Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
I wrote: > 1. Put a tap in the hose to draw off samples periodically. To get an > accurate temperature, you draw off 1 L into a Dewar (a thermos bottle), stir > vigorously and insert several thermocouples and thermometers. > Toss out the first liter and fill it again. Maybe put the Dewar into a large bucket and let the water run into it and overflow for a few minutes. Bring the body of the Dewar itself up to the same temperature as the water. I don't use an actual Dewar, since they are expensive. I use a thermos like this: http://www.target.com/p/Thermos-Stainless-Steel-Briefcase-Bottle/-/A-10318103 Only mine was free, from Office Depot. I have done this often with two thermocouples and three red liquid thermometers. Believe me, you get the same temperature on all 5 instruments to within 1°, and you get the right answer. Not precise, but accurate. There is no 2°C discrepancy. You can be darn sure of the Delta T, because you compare each thermometer to itself, when placed in a sample of tap water. Red liquid ones cost $25. See: http://www.omega.com/Temperature/pdf/GT-RL_THERMOMETERS.pdf If Rossi had done this we would know with absolute certainty what the inlet and outlet temperatures are to within 1°C. At that flow rate, that is comes to +/- 750 W accuracy. That's nothing to write home about. You can do better with electronic instruments and of course he should have used electronic instruments. You can trust any electronic computer based instrument to about 0.1°C, even the low quality ones. Assuming you are smarter than a boiled sheep and you remember to calibrate it and test it with an ordinary electric heater. My point is, with 5 handheld instruments costing ~$200 total, you could do this test and get data with such assurance that only a scientific illiterate would argue with it. (Let's say someone who believes you can store up 30 MJ once and then release them twice.) You would have proof that 3 hours into the heat after death the power was 6.3 kW +/- 0.8 kW. Measure it manually 4 times an hour, add in the computer log which has much better precision and thousands more data points, and Bob's your uncle. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > As it happens, I offered to visit him with a team of experts from the second > best technical university in the U.S. to evaluate teh setup and take data. Second best? Harummph! :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
Jouni Valkonen wrote: > I said that the outlet water from > > the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could > > independently test the temperature with their own equipment. > > This is of course possible, but is it? 600 kg/h water is lots of water > and it is not trivial to dispose it anywhere that is convenient for > the observers. > Yes, it is a trivial matter. I thought of three ways to do this the moment I saw the video: 1. Put a tap in the hose to draw off samples periodically. To get an accurate temperature, you draw off 1 L into a Dewar (a thermos bottle), stir vigorously and insert several thermocouples and thermometers. 2. Use a 1 m hose from the heat exchanger into a large bucket. Place a utility pump and garden hose in the bucket to pump the water outside. 3. A variation on #2, drill a hole in side of the large bucket close to the bottom, glue in or screw in a pipe fitting, and attach the 20 m hose. Methods 2 and 3 are preferred because they would shorten the hose and prevent anyone from accidentally stepping on the hose or kinking it, which would change the flow rate. You will note in the video there was a doormat sitting on top of the hose. Yes, a DOORMAT, for goodness sake! What kind of idiot puts a doormat on top of hose in an experiment in which a stable, known flow rate is critical?!? Of course the flow rate should be recorded on computer anyway, but still, that is an extraordinarily lame brained thing to do. If Rossi had allowed me to look at the setup a day or two before the test I could have made this along with the other changes I suggested. That is purely hypothetical; e would never allow me or anyone else to make any changes whatever. I expect he would not even allow me or anyone else to zero out the meter or install an SD card. I should point out that these suggestions I made were not only from me, they were from distinguished experts. I told him so. It isn't as if he is rejecting only my suggestions. I do not take it personally. As it happens, I offered to visit him with a team of experts from the second best technical university in the U.S. to evaluate teh setup and take data. He refused, rather ungraciously. He told me, in effect, that under no circumstances will he ever accept any suggestions from me or from anyone else. No matter how qualified you are, you will find there is no point to making technical suggestions to Andrea Rossi. It is a lot like talking to a wall. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
At 01:51 PM 10/11/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because he failed to measure all the necessary variables. On the contrary -- Lewan jumped in and RESCUED what we do have. Without him we would have NOTHING except Rossi's eCat temperature logs. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52353.html [Vo]:My comments to Lewan about pen and paper dataJed Rothwell ... Lewan remarked that he was not prepared to collect data and play as active a role in the test as he ended up playing. ...
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
Jouni Valkonen wrote: > But if you do not have such a fancy toys around, then you have to > improvise. . . > Most of the equipment he needed was right there! All he had to do was use it properly. As I said, the Termometro 4 channel TM-947 SD could have recorded the temperatures to a computer. Just read the manual, put an SD card in it, and press a few buttons. He has a computer recording temperatures already. Surely he can attach a few more thermocouples and a couple of flow meters to it. Or get another computer. They cost nothing these day. I have them coming out of my ears. Any missing equipment could be purchased in a few hours on the internet. He may not have a high precision flowmeter for the primary circuit, or a digital recording flowmeter for 10 L/min. He could purchase these at a modest cost. I would have been happy to provide them, if I had known he was planning to do a test without them. Doing a test without the proper instruments and without recording on a computer is crazy. It is waste of time. Inviting people to such a test is an insult. What the heck is he doing running a lab without a damned recording flowmeter, anyway? Seriously, are we supposed to believe he will soon turn on a 1 MW reactor made from 52 small units, but he does not have a proper flowmeter in his lab?!? Does he plan to "improvise" that? He will blow his head off. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
2011/10/12 Jed Rothwell : > Jouni Valkonen wrote: > >> >> Therefore I do not complain Mats for being incompetent, because I know >> that Horace, Jed and me would have failed in similar manner. It is just too >> easy to be wise five days after the demonstration. > > I was wise before the demonstration. It took no great skill, but as I wrote > here, in a message I copied to Rossi: > ". . . Several days before this test, I sent Rossi a short list of > suggestions. For example, I said that all data should be recorded on a > single computer with time stamped records. I said that the outlet water from > the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could > independently test the temperature with their own equipment. This is of course possible, but is it? 600 kg/h water is lots of water and it is not trivial to dispose it anywhere that is convenient for the observers. But if Mats had been creative, he could have measured the mass flow of the output of primary loop. If there is a correlation between mass flow and secondary loop ΔT, then it means, that E-Cat is not overflowing. And if E-Cat is not overflowing, then we get directly the total enthalpy from the mass flow and we can calibrate the heat exchanger. There is always opportunities to be creative. But it is hard. But you are right. We definitely should have more data points from the secondary loop than every ten minutes. This was major mistake that was done. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
Jouni Valkonen wrote: > Therefore I do not complain Mats for being incompetent, because I know that > Horace, Jed and me would have failed in similar manner. It is just too easy > to be wise five days after the demonstration. I was wise before the demonstration. It took no great skill, but as I wrote here, in a message I copied to Rossi: ". . . Several days before this test, I sent Rossi a short list of suggestions. For example, I said that all data should be recorded on a single computer with time stamped records. I said that the outlet water from the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could independently test the temperature with their own equipment. It would have taken an hour or two to implement these changes. My suggestions would have answered *every one of the objections* that has been raised against this test so far. Every single one." I am not saying that I described a perfect test. There can be no such thing. I did anticipate all the major problems. So did several other people here. More to the point, it would have been easy to fix these problems. It would have taken no more effort to set this test up correctly than it did to set it up wrong. For the record, Rossi vehemently disagrees with me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
2011/10/12 Jed Rothwell : > Jouni Valkonen wrote: > >> >> It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because >> he failed to measure all the necessary variables. > > 1. Lewan did the best he could under difficult circumstances. > 2. All the necessary variables (parameters) should have been recorded on a > computer and uploaded to the Internet in a spreadsheet. This is the 21st > century. > 3. The equipment configuration, especially the 20 m hose attached to the > cooling water outlet, prevented people from confirming the outlet > temperature. This was a grievous fault. It is the largest source of > uncertainty. > 4. Critical parameters should have been recorded with multiple instruments, > with all values recorded on computer. But if you do not have such a fancy toys around, then you have to improvise. . . –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
Jouni Valkonen wrote: > It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because he > failed to measure all the necessary variables. 1. Lewan did the best he could under difficult circumstances. 2. All the necessary variables (parameters) should have been recorded on a computer and uploaded to the Internet in a spreadsheet. This is the 21st century. 3. The equipment configuration, especially the 20 m hose attached to the cooling water outlet, prevented people from confirming the outlet temperature. This was a grievous fault. It is the largest source of uncertainty. 4. Critical parameters should have been recorded with multiple instruments, with all values recorded on computer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes, this was a fiasco, but it was also first principle proof of the claims
tiistai, 11. lokakuuta 2011 Jed Rothwell kirjoitti: > > It is intensely annoying that Rossi did the test in this ridiculous > manner, forcing us to scramble to try to determine whether > was 2 kW or 6 kW. It had nothing to do with Rossi, but Mats Lewan was the culprit, because he failed to measure all the necessary variables. this went exactly as I predicted: I predicted that there is nothing to complain about the experimental setup, but those who are observing and making measurements, just fail to do all the relevant measurements. And indeed this was exactly what happened. Mats Lewan forgot to pay attention to the primary circuit. He even said that it was irrelevant! But he did not realize that he should have calibrated the secondary loop by measuring enthalpy from primary circuit. Calibration was easy, because E-Cat was not overflowing all the time. Therefore it is only necessary to measure the steam mass flow from primary circuit and assume 98% for the steam quality, because there is only steam going to the heat exchanger and water is trapped inside E-Cat. However, I do not see that there are significant fundamental errors, although inaccuracy is high. The total output was something between 90 MJ and 180 MJ. Of course there is very much heat, but still it is annoying that we do not have that more accurate answer, although most of the potential errors are pointing into direction that is favorable for excess heat. By the way, pump was calibrated before the test and it pumped water some 13 kg/h. Due to pressure, it is safe to say that water inflow rate something close to 10 kg/h. But yet again, Mats should have measured this at least few times during the test, because back-pressure is affecting to the water flow. —Jouni Ps. This tells more about how hard science is when there is no ready made protocols available, but it is required to improvise on the site. Therefore I do not complain Mats for being incompetent, because I know that Horace, Jed and me would have failed in similar manner. It is just too easy to be wise five days after the demonstration.
