Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light
On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk: There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe. If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies the concept of space-time, therefore we cannot no longer consider time as fourth dimension. Really? I'm not sure that it does that. At least, I doubt that that's going to be the first thing that theoreticians give up to explain this. :) I would say that if we need to resort extra dimensions to save the relativity, then it is just bye bye relativity. No, not at all. G/R is compatible with extra dimensions. That's the entire premise behind compactification and how it's possible to take seriously any notion of super-gravity. (Not that supersymmetry is looking healthy these days). And it goes without saying, that if relativity fails, everything about string theory also fails. But quantum mechanics will prevail. I think that quantum mechanics should have falsified relativity in 1930's when Einstein find out about the entanglement. Einstein was correct IMHO, entanglement is really spooky action at a distance. I don't think that we need to worry about string theory being healthy. It's not being invoked to explain anything yet; as far as I know we're still solving the landscape problem, and have no experimental way of verifying that string theory is true or not. And, currently, there's no other local evidence that suggests that G/R is incorrect. Quite the opposite in fact, isn't it? The gravity probe B results have tested it to pretty high precision. So, it's not so much that Q/M is right, and G/R is wrong. It's more the other way around. Even although we believe that Q/M provides a true formalism with which to describe the fields and interactions of nature, our best attempt to use it yields a single wave function containing all the known particle and field interactions but containing 18 free parameters which need to be fine-tuned by experimental results in order for the equations to be predictive. So, yes, Q/M is exactly the right theory and has not been shown yet to say anything other than the truth. But, until we have a theory that constrains the free parameters, at best we can say that we have an effective theory, which happens to model what we observe in experiment, without explaining why. What we've got to remember here about neutrinos, is that we currently don't have a very good model of them at all. At first we thought that they were massless and more recently we've discovered that they change flavours as they travel through space/time, the so-called neutrino-oscillations, and that requires us to accept that they're not massless at all. So we've tweaked the standard model to incorporate this by adding a flavour changing matrix into the symmetries, but we've got no theory which predicts why the flavours change. It's just been added by hand, introducing another 7 free parameters that also have to be fine-tuned. I don't think anyone can put their hand on their hearts anymore and say that they understand why the symmetries in the standard model have to be the way that they are. That's why so much work has been put into string theory, and super-symmetry. They're wild stabs at finding some mathematical structure which would incorporate all the symmetries that we find in nature, and constraining the free parameters (or at least reducing the quantity of them!) And, let's not talk about the Higgs! (Until that's found, then all bets are off that the standard model is the one true model). So, whatever your take on extra-(spacial)dimensions are, if you believe that quantum field theory is the entire theory, and that the standard model is the true expression of nature encapsulated in it, then the universe is just a single solution to a 25 parameter equation. How do you feel about those 21 extra dimensions? And, don't get me started about dark energy and dark matter, which are another manifestation of extra symmetries in nature that we don't understand. :) Are you still sure of Q/M? To my mind, I think that we've got a confusion in the way that we think about nature. We shouldn't be partitioning it into the quantum mechanics of the small, and the general relativity of the big. Instead we should be partitioning it into the parts that exhibit continuity and the parts that exhibit discontinuity. I don't believe we'll be able to fully comprehend what's really going on until we do. Regards, Joe
Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light
On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk: There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe. If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies the concept of space-time, therefore we cannot no longer consider time as fourth dimension. Really? I'm not sure that it does that. At least, I doubt that that's going to be the first thing that theoreticians give up to explain this. :) I would say that if we need to resort extra dimensions to save the relativity, then it is just bye bye relativity. No, not at all. G/R is compatible with extra dimensions. That's the entire premise behind compactification and how it's possible to take seriously any notion of super-gravity. (Not that supersymmetry is looking healthy these days). And it goes without saying, that if relativity fails, everything about string theory also fails. But quantum mechanics will prevail. I think that quantum mechanics should have falsified relativity in 1930's when Einstein find out about the entanglement. Einstein was correct IMHO, entanglement is really spooky action at a distance. I don't think that we need to worry about string theory being healthy. It's not being invoked to explain anything yet; as far as I know we're still solving the landscape problem, and have no experimental way of verifying that string theory is true or not. And, currently, there's no other local evidence that suggests that G/R is incorrect. Quite the opposite in fact, isn't it? The gravity probe B results have tested it to pretty high precision. So, it's not so much that Q/M is right, and G/R is wrong. It's more the other way around. Even although we believe that Q/M provides a true formalism with which to describe the fields and interactions of nature, our best attempt to use it yields a single wave function containing all the known particle and field interactions but containing 18 free parameters which need to be fine-tuned by experimental results in order for the equations to be predictive. So, yes, Q/M is exactly the right theory and has not been shown yet to say anything other than the truth. But, until we have a theory that constrains the free parameters, at best we can say that we have an effective theory, which happens to model what we observe in experiment, without explaining why. What we've got to remember here about neutrinos, is that we currently don't have a very good model of them at all. At first we thought that they were massless and more recently we've discovered that they change flavours as they travel through space/time, the so-called neutrino-oscillations, and that requires us to accept that they're not massless at all. So we've tweaked the standard model to incorporate this by adding a flavour changing matrix into the symmetries, but we've got no theory which predicts why the flavours change. It's just been added by hand, introducing another 7 free parameters that also have to be fine-tuned. I don't think anyone can put their hand on their hearts anymore and say that they understand why the symmetries in the standard model have to be the way that they are. That's why so much work has been put into string theory, and super-symmetry. They're wild stabs at finding some mathematical structure which would incorporate all the symmetries that we find in nature, and constraining the free parameters (or at least reducing the quantity of them!) And, let's not talk about the Higgs! (Until that's found, then all bets are off that the standard model is the one true model). So, whatever your take on extra-(spacial)dimensions are, if you believe that quantum field theory is the entire theory, and that the standard model is the true expression of nature encapsulated in it, then the universe is just a single solution to a 25 parameter equation. How do you feel about those 21 extra dimensions? And, don't get me started about dark energy and dark matter, which are another manifestation of extra symmetries in nature that we don't understand. :) Are you still sure of Q/M? To my mind, I think that we've got a confusion in the way that we think about nature. We shouldn't be partitioning it into the quantum mechanics of the small, and the general relativity of the big. Instead we should be partitioning it into the parts that exhibit continuity and the parts that exhibit discontinuity. I don't believe we'll be able to fully comprehend what's really going on until we do. Regards, Joe
[Vo]:INFORMAVOREs SUNDAY i.e, TUESDAY No 474
My dear friends, This time i am publishing my newsletter http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/09/informavores-sunday-no-474.html with a pardonable delay of 48 hours. I was 4 days in Italy- in the land of TM-LENR the things are going well, in the good direction but have to be accelerated. Mass tourism is more a kind of moneytheistic ritual and a good opportunity to state that you are are old and obsolete. However Italia is wonderful! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
Hello group, It looks like the official Defkalion Green Technologies discussion forum has been opened again for public posting: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/ What this exactly means, it's still unknown to me. I thought they wouldn't have had anything to do with Rossi and e-Cat based products anymore for the time being. Maybe there will be soon news on their part? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
I recall that they said they would show their products on September. 2011/9/27 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com Hello group, It looks like the official Defkalion Green Technologies discussion forum has been opened again for public posting: http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/forum/http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/ What this exactly means, it's still unknown to me. I thought they wouldn't have had anything to do with Rossi and e-Cat based products anymore for the time being. Maybe there will be soon news on their part? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:CERN clocks subatomic particles traveling faster than light
2011/9/27 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk: On 23 Sep 2011, at 21:09, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/23 Dr Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk: There's no other evidence for anything other than a 3+1 dimensional universe. If this observation about neutrinos is true, then we do not have anymore even 3+1 dimensions, but only three dimensions. FTL falsifies the concept of space-time, therefore we cannot no longer consider time as fourth dimension. Really? I'm not sure that it does that. At least, I doubt that that's going to be the first thing that theoreticians give up to explain this. :) As I understand Minkowski's space, it is the first thing that flies out of the window if this observation is confirmed. And, currently, there's no other local evidence that suggests that G/R is incorrect. Quite the opposite in fact, isn't it? The gravity probe B results have tested it to pretty high precision. It would be very surprising if general relativity is incorrect at short distances. General relativity is just a theory that describes a force interaction that is proportional to mass and is diminished by Newton's inverse square law. But it also add to Newton that it can consider that gravitational interaction is transmitted at the velocity of C. Yes, it works fine in solar system scale if we ignore few annoying anomalies. But general relativity is not a predictive theory that we could generalize it into explaining galaxy wide phenomena without calibration and what certainly it is not, a holistic description of the cosmos. General relativity has utterly failed to explain the rotational curves of galaxies and at cosmic distances it is just ripped apart, that it cannot even explain big bang, which should be impossible event in the scope of general relativity. I think that only way to explain big bang is that we assume that antimatter has repulsive gravitational effect or with my pet theory, that universe has a closed geometry that it is like a surface of four dimensional hyperball. If cosmos has truly spherical geometry and light can travel around the cosmos like Columbus can sail into India, then cosmos as a whole is gravitationally balanced because every point in the cosmos is surrounded by exactly the same amount of matter, thus initial expansion was possible with just modest repulsive force that causes the expansion of geometry. This view is extremely well supported because we have observed from cosmic microwave background radiation that the overall geometry of cosmos is flat, i.e. the cosmos as a whole is gravitationally balanced and it does not have positive or negative curvature what are implied by general relativity. Therefore, observations of cosmic microwave background should be interpreted that general relativity is falsified in the long distances. And indeed, when we have data from Planck's satellite measurements available, this will further confirm this idea of spherical and gravitationally balanced flat cosmos. So, yes, Q/M is exactly the right theory and has not been shown yet to say anything other than the truth. But, until we have a theory that constrains the free parameters, at best we can say that we have an effective theory, which happens to model what we observe in experiment, without explaining why. Perhaps nature is fundamentally non-predictive. That is, we can only make observations and then we can just try to make models that describes nature as accurately as they can. But these models must always be calibrated and verified by observations when they are generalized into larger or smaller scales. I think that this is the main problem why classical method of science has failed. We do not have great principles and general laws in science, but all theories must be calibrated into preferred scale. Just simple principles such as uncertainty principle and principle of natural selection, which both are similar as they are utterly non-predictive without further observations and are almost tautological by nature. I do not seek The Grand Theories Of Cosmos, but I am only preferring observations. However what is the most elegant thing in the quantum theory that it gives us adequate proof that all electrons are exactly similar with each other. This means that we can apply philosophically coherent inductive reasoning into explaining nature. And it resolves the Hume's age old conundrum, that can we trust inductive reasoning, because we have not observed all the ravens? Yes indeed, we can trust inductive reasoning, at least in the quantum scale. However what quantum physics and biology implies, we cannot trust deductive reasoning, if it is not verified by observations. Therefore where Einstein failed the most, is that he tried to apply deductive reasoning into nature. Are you still sure of Q/M? Yes indeed, even more sure than before your message. You just proved my point. ;-) –Jouni
Aw: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
- Original Nachricht Von: Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 27.09.2011 12:12 Betreff: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again Hello group, It looks like the official Defkalion Green Technologies discussion forum has been opened again for public posting: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/ What this exactly means, it's still unknown to me. I thought they wouldn't have had anything to do with Rossi and e-Cat based products anymore for the time being. Maybe there will be soon news on their part? It is interesting to see, they did NOT delete the older discussions. They only moved them to another place. So do they hold up their old claims? (max 400°C steam, using glycol heatspreader and high pressure) Looks like this all turns into an interesting story ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:03 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: What would they consume Videos? Hard Metal Pornography? food? Health insurance? Nickel and hydrogen. ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?
2011/9/27 OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net: Harry sez: Robots will never earn any income. Are you sure a robot could never be designed and programmed to earn an income? Not if we eventually create sentience as sophisticated as someone like Data, from Star Trek TNG. ;-) Commander Data does not earn incomes, because money is irrelevant in 24th century. But in the meantime we aren't anywhere near that level sophisticated with our current level of technology. That's the whole point robots are being created - to create a new sub-class of slaves that don't have the right to an income. We should aim for abolishing the need for earning income even for humans. We do not need it because already everything what we need is virtually free. And with E-Cat we really does not need to earn any monetary incomes, because with basic income we can compensate all material needs that we have, then with rest of our time we can do what ever we want. Apparently many will aim for riches and financial career, but also as many will devote their life for philosophy, science and space exploration. We live in new world where we have exceeded material needs, and we cannot no longer think with old world terms. Next generation market economy may sound like contradictory, because how there can be market economy without earned incomes? But it is not, because if you think it, that robots does the productive work and humans will consume the wealth. Human labor force just belongs to 20th century. It has no business in 21st century. Also, we do not need to worry about the rights of robots, but we have more burning moral issues that there are countless less smart and uneducated people in part time slavery doing McJobs providing services for wealthy and educated people, so just that they could earn basic level income for minimal health care, food, rental apartment and clothing. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?
On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 04:50 +0300, Jouni Valkonen wrote: In pure and ideal basic income economy, all tax revenues are returned to the markets boosting purchasing power of consumers, therefore economic burden of taxes is zero and no one has no economic reasons to oppose taxes. —Jouni [Politics will degrade the quality of the dialog here.] You don't have a consistent moral theory. Therefore you throw morality out of the window - in the name of morality - so that you can build 'your' perfect society. But it's not perfect, because if it were, then there would be no reason to threaten those who disagree with violence. A consistent moral theory will start with an axiom that all people have an equal moral status, with no slaves and no masters. There is no other way to build a consistent universal moral theory. But when you start with equality as an axiom, then you'll quickly find that taxation is theft because you're giving one group of people the moral power to use violence to take from everyone they choose. This is the flaw with democracy and the reason it has not been able to survive on a large scale. Small countries, like Denmark, can tolerate it much easier than large ones where accountability is much farther removed from the people abused by such power. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: What this exactly means, it's still unknown to me. I thought they wouldn't have had anything to do with Rossi and e-Cat based products anymore for the time being. Rossi said that, but Defkalion never agreed. They do not acknowledge a rift: http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/ Reliable sources tell me that Defkalion intends to proceed with their plans. I think the schedules have been set back by a few weeks but all previously announced plans are still on track. I do not know what the dispute is about or whether Rossi has a legal standing to stop them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
Jed, in your opinion, how can DT go ahead with their scheduled plans if Rossi never gave to them the e-cat technology (the secret sauce ?) Somebody is not telling the truth. Which one ? Rossi, DT, half and half, both ? The latter is the worst case if the whole e-cat technology is a bluff. 2011/9/27 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: What this exactly means, it's still unknown to me. I thought they wouldn't have had anything to do with Rossi and e-Cat based products anymore for the time being. Rossi said that, but Defkalion never agreed. They do not acknowledge a rift: http://pesn.com/2011/08/10/9501891_Defkalion_Responds_in_Support_of_Rossi/ Reliable sources tell me that Defkalion intends to proceed with their plans. I think the schedules have been set back by a few weeks but all previously announced plans are still on track. I do not know what the dispute is about or whether Rossi has a legal standing to stop them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVOREs SUNDAY i.e, TUESDAY No 474
Dear Peter, in the land of TM-LENR the things are going well, in the good direction but have to be accelerated. You cannot just leave us like that. Now you must tell more! ;-) Mass tourism is more a kind of moneytheistic ritual and a good opportunity to state that you are are old and obsolete. Mainstream Toscana is expensive and crowded I hope you were able to avoid some of that. mic
Re: [Vo]:INFORMAVOREs SUNDAY i.e, TUESDAY No 474
Thanks, dear Michele, Surely I will tell soon, the essence is that my friend is working very hard and really professionally, based on the scientific principles, as I wrote in two papers at this blog. If you have specific questions, please write me directly to peter.gl...@gmail.com- in English or Italian. No problem with Toscana, prices as usual I guess, food delicious, only with the great number of tourists, queeing, many vendors of kitsch. Only one really bad place the Stazione Santa Maria Novella in Firenze. Peter On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Peter, in the land of TM-LENR the things are going well, in the good direction but have to be accelerated. You cannot just leave us like that. Now you must tell more! ;-) Mass tourism is more a kind of moneytheistic ritual and a good opportunity to state that you are are old and obsolete. Mainstream Toscana is expensive and crowded I hope you were able to avoid some of that. mic -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, in your opinion, how can DT go ahead with their scheduled plans if Rossi never gave to them the e-cat technology (the secret sauce ?) Defkalion says Rossi gave them all information about the technology long ago, and they are capable of making all components. That is what they said at PESN and during the press conference. If -- as they claim -- they have tested machines extensively, they intend to open a factory at the end of the year, and they have supplied prototype machines to the Ministry of Energy then obviously they must have the technology. Rossi did claim that he has not given them any technology and they have never run a machine, but he quickly backed off from that. He said that all the disputes are financial, not technical. Earlier, during the press conference, Defkalion said they do have machines and they have run them, and they submitted prototypes to Ministry of Energy. Rossi was present sitting on the stage when they said this. The Energy Minister was sitting in the audience. Neither of them said that is not true! so I assume it is true. It is inconceivable that they would be waiting for some last detail at this stage. It is conceivable that Defkalion and the Min. of Energy are lying about everything, and they do not have a single machine. But it is not conceivable that they have the machines; they have been testing them for months; they have supplied prototypes the government; and yet they do not have any secret sauce catalyst powder, and they do not know how to make the powder. That is preposterous. If there is any truth to what they say, I am sure they are already manufacturing powder in industrial quantities. The powder is the key component. It requires the most expertise and manufacturing control. No one can open a factory making these machines unless they had mastered the manufacturing techniques for the powder. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Will Robots Steal Your Job?
2011/9/27 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com: You don't have a consistent moral theory. Therefore you throw morality out of the window - in the name of morality - so that you can build 'your' perfect society. But it's not perfect, because if it were, then there would be no reason to threaten those who disagree with violence. Sorry, but I will not prefer your universal moral code, that allows part time slavery in McJobs without hesitation. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion GT forum appears to be open again
SNAFU ... ?
[Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
A simple inexpensive continuously operating steam/water calorimeter can be obtained using a combined barrel and flow calorimetry. A water container, a barrel, or perhaps a trash can which is silicone sealed for leaks, can be used to condense steam via a submerged copper coil, preferably mostly located near the top of the barrel to avoid imposing a steam pressure head on the tested device. This water container can be insulated cheaply using construction foam board and fiberglass. A stirrer can be driven via a shaft through the foam board. A secondary coil can be used for pumped coolant. A fixed flow rate pump can be used to deliver the coolant flow. The coolant flow circuit can be open or closed. A closed secondary coolant temperature can be maintained via either water or air heat exchange or ice heat exchange. The source of the coolant energy is not important if the Tin and Tout are measured close to the water container, and any tubing between the temperature measuring stations and the water container is insulated. Ideally the secondary flow rate would be measured by a digital flow meter, and driven by a variable speed pump. The coolant flow rate can then be adjusted to suit the coolant delta T and the thermal power of the device under test. Alternatively, an accurate fixed flow rate pump can be chosen with a flow rate approximately matching the expected thermal power of the device under test given the expected coolant delta T. A reasonable goal for the water container temperature is the range 50°C to 70°C. Use of a large water container provides some degree of momentary heat pulse energy integration and confidence in the device thermal power measurements. It applies a significant time constant to the thermal data that reduces the frequency temperature data must be taken. It even permits manual temperature reading if a modestly stable condition is established. This is at the cost of being able to see instant response thermal and energy output curves. There is no need to see such fast response curves if the primary goal is to measure total energy in vs total energy out for a long run. The primary circuit water flow can be pumped directly from the water container. Ideally the primary water flow should be measured by digital flow meter. If a low pressure head is presented to the primary circuit flow pump, then a precision fixed flow rate pump can be used. If precision digital flow meters are not used, and reliance is placed on precision flow rate pumps, then at minimum simple (flow integrating) water meters should be monitored periodically to verify assumed pump mean flow rates. Calibration runs on dummy devices should be used to verify the calorimeter over the thermal range expected. A calibration control run should be used with the device under test to determine the water capacity of the device so the volume of water in the barrel is known in order to provide improved intermediate time thermal power measurements. At the conclusion of a run, the circuits should continue to be driven until thermal equilibrium is obtained and essentially all thermal energy is drained form the device under test. A water depth gage for the barrel may be of use, calibrated to depth vs volume, in order to keep track of the amount of water in the device under test. The secondary circuit input and output temperature should be recorded frequently. Alternatively, a direct delta T can be measured frequently using an appropriate dual thermocouple arrangement, thus providing improved data quality and reducing data acquisition required. Flow stirrers should be used, if feasible, in the secondary circuit prior to the thermometer wells. Barrel water temperature should be monitored. Ideally primary circuit water input temperature and room temperature should be monitored as well. A thermal decline curve should be measured for the water container when there is no primary circuit flow, and the water is stirred. The calorimeter constant C(dT) as a function of the difference between room temperature and water contained temperature (dT) should be determined. The curve C(dT) can be fit to a polynomial using regression analysis for convenient use in data analysis. Experience shows this method is not very accurate if the water container is not well insulated. This is due to room drafts, variations in humidity and temperature during the day, etc. Ideally active insulation could be used, whereby an extra envelope surrounds the water container insulation and the temperature there is maintained at the temperature of the water, thereby producing a dT = 0, and no heat loss. This is excessive for this approach, however, the goals of which are cheap, simple, and good enough. In summary, a minimum configuration then would consist of an insulated barrel with copper condensing coil, and
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
The simplest solution is to use a *Steam Water mixing* *valve*,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Peter On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: A simple inexpensive continuously operating steam/water calorimeter can be obtained using a combined barrel and flow calorimetry. A water container, a barrel, or perhaps a trash can which is silicone sealed for leaks, can be used to condense steam via a submerged copper coil, preferably mostly located near the top of the barrel to avoid imposing a steam pressure head on the tested device. This water container can be insulated cheaply using construction foam board and fiberglass. A stirrer can be driven via a shaft through the foam board. A secondary coil can be used for pumped coolant. A fixed flow rate pump can be used to deliver the coolant flow. The coolant flow circuit can be open or closed. A closed secondary coolant temperature can be maintained via either water or air heat exchange or ice heat exchange. The source of the coolant energy is not important if the Tin and Tout are measured close to the water container, and any tubing between the temperature measuring stations and the water container is insulated. Ideally the secondary flow rate would be measured by a digital flow meter, and driven by a variable speed pump. The coolant flow rate can then be adjusted to suit the coolant delta T and the thermal power of the device under test. Alternatively, an accurate fixed flow rate pump can be chosen with a flow rate approximately matching the expected thermal power of the device under test given the expected coolant delta T. A reasonable goal for the water container temperature is the range 50°C to 70°C. Use of a large water container provides some degree of momentary heat pulse energy integration and confidence in the device thermal power measurements. It applies a significant time constant to the thermal data that reduces the frequency temperature data must be taken. It even permits manual temperature reading if a modestly stable condition is established. This is at the cost of being able to see instant response thermal and energy output curves. There is no need to see such fast response curves if the primary goal is to measure total energy in vs total energy out for a long run. The primary circuit water flow can be pumped directly from the water container. Ideally the primary water flow should be measured by digital flow meter. If a low pressure head is presented to the primary circuit flow pump, then a precision fixed flow rate pump can be used. If precision digital flow meters are not used, and reliance is placed on precision flow rate pumps, then at minimum simple (flow integrating) water meters should be monitored periodically to verify assumed pump mean flow rates. Calibration runs on dummy devices should be used to verify the calorimeter over the thermal range expected. A calibration control run should be used with the device under test to determine the water capacity of the device so the volume of water in the barrel is known in order to provide improved intermediate time thermal power measurements. At the conclusion of a run, the circuits should continue to be driven until thermal equilibrium is obtained and essentially all thermal energy is drained form the device under test. A water depth gage for the barrel may be of use, calibrated to depth vs volume, in order to keep track of the amount of water in the device under test. The secondary circuit input and output temperature should be recorded frequently. Alternatively, a direct delta T can be measured frequently using an appropriate dual thermocouple arrangement, thus providing improved data quality and reducing data acquisition required. Flow stirrers should be used, if feasible, in the secondary circuit prior to the thermometer wells. Barrel water temperature should be monitored. Ideally primary circuit water input temperature and room temperature should be monitored as well. A thermal decline curve should be measured for the water container when there is no primary circuit flow, and the water is stirred. The calorimeter constant C(dT) as a function of the difference between room temperature and water contained temperature (dT) should be determined. The curve C(dT) can be fit to a polynomial using regression analysis for convenient use in data analysis. Experience shows this method is not very accurate if the water container is not well insulated. This is due to room drafts, variations in humidity and temperature during the day, etc. Ideally active insulation could be used, whereby an extra envelope surrounds the water container insulation and the temperature there is maintained at the temperature of the water, thereby producing a dT = 0, and no heat loss.
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
2011/9/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: The simplest solution is to use a Steam Water mixing valve,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Indeed, continuous experiments easiest way is to use enthalpy sensors, that gives as total enthalpy for any given moment. Even more simple is to measure the steam pressure inside E-Cat, because it gives directly the total enthalpy, but of course we need to first calibrate this kind of enthalpy sensors. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
It might be nice to know the metal mass and temps as well. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 12:41 PM Subject: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter A simple inexpensive continuously operating steam/water calorimeter can be obtained using a combined barrel and flow calorimetry. A water container, a barrel, or perhaps a trash can which is silicone sealed for leaks, can be used to condense steam via a submerged copper coil, preferably mostly located near the top of the barrel to avoid imposing a steam pressure head on the tested device. This water container can be insulated cheaply using construction foam board and fiberglass. A stirrer can be driven via a shaft through the foam board. A secondary coil can be used for pumped coolant. A fixed flow rate pump can be used to deliver the coolant flow. The coolant flow circuit can be open or closed. A closed secondary coolant temperature can be maintained via either water or air heat exchange or ice heat exchange. The source of the coolant energy is not important if the Tin and Tout are measured close to the water container, and any tubing between the temperature measuring stations and the water container is insulated. Ideally the secondary flow rate would be measured by a digital flow meter, and driven by a variable speed pump. The coolant flow rate can then be adjusted to suit the coolant delta T and the thermal power of the device under test. Alternatively, an accurate fixed flow rate pump can be chosen with a flow rate approximately matching the expected thermal power of the device under test given the expected coolant delta T. A reasonable goal for the water container temperature is the range 50°C to 70°C. Use of a large water container provides some degree of momentary heat pulse energy integration and confidence in the device thermal power measurements. It applies a significant time constant to the thermal data that reduces the frequency temperature data must be taken. It even permits manual temperature reading if a modestly stable condition is established. This is at the cost of being able to see instant response thermal and energy output curves. There is no need to see such fast response curves if the primary goal is to measure total energy in vs total energy out for a long run. The primary circuit water flow can be pumped directly from the water container. Ideally the primary water flow should be measured by digital flow meter. If a low pressure head is presented to the primary circuit flow pump, then a precision fixed flow rate pump can be used. If precision digital flow meters are not used, and reliance is placed on precision flow rate pumps, then at minimum simple (flow integrating) water meters should be monitored periodically to verify assumed pump mean flow rates. Calibration runs on dummy devices should be used to verify the calorimeter over the thermal range expected. A calibration control run should be used with the device under test to determine the water capacity of the device so the volume of water in the barrel is known in order to provide improved intermediate time thermal power measurements. At the conclusion of a run, the circuits should continue to be driven until thermal equilibrium is obtained and essentially all thermal energy is drained form the device under test. A water depth gage for the barrel may be of use, calibrated to depth vs volume, in order to keep track of the amount of water in the device under test. The secondary circuit input and output temperature should be recorded frequently. Alternatively, a direct delta T can be measured frequently using an appropriate dual thermocouple arrangement, thus providing improved data quality and reducing data acquisition required. Flow stirrers should be used, if feasible, in the secondary circuit prior to the thermometer wells. Barrel water temperature should be monitored. Ideally primary circuit water input temperature and room temperature should be monitored as well. A thermal decline curve should be measured for the water container when there is no primary circuit flow, and the water is stirred. The calorimeter constant C(dT) as a function of the difference between room temperature and water contained temperature (dT) should be determined. The curve C(dT) can be fit to a polynomial using regression analysis for convenient use in data analysis. Experience shows this method is not very accurate if the water container is not well insulated. This is due to room drafts, variations in humidity and temperature during the day, etc. Ideally active insulation could be used, whereby an extra envelope surrounds the water container insulation and the temperature there is maintained at the temperature of the water, thereby producing a dT = 0, and no heat loss. This is excessive for this approach, however, the goals of which are cheap, simple, and good enough.
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
Dear Jouni, I have described this method long ago, for individual e-Cats e.g. here: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html See please: http://www.onlineconversion.com/mixing_water.htm I have asked Rossii to use this method but he has ignored it with hostility- I could never understand why he don't want good correct measurements Peter On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/9/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: The simplest solution is to use a Steam Water mixing valve,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Indeed, continuous experiments easiest way is to use enthalpy sensors, that gives as total enthalpy for any given moment. Even more simple is to measure the steam pressure inside E-Cat, because it gives directly the total enthalpy, but of course we need to first calibrate this kind of enthalpy sensors. –Jouni -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:It's the Big One
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2042428/Earth-cross-hairs-huge-solar-storm-caused-sunspot-1302.html A sunspot, 62,000 miles across - so big it would dwarf the Earth - is releasing gigantic solar flares that could in theory wreak havoc with electrical communications ranging from handheld electronics such as iPhones to sections of the power grid. Nasa has detected two X-class solar eruptions from 1302 – the most extreme possible – in the past week. One that occurred on September 24 produced an amazing light show over England last night – but it’s far from over, as the sunspot isn’t yet directly aligned with Earth. more Ground everything! T
[Vo]:Another cold fusion generator?
http://keshefoundation.com/home.html http://www.keshefoundation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2t=229 Mark Jordan
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Jouni, I have described this method long ago, for individual e-Cats A key part of this idea is the reliability obtained by the averaging performed by the large thermal mass of the water container. I am suggesting a hybrid design, a hybrid flow and partial isoperibolic method. It would of course be feasible to employ a mixer and extra thermometer just prior to the water container which does the averaging, but that would also require an extra pump, and flow meter. I should also note this idea was initially largely for my own use. I have a potential use for calorimetry in the multiple kW range. I optimize the cheap variable when designing for my own purposes, with some constraints regarding reliability and accuracy. This is because I am so tight with money the little birdies say cheep cheep when they fly over me. 8^) I have a 5 thermometer system that should work OK with this approach even with manual recording and spreadsheet analysis. In winter I have the advantage of practically unlimited cooling capacity here in Alaska. Unfortunately my two peristaltic pumps are too small for this power range. I can readily afford the barrel, blue board insulation, copper pipe and hose, fittings etc. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Another cold fusion generator?
Keshe is quite, er, eclectic! T On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:37 PM, MJ feli...@gmail.com wrote: http://keshefoundation.com/home.html http://www.keshefoundation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2t=229 Mark Jordan
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: The simplest solution is to use a Steam Water mixing valve,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Indeed, continuous experiments easiest way is to use enthalpy sensors, that gives as total enthalpy for any given moment. Even more simple is to measure the steam pressure inside E-Cat, because it gives directly the total enthalpy, but of course we need to first calibrate this kind of enthalpy sensors. –Jouni You have again not specified the precise method you would use. It would appear you have a case of missing variables. The principle missing variable is mass flow, m dot, which is best to isolate and measure directly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
First I would add to my previous message, that I think that Peter's method is more accurate than measuring pressure. That is because in order to find out correlation between pressure and enthalpy we need to do very careful calibration. In short run high accuracy may be difficult to archieve, but if experiment lasts for example 10 years continuously, then of course calibrating pressure sensor for enthalpy calculations will give great pay off. Horace wrote: « You have again not specified the precise method you would use. It would appear you have a case of missing variables. The principle missing variable is mass flow, m dot, which is best to isolate and measure directly. » Actually I have defined but it is so simple that you have probably missed it. First of course, we need to know that system is at equilibrium, i.e. water massflow in and massflow out are both matching. If water inflow rate varies a lot then calculations and calibrations are difficult, if system is overflowing. That means that for sure massflow must be known and it must be measured in calibration. But if system is a kettle boiler that does not overflow, then calibration is very easy. In industrial water boilers this is the most reasonable situation because this ensures high steam quality because we can easily superheat steam to remove that 1-2% natural wettness of steam. This reduces the corrosion. Superheating can also be considered in calculations so this does not reduce the accuracy of method. Pressure can be measured either directly with pressure sensor (easiest and most reliable and it is always available in pressure boilers.) or in kettle boilers boiling water temperature can be measured or last method is to measure steam temperature (this works only if steam is not superheated and is thus wet. I.e. steam quality must be measured, therefore this method is not universal). —Jouni On Sep 28, 2011 7:41 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: The simplest solution is to use a Steam Water mixing valve,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Indeed, continuous experiments easiest way is to use enthalpy sensors, that gives as total enthalpy for any given moment. Even more simple is to measure the steam pressure inside E-Cat, because it gives directly the total enthalpy, but of course we need to first calibrate this kind of enthalpy sensors. –Jouni You have again not specified the precise method you would use. It would appear you have a case of missing variables. The principle missing variable is mass flow, m dot, which is best to isolate and measure directly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
Dear Horace, The missing variable is cooling water flow- to be established by Rossi- water that carries the excess heat generated by the 52 (?) Fat Cats and is partially transformed in steam- F1. The flow of mixing water- condensing the steam is say, 5-10 times greater than F1 see please the formula given in my paper. No peristaltic but other types of positive displacement pumps to be used, e,g. gear pumps- for which the flow is not influenced by counterpressure. This system measures the enthalpy in any moment, Including the start up period and possibly the heat after death. The formula for efficiency is actually O/3I because electrical energy is at least 3 times more valuable or expensive than thermal energy Peter On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: The simplest solution is to use a Steam Water mixing valve,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Indeed, continuous experiments easiest way is to use enthalpy sensors, that gives as total enthalpy for any given moment. Even more simple is to measure the steam pressure inside E-Cat, because it gives directly the total enthalpy, but of course we need to first calibrate this kind of enthalpy sensors. –Jouni You have again not specified the precise method you would use. It would appear you have a case of missing variables. The principle missing variable is mass flow, m dot, which is best to isolate and measure directly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Inexpensive steam/water calorimeter
We have to measure HEAT OUT (enthalpy) and this is the unique relevant variable, steam, water, pressure, dryness, even F1 (this HAS to be measured anyway) are not relevant. When I speak about steam water mixing it is because I have used the method many times many years ago. But I bet that Rossi who is attracted by complications will not use this simplissim clear method. Peter On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: First I would add to my previous message, that I think that Peter's method is more accurate than measuring pressure. That is because in order to find out correlation between pressure and enthalpy we need to do very careful calibration. In short run high accuracy may be difficult to archieve, but if experiment lasts for example 10 years continuously, then of course calibrating pressure sensor for enthalpy calculations will give great pay off. Horace wrote: « You have again not specified the precise method you would use. It would appear you have a case of missing variables. The principle missing variable is mass flow, m dot, which is best to isolate and measure directly. » Actually I have defined but it is so simple that you have probably missed it. First of course, we need to know that system is at equilibrium, i.e. water massflow in and massflow out are both matching. If water inflow rate varies a lot then calculations and calibrations are difficult, if system is overflowing. That means that for sure massflow must be known and it must be measured in calibration. But if system is a kettle boiler that does not overflow, then calibration is very easy. In industrial water boilers this is the most reasonable situation because this ensures high steam quality because we can easily superheat steam to remove that 1-2% natural wettness of steam. This reduces the corrosion. Superheating can also be considered in calculations so this does not reduce the accuracy of method. Pressure can be measured either directly with pressure sensor (easiest and most reliable and it is always available in pressure boilers.) or in kettle boilers boiling water temperature can be measured or last method is to measure steam temperature (this works only if steam is not superheated and is thus wet. I.e. steam quality must be measured, therefore this method is not universal). —Jouni On Sep 28, 2011 7:41 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com: The simplest solution is to use a Steam Water mixing valve,in which the heated mixture coming out from the demo is mixed with a constant flow of cold water, you can know the enthalpy performance in any moment. Indeed, continuous experiments easiest way is to use enthalpy sensors, that gives as total enthalpy for any given moment. Even more simple is to measure the steam pressure inside E-Cat, because it gives directly the total enthalpy, but of course we need to first calibrate this kind of enthalpy sensors. –Jouni You have again not specified the precise method you would use. It would appear you have a case of missing variables. The principle missing variable is mass flow, m dot, which is best to isolate and measure directly. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
