Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will
not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the metal
may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi and I believe
Defkalion. If the flow is turned off or is only 1g/s it looks
I belive you are saying the heating mantle alone is 500g. Also the water
never exceeds 100C so why should the insulation? I assume Rossi construction
does not allow metal potentially hot enough to destroy insulation to contact
insulation. If he saw that happen he would rework the insulation.
water
although this does not contribute directly to steam.
- Original Message -
From: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
I belive you are saying the heating mantle
:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Perhaps someone can provide specific reference to a statement by one of the
participants in the E-Cat demos that the water flow was maintained during the
heat-after-death tests.
Joe Catania:
Your post below
3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania wrote:
Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage but
there does not seem to be evidence of that.
You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow
calorimeters
Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of a
guess. Why dosen't Rossi verify syeam quality. A simple steam velocity would
verify steam quality yet I see no attemp being made to do so. An error in
flow rate has already been noted and there is no way the steam could
.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Joe Catania wrote:
Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of
a guess.
Okay
Jed its more a violation of the 1st law to have steam production without
extraction from the metal. No the temperature would not drop to zero. Sounds
like you're admitting defeat.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday,
PM, Joe Catania wrote:
No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug
continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes.
I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see
that I am providing the standard
: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not
see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff
time for the logarithmic decay
, at 10:00 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Try to understand there is no way that the temperature can decay in only a
few minutes. If you start with 1MJ and subtracted 1kJ/sec you'd get 1000sec.
This is woefully wrong on two counts, (a) the 1 MJ number is a wild guess on
your part and probably wrong
calculations
On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the
reactor is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere
fraction (~1kW). OK?
There has been no demonstration that output is higher than
be
accounted for whereas thermal inertia will be. It is you who dosen't understand
the data.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote
I'm glad you pointed that out because the calculation you seem to be
alluding to is incorrect. Its not correct to assume the water would be
heated evenly- it would not.
- Original Message -
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27,
is not
formed throughout the water volume but only at the hot metal surfaces.
- Original Message -
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Am 27.08.2011 14:38, schrieb Joe Catania
15:31, schrieb Joe Catania:
There isn't much mixing with that low a flow. Also cold water tends to
sink to the botton. Also steam tends to rise to the top. Also the
temperature should form a gradient from cold to hot. In short the water
is not the same temperature. But more importantly it won't
.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 11:01 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
When the power is cut the steam will still be produced according to thermal
inertia
-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Definition of heat after death
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
Again thermal inertia is a fact- not an if. Thermail inertia does not run
out after one minute as I have
Interestingly I now see the heating resistor is on the outside of the copper
tubing.
- Original Message -
From: Jouni Valkonen
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
On Aug 27, 2011 2:13 PM, Peter Heckert
Th Essen Kullander report amongst its many flaws gives the enthalpy of Nickel
hydride as ~ 4000J/mol. I suspect the number is much higher. See
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review06/stp_3_johnson.pdf. The true value
is probably ~50 x higher.
@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote:
No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate
of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly
relevant I neglect it.
The water
-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote:
I've already prooven it. Furthermore I demonstrated it.
Your demonstration employed roughly 50,000 times less water than
into a speculative denial of the heat
source on the grounds of your bad math.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
The facts
Part 3
Joe Catania wrote:
There certainly are facts involved namely could the boiling be caused by
the heat stored in the metal, etc. of the E-Cat to last 15 minutes.
Facts. H. . . . Okay then, tell us:
How much metal? How hot did it get? Assume 3 kWh are stored, enough
One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry and instead perform calorimetry on
the actual nickel-hydrogen reaction.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Horace
there should be a
conclusion possible.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
One should stay away from E-Cat calorimetry
The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam
production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by thermal
inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen of the E-Cat will still be at a high
temperature when power is shut off therefore boiling will continue at
So, you believe the issue is settled by the use of flow calorimetry (hopefully
you mean without phase change).
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Percolator Effect
Joe Catania
, 2011 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
The 3rd video refers to Levi shutting of the power to the E-Cat and steam
production continuing for 15 minutes. This could easily be explained by thermal
inertia. IE the metal and hydrogen
for 15 minutes with the thermal mass of the E-Cat.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
Joe Catania wrote:
Yes I honestly mean toward 100C. If the metal
.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Krivit Videos Part 3
On 8/25/2011 5:36 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
No, the metal is certainly 100C (I think alot greater).
Electric heaters
No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate of
water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant
I neglect it. Levi isn't saying it produced steam at a certain rate- just
it produced steam. Therefore my order of mag is as close as anyone
Cantwell should attempt steam quality measurements on his device. This
should include continuous measurement of steam velocity at exit which can be
done with a fairly inexpensive probe.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent:
and condensed fluid separately.
You could sparge the final output. (With Jed's method sparge into a tank with
a lower water height than the traps I've shown.)
Joe Catania
Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:21 -0700
I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant
Rossi's hose may be longer but the 25W/m cooling rate is much to small to
explain Levi's statement that 50% of the steam is condensing in the hose.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:22 PM
Subject: Re:
I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant
for this type of experiment. Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much
higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good comparison with
this aspect of Rossi's device.
- Original Message -
From:
I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant
for this type of experiment. Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much
higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good comparison with
this aspect of Rossi's device.
- Original Message -
From:
The Nasa article is totally wrong in saying that we can calculated quality
from enthalpy since no one has measured the enthalpy. It would be easiest to
measure quality by measuring velocity. There is no truth to the NASA
calculations approach of saying that 770 watts went in to so much water
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat? This surely
damns 75% dryness? Please post a link which covers Kettle Tube boilers and
Dryout .
- Original Message -
From: Alan J Fletcher
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:30 PM
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat? This surely
damns 75% dryness? Please post a link which covers Kettle Tube boilers and
Dryout .
- Original Message -
From: Alan J Fletcher
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:30 PM
One thing I think we have to admit is even if the steam flow rate is at the
calculated ~10m/sec necessary (which dosen't appear to be the case), at the
outlet of the E-Cat, that this would probably be sufficient to entrain high
quantities of liquid water in the outflow.
- Original Message
%
(above 4300 Watts)
Joe Catania wrote:
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat?
No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos taken
of it, but they do not prove anything.
I recently borrowed a steam cleaner trying to fix bathroom grout. I
%
(above 4300 Watts)
Joe Catania wrote:
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat?
No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos taken
of it, but they do not prove anything.
I recently borrowed a steam cleaner trying to fix bathroom grout. I
The NASA calculations seem to have no validity. It dosen't seem possible to pin
down the quality. There is not enough information to do so.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Answering
possible.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75%
(above 4300 Watts)
Joe Catania wrote:
The Rossi machine, judging from what
quality must be above 75%
(above 4300 Watts)
At 03:57 PM 8/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joe Catania wrote:
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat?
No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos
taken of it, but they do not prove anything
quality must be above 75%
(above 4300 Watts)
At 03:57 PM 8/17/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Joe Catania wrote:
How do you explain the low velocity of steam at exit of E-Cat?
No one measured the velocity as far as I know. There were some videos
taken of it, but they do not prove anything
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75%
(above 4300 Watts)
At 04:11 PM 8/17/2011, Joe Catania wrote:
The NASA calculations seem to have no validity. It dosen't seem possible to
pin down the quality
17, 2011 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Answering Krivit #3: eCat steam quality must be above 75%
(above 4300 Watts)
At 05:09 PM 8/17/2011, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't think so. The quality can be anything from 0 to 1 but it is likely
to be very wet. There is no diagram that can tell you
Galantini's observations are of little consequence if he did not observe the
very forceful flow of steam out of the E-Cat that would be necessary to
correlate with numbers Rossi gives for heat production. No such
observations have been made wrt the vidoes presented. In fact, the
emanations look
Very surprising since wetness is water droplets. IE coalescence of water
droplets into larger droplets does not change the steam quality.
- Original Message -
From: Jouni Valkonen
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:NyTeknik
it originates.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote:
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that the
metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass
: Joe Catania
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Uppsala University Denies Rossi Research Agreement
Yes its not measured but it follows that it must be higher due to the
increased pressure.
- Original Message -
From: Damon Craig
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
steam
I think the topology of the E-Cat would reveal alot about its
characteristics as a boiler. But one thing is for sure: it would seem that
the metal surface which gives rise to the steam is under some mass of water
which will increase the pressure somewhat over ambient. This raises the
steam
You want Young's Modulus, see Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_modulus
- Original Message -
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ecatreport part 2
But Robin, how about the 2nd half of
The reason is because you need nucleation sites for boiling to start. The
teabag adds them.
- Original Message -
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:They say liquid water can't be hotter than boiling...
In Rossi's E-Cat reactor we have essentially a low-quality boiler. Escaping
steam bubbles have to rise through entering room-temperature water. This can
cool the steam causing condensation. A decent simulation coul be arranged by
boiing water in a flask with a glass tube and rubber tube. The
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
