there must have also been condensed water vapor within the chimney of the e-cat prior to the water-gas mixture exiting into the black hose. Is this an accurate assumption on my part? As for me, I was under the impression (an impression that admittedly could be wrong) that those who looked closely at the end of the black hose noticed that the first signs of condensation of tiny suspended water droplets were observed to have formed OUTSIDE of the end of hose... let's say, maybe, about quarter of an inch or so from the tip. Can someone tell me if this is this an accurate assumption on my part or not? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I wrote: and where does that released latent heat GO? To which Jeff replied: It goes into colder water entering the ecat So, let me get this straight... The above statement is what you think is the most likely 'sink' for the heat energy released when a number of vapor particles give off some of that heat energy and condense into a microscopic (suspended) droplet? I think even JC would have a problem with that one... -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:23 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms It goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery. 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Hello, To get an indication if all the water running through the ecat has been fully evaporated it would only be necessary to add a dye (e.g red colour) to the cold water in the tank. If the water in the black hose is completely clear it would be prove that all the water has been evaporated. The water in the black hose would then be distillated water and not overflow. Peter van Noorden - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 8:51 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms I was always taught that, technically speaking, steam is an invisible gas. However, most of us quite naturally tend to only notice the clouds of water vapor condensing out from the invisible steam as it cools. We tend to incorrectly associate, in the visual sense, those tiny suspended condensed droplets of water as steam. I continue to make this visualization mistake all the time even today, as do most of us, simply because it's convenient to do so, even though technically speaking I know it's inaccurate. To be honest I think the latest semantics battle over the definition of what steam really is, is now in danger of turning into silly pointless argument - is the steam wet or is it dry. Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being expelled directly FROM WITHIN the end of black hose from Rossi's e-cat test. In other words I gather you are arguing from the premise that the steam already contained suspended droplets of condense water within the black hose, and through guilt by association, there must have also been condensed water vapor within the chimney of the e-cat prior to the water-gas mixture exiting into the black hose. Is this an accurate assumption on my part? As for me, I was under the impression (an impression that admittedly could be wrong) that those who looked closely at the end of the black hose noticed that the first signs of condensation of tiny suspended water droplets were observed to have formed OUTSIDE of the end of hose... let's say, maybe, about quarter of an inch or so from the tip. Can someone tell me if this is this an accurate assumption on my part or not? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Josh, Correct me if I'm wrong but I gather you believe (or are convinced of the fact) that the videos you viewed proved that tiny suspended condensed water droplets (mist) was observed being expelled directly FROM WITHIN the end of black hose from Rossi's e-cat test. I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat (corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose. And that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with 4 or 5 kW of steam enthalpy. It's far less even than what you get out of a 2 kW steam cleaner shown on youtube and referenced here previously. Instead, I would judge the output to be more consistent with a few hundred watts of power (1 kW tops) over and above the power needed to heat the water. This is not based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under water (not much). The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling point. Rossi has simply not provided any credible evidence of dry steam. He has not reported any measurement that actually depends on the dryness of the steam (like the output flow rate) to give observers any confidence in his claims. His claims would be more believable without demos than they are with the shabby demos he has done so far.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
From Josh: I'm arguing that if dry steam were coming out of the ecat (corresponding to 5 kW total power), that most of it would survive to the end of the hose, because I don't think more than a few hundred watts could be radiated by the hose. And that what comes out of that hose is completely inconsistent with 4 or 5 kW of steam enthalpy. It's far less even than what you get out of a 2 kW steam cleaner shown on youtube and referenced here previously. Instead, I would judge the output to be more consistent with a few hundred watts of power (1 kW tops) over and above the power needed to heat the water. This is not based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under water (not much). You give technical reasons for why you have arrived at your conclusions, but I don't feel you have answered the specifics of my original question. I will therefore rephrase it: Do you know if the gas being expelled from the black hose showed any signs of having started to condense into water droplets PRIOR to exiting the end of the hose? IOW, was the observed gas totally invisible at the end of the black hose, or was some condensation (mist) observed directly exiting the hose. My understanding was that the gas was completely invisible at the end of the black hose. Observers subsequently noticed that water vapor (condensation) began to form away from the hose... perhaps a quarter of an inch or so. However, my assumption might be incorrect. I'm hoping someone can clarify the matter. The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling point. This particular issue has been argued excessively in the Vortex Forum. I gather not everyone agrees with your interpretation. As for me, I remember my own high school chemistry labs. I recall heating solutions of unspecified liquids in order to convert them into gas. As various solutions transformed into a gas they would immediately leave the boiling flask. What was interesting about this experiment was the fact that the temperature of the remaining liquid ALWAYS remained consistent or at the same level of the respective boiling point. Obviously, the liquid that had just been converted into a gas and had immediately left couldn't possibly be any hotter that the respective temperature of the remaining liquid, especially if it was not contained like in a pressure cooker. It's my understanding that Rossi's e-cat is not designed to retain water under pressure as if it is a pressure cooker. The expelled water is going to be pretty darn close to 100 C no matter how hot the Rossi reaction might be. The only difference would be that the hotter the Rossi Reaction might get, the quicker the various solutions will convert to gas based on their respective boiling points. But it won't make the water turned into a gas any hotter. It will just increase the volume of liquid begin converted into a gas. Is it the conversion rate what is being disputed? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Josh: This is not based so much on whether it's visible at the end of the hose, but on the speed and volume of the gas, once it does become visible. And in the case of the Lewan run, on the amount of bubbling when the hose is held under water (not much). You give technical reasons for why you have arrived at your conclusions, but I don't feel you have answered the specifics of my original question. I will therefore rephrase it: Do you know if the gas being expelled from the black hose showed any signs of having started to condense into water droplets PRIOR to exiting the end of the hose? I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. I don't think the water droplets are formed by condensation; I think they are formed by turbulence in the ecat or the chimney. I think only a small mass fraction of the water ever changes phase. If the expelled steam is invisible at the end of the hose, there is still far too little of it to account for 2 g/s flow rate. There must be liquid somewhere. I don't think it is invisible, but if it is, then maybe the mist settles out before it reaches the end of the hose, and flows out slowly (without filling the hose to block the steam). It's only a couple of mL per second. With the hose vertical, maybe only the steam comes out. That may be why Rossi gets nervous; he realizes that water is collecting in the hose, and after some time it will start to block the steam, and then there will be sputtering. The consistently flat temperature is also a clear indication that the steam is not dry. I can see no reason the temperature of dry steam would remain so closely regulated at the boiling point. This particular issue has been argued excessively in the Vortex Forum. I gather not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. As for me, I remember my own high school chemistry labs. I recall heating solutions of unspecified liquids in order to convert them into gas. As various solutions transformed into a gas they would immediately leave the boiling flask. What was interesting about this experiment was the fact that the temperature of the remaining liquid ALWAYS remained consistent or at the same level of the respective boiling point. Obviously, the liquid that had just been converted into a gas and had immediately left couldn't possibly be any hotter that the respective temperature of the remaining liquid, especially if it was not contained like in a pressure cooker. Yes, and to repeat, these experiments all heat the liquid directly, not the gas. In the ecat, if all the water is converted to steam in the ecat, then the steam would be heated directly, and as shown in that figure, there is nothing stopping it from getting hotter. It's my understanding that Rossi's e-cat is not designed to retain water under pressure as if it is a pressure cooker. The expelled water is going to be pretty darn close to 100 C no matter how hot the Rossi reaction might be. No. This was Rothwell's problem for a long time too. You don't need elevated pressure to heat steam above the boiling point. Air is at atmospheric pressure and it is about 200C above its boiling point. And when you pass air past hot elements in your furnace, it gets hotter still. Gas can be heated at constant (atmospheric) pressure. No problem. This misconception is an indication that our education system is failing us. And if you don't like the figure I mentioned, look at any phase diagram to see that gas can exist above the boiling point at atmospheric pressure. The only difference would be that the hotter the Rossi Reaction might get, the quicker the various solutions will convert to gas based on their respective boiling points. If the liquid is converted to gas quicker, that means earlier in the ecat, then the gas will have to pass the heated walls of the ecat, and will therefore get hotter. But it won't make the water turned into a gas any hotter. It will just increase the volume of liquid begin converted into a gas. If it is *all* being converted into a gas, how can it increase the volume that is converted? It can't, and the only way energy can be conserved is for the gas to get hotter (or for more heat to radiate through the insulation).
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
MISTer Joshua Cude, you are, as always, right... No evidence at all for excess heat production...
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. Dry steam will most certainly increase in temperature *IF* it can hang around long enough in a super heated environment to absorb additional heat. That is the question. To be honest I can't make heads or tails of the diagram, this after staring at it and reading the accompanying explanations several times. The information it attempts to reveal (which presumably was laid out in a simplified manner) was not diagramed in a way that I can translate. Obviously, that is my misfortune. But no matter. This is not rocket science we are dealing with here. Nevertheless, I agree with the premise that if water droplets still exist, and if those droplets are suspended throughout the H2O gas, it will prevent the combination from increasing above 100C, assuming we are at sea level. That's pretty much what my high school chemistry lab session proved to me. It was a fun experiment. However, I repeat. A key point in all of this conjecture is the fact for the 100% dry H2O gas to increase in temperature much above 100 C, it has to hang around long enough within a super heated environment in order to absorb additional heat energy. I am under the impression that the water that was being heated in Rossi's demo e-cat was NOT under any pressure, meaning it is not maintained within a contained environment. Therefore, the newly converted gas, which BTW is constantly expanding, quickly exits the heated reactor chamber. Once the H2O leaves the confines of heated reactor chamber (which it will quickly do) it no longer has a chance to increase much above the 100 C temp it had initially acquired. Therefore how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
The Kirvit video *might* be explained in terms of the Tarallo Water Diversion Fake: http://lenr.qumbu.com/fake_rossi_ecat_details_v323.php Harry From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 2:23:01 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it goes into colder water entering the ecat - but I contend that the following possibilites exist for fakery 1. large slugs of water are spit through the black hose and down the drain 2. the water stays in the Ecat and never leaves it 3. the input water is not measured correctly intentionally (fraudulently) On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jeff wrote: ...it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) Agreed, and where does that released latent heat GO? -Mark -Original Message- From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms it leaves the surface as a gaseous form but then it can condense into microscopic droplets while giving up latent heat (heat of vaporization) what thermodynamic point was incorrect? On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Steam can be wet. Live with it. Water cannot leave the surface of water. It must be in a gaseous form. Learn some thermodynamics, Cude. Each molecule that escapes the intermolecular forces takes with it that amount of kinetic energy. T
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.comwrote: From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. Dry steam will most certainly increase in temperature *IF* it can hang around long enough in a super heated environment to absorb additional heat. That is the question. It's simpler than that. It's a matter of conservation of energy. If the power increases slightly above what is necessary to boil all the water to produce dry steam, then unless the additional heat finds its way through the insulation, the only way to remove that heat is by heating the steam to a higher temperature. At equilibrium, power in must equal power out. Probably some combination happens, but removing the heat by heating the vapor is certainly more efficient than dissipating the heat through the insulation. If you think it doesn't hang around long enough when the power just exceeds dry steam, then the fluid is not removing heat fast enough, and so the ecat will get hotter. That means the water will boil a little earlier, and the steam has to pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and at a higher temperature. Very soon, the water boils away early enough, and the ecat is hot enough so that the gas *is* able to remove the additional power, and a new equilibrium is established with the steam coming out at a higher temperature. Then the power in once again equals power out. However, I repeat. A key point in all of this conjecture is the fact for the 100% dry H2O gas to increase in temperature much above 100 C, it has to hang around long enough within a super heated environment in order to absorb additional heat energy. Yes, but it must get hotter if power in is to equal power out. I am under the impression that the water that was being heated in Rossi's demo e-cat was NOT under any pressure, meaning it is not maintained within a contained environment. Once again, pressure is not necessary. Therefore, the newly converted gas, which BTW is constantly expanding, quickly exits the heated reactor chamber. Yes, and indoor air quickly leaves a furnace element, but it still gets hotter. Once the H2O leaves the confines of heated reactor chamber (which it will quickly do) it no longer has a chance to increase much above the 100 C temp it had initially acquired. Obviously not. It must get heated before it leaves the cell. Therefore how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. How can it not? If the power-in exceeds the power needed for dry steam, as it probably would occasionally if there were ordinary fluctuations in the ecat output of the sort described in the secret 18-hour experiment, then the power-out must also increase. And the only way for the power out to increase, if the steam is already dry, is for it to get hotter.
RE: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
I think one has to take into consideration the specific heat... think of the water as a big 'heat capacitor', and although it is at the boiling point (BP) at point 'B' on the graph, it absorbs a shitload more heat energy by the time it gets to point 'C' on the graph, imparting more and more kinetic energy to both the liquid and vapor water molecules, which reduces the likelihood of finding any liquid water in the steam. Joshua's insistance that the temperature of the steam MUST be well above BP is ASSUMING that the capacitor is full, and there's no where else for the heat to go but into the vapor molecules. What if the E-Cat is operating with a 98% 'full charge' on the heat-capacitor? It would still have considerable capacity left to absorb heat fluctuations without significantly changing steam temperature. From the measurements and statements made by the Rossi camp, I would bet that the E-Cat is operating at SLIGHTLY to the LEFT of point 'C'... where there's enough kinetic energy in the steam to maintain it at less than 1.5% liquid water (by mass) in the chimney, but still able to absorb some modest heat fluctuations from the reactor without significantly changing the temperature of the steam in the chimney -- i.e., what fluctuations that do occur in the reactor heat output are dampened by the heat storage capacity of the water / steam capacitor. Thus, ***IF*** the reactor's heat output is stable enough, it could achieve what they are saying... Anybody have any insights as to how stable the heat output of the reactor is? Does it fluctuate by 10 watts, 100 watts or 1000 watts? And over what time period? -Mark _ From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 7:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:37 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.comwrote: From Josh, For brevity sake I'm just going to focus on the following: I don't think the quality of the video is good enough to judge that. Fair enough. Take a look at figure 2.2.3 on the site Iverson just linked to. Follow the constant pressure path ABCD. It indicates clearly that at constant pressure, as soon as you get dry steam, it can be heated above the boiling point, but that if the steam is wet, it can't be. Dry steam will most certainly increase in temperature *IF* it can hang around long enough in a super heated environment to absorb additional heat. That is the question. It's simpler than that. It's a matter of conservation of energy. If the power increases slightly above what is necessary to boil all the water to produce dry steam, then unless the additional heat finds its way through the insulation, the only way to remove that heat is by heating the steam to a higher temperature. At equilibrium, power in must equal power out. Probably some combination happens, but removing the heat by heating the vapor is certainly more efficient than dissipating the heat through the insulation. If you think it doesn't hang around long enough when the power just exceeds dry steam, then the fluid is not removing heat fast enough, and so the ecat will get hotter. That means the water will boil a little earlier, and the steam has to pass by more of the heated walls of the ecat, and at a higher temperature. Very soon, the water boils away early enough, and the ecat is hot enough so that the gas *is* able to remove the additional power, and a new equilibrium is established with the steam coming out at a higher temperature. Then the power in once again equals power out. However, I repeat. A key point in all of this conjecture is the fact for the 100% dry H2O gas to increase in temperature much above 100 C, it has to hang around long enough within a super heated environment in order to absorb additional heat energy. Yes, but it must get hotter if power in is to equal power out. I am under the impression that the water that was being heated in Rossi's demo e-cat was NOT under any pressure, meaning it is not maintained within a contained environment. Once again, pressure is not necessary. Therefore, the newly converted gas, which BTW is constantly expanding, quickly exits the heated reactor chamber. Yes, and indoor air quickly leaves a furnace element, but it still gets hotter. Once the H2O leaves the confines of heated reactor chamber (which it will quickly do) it no longer has a chance to increase much above the 100 C temp it had initially acquired. Obviously not. It must get heated before it leaves the cell. Therefore how can this newly formed H2O gas be expected to be much above 100 C if it doesn't have a chance to hang around long enough to absorb additional heat energy. How can it not? If the power-in exceeds the power needed for dry steam, as it probably would occasionally if there were ordinary fluctuations in the ecat output of the sort
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate test (where there was no vapor produced). I'll be less skeptical, when independent groups definitively show a large tank of water being heated with input power carefully monitored. My skepticism comes from: 1. Rossi used a water vapor based analysis that could be easily faked (i.e. faked input water mass flow rate or faked vapor output). He could easily have done a test and made 30 gallons of hot water but multiple times he chose the vapor down the drain / hide the evidence method. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. There is probably more, but I'm not following Rossi close enough to know it all. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Jeff On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 10:48 AM 7/3/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. Or something in between. Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate test (where there was no vapor produced). I'll be less skeptical, when independent groups definitively show a large tank of water being heated with input power carefully monitored. or the like. My skepticism comes from: 1. Rossi used a water vapor based analysis that could be easily faked (i.e. faked input water mass flow rate or faked vapor output). He could easily have done a test and made 30 gallons of hot water but multiple times he chose the vapor down the drain / hide the evidence method. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). The rest is circumstantial evidence. There is also circumstantial evidence that Rossi is real. The serious flaws in the public demonstrations, that there is water in the hose, don't prove that the heat was not generated. They are only evidence of lack of demonstration, not of nonworkability. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. There is probably more, but I'm not following Rossi close enough to know it all. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? They look well-funded. They also look hyped. Again, circumstantial evidence. They, as well as Rossi, could arrange a public demo that was convincing. As far as I know, they haven't done this. What does that mean? I don't know.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
The analysis of Ed Storm is consistent with the book chapters of 2 phase flows that I posted here another day. No one bothered to read that with attention and in case anyone does that will see that the only consistent solution is that there is at least 3200W of excess energy. The only way this could be a scam is by hiding an energy source, which also Ed Storm agrees with.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. You saw in the video that it was steam! And in the video made by Lewan. You don't believe your own eyes? Levi has a lot to gain monetarily . . . From who? How? Where did you get this information? Levi's university will reportedly get a grant from Rossi, but grant money does not go the professor personally. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. This is a bit like saying that Newton and Darwin were not trained as scientists. Newton invented most of what we now call science, and before Darwin biology did not exist, so there was no one to train them. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. That was ordinary RD, not a fiasco. It may yet be revived and made successful. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Their devices have been tested by Greek regulators; they have $280 million; their board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company. Do you really, seriously think they are bamboozling the regulators, or faking any of this? As I said, that is akin to the notion that the moon landings were faked, or the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S. Government. There is no doubt Defkalion's claims are real. That proves that Rossi's claims must have been real all along. Do you suppose he is faking and yet by a fantastic coincidence Defkalion tried the same material and it actually worked? Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. Rossi's crude estimate of enthalpy made during Krivit's visit is correct. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. Anyone can confirm this, and it has been confirmed millions of times in the last 200 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Ed Storms posted: 1. Not all of the water is turned to steam. If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with observation. Rich Murray: Some heat is lost by radiation and convection from the device and the hose. There may be only enough heat to vaporize a tiny fraction of the water, as evidenced by the steady 100.1 C temperature of the water exiting the device into the hose. No evidence for invisible steam at the output of the device has been shown. The system, device and hose, would be full of water from the pump outlet to the device to the end of the hose in the wall, dribbling water at 2 cc/sec, while any tiny bubbles of steam would have been condensed back into the water in the hose. This is a system that would behave as a continuous siphon, with rate of flow controlled by the input pump, from the input pump and electric heater device on the table to the hose on the floor and all the way to the hose end in the drain, about half the height of the table. Rossi and associates may have become adept at adjusting the system to behave in this way, allowing delusional claims of excess energy produced by vaporization, while maintaining a stable process for hours, presenting convincing appearances for those who are motivated to be convinced. At the end of the very warm hose, which was emptied into the drain, when Rossi lifted it before detaching it and raising it up for display, only a slight mist appeared for a few seconds -- evidence for a small amount of very warm saturated air encountering the cooler air outside the tube. Storms and many others have misread the slight mist shown for a few seconds in the video.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? not when I look at all the circumstantial evidence Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. You saw in the video that it was steam! And in the video made by Lewan. You don't believe your own eyes? Levi has a lot to gain monetarily . . . From who? How? Where did you get this information? Levi's university will reportedly get a grant from Rossi, but grant money does not go the professor personally. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. This is a bit like saying that Newton and Darwin were not trained as scientists. Newton invented most of what we now call science, and before Darwin biology did not exist, so there was no one to train them. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. Greeks have their backs up against a wall financially speaking and desperate people will do desperate things. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. That was ordinary RD, not a fiasco. It may yet be revived and made successful. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Their devices have been tested by Greek regulators; they have $280 million; their board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company. Do you really, seriously think they are bamboozling the regulators, or faking any of this? As I said, that is akin to the notion that the moon landings were faked, or the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S. Government. There is no doubt Defkalion's claims are real. That proves that Rossi's claims must have been real all along. Do you suppose he is faking and yet by a fantastic coincidence Defkalion tried the same material and it actually worked? Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. Rossi's crude estimate of enthalpy made during Krivit's visit is correct. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. We don't know the atmospheric pressure or the back pressure in the tubing. Water boiling temperature increases by 1 degree C with a change of 0.6 psi. See here http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html Also, we don't know the calibration of the instrument. We can't rely on +/- .1 degree C accuracy to verify huge claims. They may have intentionally miscalibrated the instrument by 0.5 degrees C. It's much better to heat 30 gallons of water from room temp to 50 C in front of 20 independent people who all have their own temperature measuring device. Anyone can confirm this, and it has been confirmed millions of times in the last 200 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. Greeks have their backs up against a wall financially speaking and desperate people will do desperate things. That's preposterous. The Greek government is in trouble. Most Greek people are fine. Most of the investors in Defkalion are not Greek, and they have no reason to do anything desperate. The regulators are not going to cooperate in a scam no matter how desperate they may be, because it cannot earn any actual money. If that is your best argument, you should hang it up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. The capacitance changes as the partial vapor pressure of the water changes. But in saturated steam, the partial pressure of the vapor is constant at 14.7 psi for all steam qualities between 0 and 100%. This is the key thing. So the capacitance won't change as the steam quality changes. Also, the capacitance probe would get clogged up with water droplets, which would block the vapor from reaching the plastic capacitance sensor. It takes an expensive, complex meter to measure steam quality. The meter can not measure steam quality no matter what type of method (including non-standard) they use. Here is what I wrote on the Relative Humidity probe last week: = Here are details on how a relative humidity sensor works (as others have also mentioned). It uses an extremely thin plastic (one manufacturer uses a one micron thick polymer) between two metal plates which creates a capacitor. I assume there are holes in the face of the metal plates so that the water can migrate into and out of the plastic faster. This is because the water couldn't migrate through the bulk fast enough if it just went through the microns thick plastic exposed at the edge. The capacitance changes as the water is absorbed. The manufacturer correlates capacitance with humidity and temperature in air at 1 atmosphere (if they wanted to go to higher pressures then then would have to add a device to measure pressure and add that as a correlation - but few customers would really need the capability for higher pressures) here are details on the construction of Relative Humidity meters: http://www.stevenswater.com/catalog/stevensProduct.aspx?SKU='51122' http://sensing.honeywell.com/index.cfm/ci_id/140576/la_id/1/document/1/re_id/0 http://www.ddc-online.org/Input-Output-Tutorial/Humidity.html http://www.jifbrunei.com/files/083DHumidity.pdf The amount of water absorbed by the plastic depends on how many water molecules hit the plastic per unit time which is directly related to the partial pressure of the water vapor. The sum of the pressure due to the water vapor molecules plus the pressure due to the air molecules equals 14.7 psia. The plastic absorbs more water when the partial pressure of the water is 3 psi than if it is 1 psi, for example. So, for example the vapor pressure of water at 90 C is 10.1 psia and therefore the air has a partial pressure of 4.6 psia (because 14.7 - 10.1 = 4.6). The plastic probably does not even know the air is there - i.e. the capacitance may not change much if the air was taken away while keeping the water at 10.1 psia. At 100 C (boiling), the vapor pressure of water is 14.7 psia and the capacitance is some value. Here is the key point: At 100 C, how much water would the plastic absorb if the steam was 100% quality (i.e. dry) compared to 0% quality (i.e. wet or also known as fog). The answer is the capacitance would be virtually the *same*. The reason is because the partial pressure of the water vapor is the *same*. The amount of water molecules hitting the plastic stays the same as the steam quality increases from 0 to 100%. So therefore, a Relative Humidity meter can not be used in any way to determine the quality (also known as dryness) of the steam and the supposed expert Galantini made a huge mistake. here are some graphs of water vapor pressure for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689.html Here are the specs on one of the probes Rossi used: HP474AC Relative Humidity Probe specifications: 5% to 98% RH -40C to 150 C +/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH) +/-3.5%(95%...99%RH) Temp +/-0.3C Note that it works at 150 C. The probe probably senses a capacitance change as the temperature is increased from 100 C to 150 C but the water pressure would also have to increase so that more water was driven into the plastic of the capacitor. The capacitance changes as a function of water vapor pressure. It does not change as a function of steam quality. here is the Testo 650 relative humidity instrument that also Rossi used: http://www.ipi-online.com.au/test-and-measurement/data-loggers/testo/176-h2-data-logger Galantini wrote the following: ...The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . from the
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 10:06 AM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed Thanks for forwarding this, Jed, and thanks to Dr. Storms for writing it. I think he has missed something. Before looking at that, I want to emphasize that from the public evidence, I cannot determine how much power the E-Cat is generating. This is not the same as a claim that it does not generate power. It might, it might not. Or, because one of the errors here is an excluded middle, I'll point out that it might be generating power at a different level than claimed. It might even be more! (Rossi may have overestimated input power, because he included the power dissipated in the electronics.) We don't have the data we'd need. A variety of ways the Rossi claims might be wrong have been suggested. Let's examine each. The following values are used: Cp (H2O at 65°) = 4.18 J/g-deg , enthalpy of vaporization @ 100°C = 2.27 kJ/g. 1. Not all of the water is turned to steam. Dr. Storms has missed something. It is a practical certainty, backed by the Essen and Kullander measurements (if they were accurate, which they almost certainly are not), that there is some water not being vaporized. Thus we can be sure that the statement above is true. The question is not that, but *how much*? If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Actually, that overstates applied power. While total input power is of interest, it is of interest only for ruling out fraud, because the real figure for calorimetry analysis would be heater power. The applied power includes power dissipated in the electronics. In a convincing and accurate demonstration, heater power would be reported. Rossi almost certainly has the data, but it would reveal how his heat is being adjusted to maintain energy generation. Is input power constant? Is applied power constant? We have only isolated, static figures, in some cases. (Seems to me I've seen a plot of input power somewhere?) Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. Dr. Storms is assuming that all input power is used to heat the water. It would be less because of power consumed by the electronics. Rossi could have made a very convincing demonstration with a blank E-Cat, one with no fuel in the chamber, say no hydrogen. He was asked to do that, he declined, saying that it wasn't necessary, since everyone knows what is produced. I.e., no excess energy. But this was a clearly deceptive argument, or at least wrong. I certainly don't know how much steam will be produced by an empty E-Cat with the same heating and same flow rate! In the other direction, the input power figure of 745 watts comes from, as I recall, Rossi's calculation, which was based on a figure of 220V for the mains. The actual figure is 230 V., so the actual input power is about 5% higher. Which would have a large effect on the marginal power, the power used to make steam. But Storms' figure is of interest. From this, I conclude that most of the input water would be flowing through the E-Cat, that it might be at 100 C., and that there might be some steam. However, I do not know that the water is actually at 100 C, it would depend on where the thermometer is placed, whether it was in the water or not, and that might depend on internal design, as well as the possibility of live steam above colder water would depend on internal design. Absent a deliberately manipulated internal design, the water and water vapor would be in equilibrium at 100 C, unless there were not enough applied power to boil any of the water. As another problem, I don't know for a fact what the input flow is. Below, Dr. Storms points out that some have thought the input flow was overstated by a factor of two. This would drastically affect the calculation above. Assumptions have been made from what seemed to be a constant rate of clicking of the pump. That input flow rate would only be correct if there is no significant resistance to flow. If the E-Cat incorporates a flow control valve, there goes that figure! Does the pump continue to click at the controlled rate even if flow is blocked? I don't know. What I do see are assumptions being made but not explicitly stated as what they are. A whole series of tough problems would disappear if the water was fed by gravity, so that if there is no boiling, there is no flow. Instead of this, Rossi uses a more complex and actually less reliable method, a pump. With gravity feed, and the source maintained at the right level (which could vary some, but be restored by adding
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 06:17 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jeff Driscoll mailto:hcarb...@gmail.comhcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. He has certainly not said that Jeff Driscoll is wrong. Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment, nor does it mention Mr. Driscoll. Jed you are confusing presumed authorities and what you presume what they say *means* with your own opinions. I'm not going to touch the Greek catfight, beyond saying that this is circumstantial evidence, along the lines of I must be right because there are some people I think must be smart who are taking actions which I intepret as indicating they trust the device. In reality, we don't know what they have done, for the most part, and companies, legitimate companies, often hype what they are doing. It's perfectly legal, until and unless they defraud an investor or customer.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole source of the dispute. Where have you been? Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. - Jed
