[Vo]:The WD Files on Rossi (2 of 4) - Interview Transcript March 5 2011
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (2 of 4) - Interview Transcript March 5 2011 DISCLAIMER: Readers may agree or disagree with what has been transcribed, or how I went about assembling (and editing) the information for vortex-l. That is to be expected. In the end, please evaluate it using your own inner wisdom. Feel free to critique the contents for accuracy (or inaccuracies), contradictions, fallacies, or just to share a few personal impressions of your own. It is after all through discourse that we all learn and grow from our collectively shared experiences. TOPICS DISCUSSED IN MARCH 5 2011 TRANSCRIPT: * The initial January demonstration of the e-Cat... Dirt and cheap! * Cultural, political, and economic implications of the e-Cat... rigid * Is the Rossi Effect for real? ... Oh, they did it. * How expensive was it... It wasn't expensive ... that's the whole point. It's cheap! * Historical facts concerning European/Mediterranean culture that helped invent the e-cat The art of making alloys * Speculation on the October public demonstration, and the unpredictability of cold fusion. Why cold fusion ...doesn't behave the same way all the time. * Black Light Power. How organized are they? ...politics and nonsense * Rossi Focardi personalities, how they work together. Their prior history. ...We like them. * The process must be refined. ...can be dangerous to the environment if improperly handled. * What contaminants are in Rossi's nickel? ... zinc, calcium carbonate, lyme. * More Rossi Focardi personality ...They are cute together. ** BEGIN EDITED TRANSCIPT: March 5, 2011 Each paragraph is prefixed by either SJ (Steven Johnson) or WD (The Witch Doctor) (The channeler) followed by (MM:SS) ** SJ 18:00 Back on January 14 of this year there were two Italians located in Bologna, Italy. An engineer and a retired professor, named Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi. Focardi is the professor, and Andrea Rossi is the engineer. They presented a unique public demonstration of what... I guess what you would call a Cold Fusion device... Photographs of this thing... it's an ungainly thing. It's utterly unimpressive... a four foot conglomeration wrapped in tin foil with a black hose attached to the top of it where steam came out... WD 18:42 Dirt and cheap! SJ 18:44 Yes. It was estimated that the device generated somewhere around 10 kilowatts of thermal heat during the demonstration. WD 18:52 What is the question. We know of the couple. WD 19:00 Seems that they are two professors at this point at the university of bologna. SJ 19:04 Well... here's the interesting thing about them... People knew about them for quite some time. It's not like they were a flash in the pan. Many suspected that sooner or later they were going to come out with something. Now, but, the way and the manner in which they are trying to preset this device has [initially] caused considerable concern among certain individuals within the Cold Fusion community. WD 19:25 There's always someone who will not be happy with the status ...with what is going on. The real issue with Cold Fusion, and we have said this before isn't the fact that you can or cannot do it. It is how to adapt the culture so that money can be made from it. SJ 19:44 yes. WD 19:45 And the culture is... in the infrastructure is not set up to support it. And until the politics have been straightened out the infrastructure is not particularly flexible. It is extremely rigid. There are many, many things set up to have fuel and [unintelligible word] from fossil fuels... SJ 20:01 ...Yes WD 20:02 The balance of relationships with the Middle East and the United States is set up around fossil fuels. SJ 20:08 Of course. WD 20:09 There [are] grave imbalance [that] could be caused if an alternative form of energy were introduced on the planet while it is still basically at war with itself. WD 20:22 So Cold Fusion really isn't the issue. You must find as a species and as a planet... you must find [alternative] forms of energy... and not futzing around with little cars whose entire bottoms are batteries. WD 20:38 Ok, These are just sort of... putting a little finger in the dyke while another hole opens up and spits at you. And this is where a lot of the energy is going... all over the directions... people are trying to find these... little substitutions. But it's not going to work. The whole species needs to alter its frame of reference about this. However, we must say that there are great many people in power who understand it. WD 21:01 They do know what they have to do. They do know what is at stake. And the...shifting of the balance of power and the ability to create a system that will function with the change is what has to come first. So, there's a great deal to iron out before you change the infrastructure. If you change... try to change the
[Vo]:The WD Files on Rossi (3 of 4) - Interview Transcript June 9 2011
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (3 of 4) - Interview Transcript June 9 2011 DISCLAIMER: Readers may agree or disagree with what has been transcribed, or how I went about assembling (and editing) the information for vortex-l. That is to be expected. In the end, please evaluate it using your own inner wisdom. Feel free to critique the contents for accuracy (or inaccuracies), contradictions, fallacies, or just to share a few personal impressions of your own. It is after all through discourse that we all learn and grow from our collectively shared experiences. TOPICS DISCUSSED IN JUNE 9 2011 TRANSCRIPT: * Rossi is still focused on raising sufficient capital. He should ...not make [engineering] compromises with the construction of his e-cats. * Nickel isn't the only element that can be used in the Rossi process. * The energy is due to: Changing their state from a solid, to liquid, to gas, and vice versa. Involves the releasing of the outer shell of electrons. Involves the outer ring of the electron. Very tricky maintaining optimal temperatures is essential. Upsets the ...quark balance. * The maturing of the Rossi effect is still 10 20 years away based on current level of research. ...but the knowledge is HERE NOW! * The Rossi Effect doesn't have to be in powder form. Apparently, can be in a solid crystalline form as well. * The Rossi Effect itself does not appear to produce nuclear transmutations - not directly. * As of June 2011 Rossi still does not understand what's causing the Rossi effect. Still has at least another year of futzing to do before it is ready for prime time. However, he is a capable manager. An ...excellent politician. a ...very good general to be put in a science project like this.. * CERN and SLAC will eventually need to get involved, to aid in breakthroughs - particle identification. * Current theories pertaining to the Rossi Effect are [all] essentially incorrect. * The element MERCURY may be good at manipulating the Rossi Effect as well. ** BEGIN EDITED TRANSCIPT: June 9, 2011 Each paragraph is prefixed by either SJ (Steven Johnson) or WD (The Witch Doctor) (The channeler) followed by (MM:SS) ** SJ 15:52 This is a follow-up on that Italian, Andrea Rossi ... WD 16:03 This is the fellow with the nickel. SJ 16:06 Yes, that is correct. ...with nickel powder and hydrogen I think as a matter of fact... Rossi continues to inform everyone at his blog site that his company will assemble... he's attempting to assemble a one megawatt thermal reactor in Xanthi, Greece... X-a-n-t-h-i... I think it the place. WD 16:27: yes. SJ 16:28 ...this October. Whether he will... WD 16:30 He is still raising funds. SJ 16:32 Yeah, that could be very well ... I mean there are several companies... WD 16:33 He is still raising funds. SJ 16:36 Ok. It's debatable whether he will be able to make that deadline at this point, but I have... WD 16:41 Well, the point is that he should not make compromises with the structure which is the other side this could take if he doesn't get adequate funding. But the basic problem here with all of this... Any of these metals are essentially alloys. SJ 16:59 Ok... WD 17:00 Ok... and they're minerals, and they will... we are looking for the correct word here... They will separate out from, in solution... at various temperatures. WD 17:17 You have to go to the next level in the periodic table in order to get energy. You have to go back up. So, it doesn't matter whether you enter this process from nickel or iron or any of the other metals. You still have to go backwards. SJ 17:34 I'm not quite sure I understand... WD 17:37 In other words, all of this is molten in the core of the planet. SJ 17:42 Well, we know that nickel and iron, whatever, are close to the bottom of the energy well, so to speak. WD 17:46 That's correct. But you need... What they're going to find is that it doesn't matter which of the elements they use to enter the process. They are still going have to go back further into a molten area, and they are going have to generate... they are going to have to siphon energy off when the materials change state. SJ 18:03 Ok... WD 18:04 The energy is available when the materials change state. Now, we will repeat this. THE ENERGY BECOMES AVAILABLE WHEN THE MATERIALS CHANGE STATE. SJ 18:18 Is that related to geometry? WD 18:21 No, it's related to melting point. SJ 18:23 Melting point... Interesting. SD 18:25 It is the cause of melting point. It is why there is a melting point, and not a melting zone. By melting point we also... You do understand we also mean freezing point. It's the same. It's the same number. WD 18:42 It's just which direction are you going... towards cold or towards hot. There is a very definite moment... a number... a point where something changes state, and at that point energy is released...
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so that it matches evaporation rate. First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the experiment is started. Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is adjusted. The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating element remains wet. Right, but if it overflows, the incoming cold water will replace the hot water, and it will fall below 100 deg C. That's what happens with other experiments close to boiling with flow calorimeters. You cannot keep it right at 100 deg C when it overflows. To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Not a per cent. Just boost it a little if the temperature falls below 100 deg C (starting to overflow), and back off if it seems to rise much above 102 deg C (drying up). There is plenty of space for a reservoir of water in there. It would take a while to fill up to the top, or boil off to the bottom. Besides, Rossi has run it many times before; he knows how to control the anomalous power; he knows what the incoming flow rate is; and he knows high he should set the anomalous power to match the flow rate. The response time to adjust the heat is about the same as it is for a cook to keep a saucepan of boiling vegetables from boiling over or running out of water and burning. Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up. He does not want to overheat the thing. He told me that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it radiates from the cell into the surroundings. The cell is insulated. It is too hot to touch according to witnesses. Which witnesses are those? I have not seen any mention of the temperature of the insulation, but maybe I missed it. But it's definitely not too hot to touch. Check the Krivit video from 9:22 to 10:00, Rossi repeatedly touches and presses it. At 9:50 he lays two fingers across the top with considerable pressure, and leaves them there for nearly 10 seconds, without any indication of discomfort, and without any comment about its temperature. It's not too hot to touch. I think you made that up. In the next moments he touches the hose, and lets go quickly with a comment about how hot it is. The insulation means it takes longer to get hot on the outside; the difference between the inside and the outside is greater; and more heat transfers to the water. But there is still plenty being radiated out. A little maybe, but without a temperature measurement, we don't know if it's plenty or oodles or scads. Rossi does all his calculations without taking account of losses through the insulation, so presumably he doesn't think they're significant. That isn't much with a large object that is too hot to touch. But it is much for an object that appears to be at room temperature. And if you're claiming 50 - 75 % for any power, then at 5 kW, about 2.5 kW would have to radiate from the insulation. Are you claiming that? Dunno. Recovery rates change with temperature, flow rates and other conditions. Actually, they usually get worse. Probably this is producing ~4 kW and that makes the surface too hot to touch. If, as you believe, it is only producing 800 W then the insulation isn't very good, is it? Except it's not too hot to touch, so either the insulation is very good, or it's not producing 4 kW. No. It doesn't. Whatever the fluid is, and regardless of the shape, it's gonna flow through. It does it as a liquid, and it does it as a steam-liquid mixture. There's a pump forcing it through. If the water was overflowing out of the top and down the hose, cold water would be coming in to replace the boiling water and the temperature would drop below boiling, as I said. Probably down to around 95 deg C. That's ridiculous. Cold water is always coming in to replace the liquid water or the steam. It's pushed in at a steady rate by the pump. The cold water runs past the reactor and warms up. If the power is high enough, some of it changes phase, but always it gets pushed out by the inflowing cold water. It is very difficult to maintain a flow calorimeter outlet temperature of exactly 101 deg C unless the water is boiling, leaving as vapor, and only the vapor touches the temperature sensor. No. It is very easy to maintain the output of the ecat at exactly boiling temperature as long as the input power is above the value required to raise the water to boiling, and below the power required to boil it all. In the Krivit run, that range is between 600W and something over 4 kW. If the power is in that range, the output fluid must be a mixture of liquid and steam. What do you suggest would happen if the input power was 2 kW? That's more than enough to heat it all to boiling, and not enough to vaporize it all. In this case, the water would be overflowing, as you call it, and so you think the temperature would drop. But then the water is removing less than 600 W from the reactor, If there is 2 kW input, it has to heat up, and then of course the water would get hotter, so its temperature wouldn't drop. To repeat if the input is between 600W and 4 kW (or so) the output must be a mixture of liquid and gas. It is not difficult, but rather dead easy, to arrange power in that range. Rossi could tell it is overflowing by watching the temperature. When it falls below 100 deg C, he increases anomalous heat. Wait. How does he do this? You insisted earlier that he does not mess with the input power. If not enough water comes in and it dries up, the temperature would rise above 101 deg C, and he reduces it. When and how does he do this. The assumption in all the recent demos is that the input power is constant. That's why it's measured at the beginning, and then left alone (ostensibly). He makes no claims about adjusting the reaction, and there is no evidence that he does. He can control the strength of the anomalous heat. I do not know how he does that. Maybe telepathy. Apparently he has enough control to keep the bottom portion filled with boiling water but not overflowing. Have you looked at the photos of the ecats without the insulation. The water flows past the reactor horizontally, and then it reaches the chimney after it passes through the reactor. There is
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so that it matches evaporation rate. First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the experiment is started. Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is adjusted. How? The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating element remains wet. Right, but if it overflows, the incoming cold water will replace the hot water, and it will fall below 100 deg C. The incoming cold water replaces the water no matter what. The water is being pumped in at a steady rate, horizontally, past the reactor. Depending on the temperature of the reactor the water is heated to varying degrees. If the reactor temperature is high enough, it will heat the water to the boiling point. If it is still higher, some of the water changes phase, and if it is high enough, all the water changes phase as it passes the reactor. If it is heated beyond that, the steam increases in temperature. Here's the implication of the wacky idea you suggest. You claim all the water is being vaporized, and that corresponds to almost 5 kW power. Then you suggest that if the power drops a little and the water overflows, the temperature of the water goes below the bp. When the water is below the bp, the power transfer is about 600W. So you are suggesting that the power is oscillating between 5 kW and 600 W. How is that possible? That's what happens with other experiments close to boiling with flow calorimeters. You cannot keep it right at 100 deg C when it overflows. I see no other possibility if the power in is at something like 2 kW. The output would have to be a mixture of steam and liquid at 100C. And there is no difficulty in keeping the input power between 600W and 4 kW. To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Not a per cent. Just boost it a little if the temperature falls below 100 deg C (starting to overflow), and back off if it seems to rise much above 102 deg C (drying up). This oscillation between 5 kW and 600W would have to be accompanied by an oscillation in the temperature of the reactor between about 1500C and 300C. It's just not plausible. You are simply not making any sense. There is plenty of space for a reservoir of water in there. In the reactor? That cyclindrical thing in the picture? Have another look at the pictures and videos, and pay close attention to what Rossi calls the reactor, and what he calls the chimney. Besides, Rossi has run it many times before; he knows how to control the anomalous power; he knows what the incoming flow rate is; and he knows high he should set the anomalous power to match the flow rate. The response time to adjust the heat is about the same as it is for a cook to keep a saucepan of boiling vegetables from boiling over or running out of water and burning. But what is he adjusting? You insisted Krivit would report any adjustments that he made. Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up. He does not want to overheat the thing. But letting the steam go to 110C briefly would not have to increase the temperature of the ecat. He just has to reduce the flow rate. And why is the bp of water a magic temperature that the ecat can tolerate, and not a few degrees more. It's all too convenient for his con, if you ask me.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat, vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam leaves as it is produced, and so it would be forgiving of fluctuations in the power or input flow rate. That is, the output mass flow rate does not have to match the input flow rate. But the ecat is not open like that. The output mass flow rate must match the input. So, even if the flow rate matched the output of dry steam, a very small decrease in the flow rate or a very small increase in the power would show up as a substantial increase in the steam temperature. The ecat is not a tea pot. Get used to it. To say this you need to know exactly how much water E-Cat can contain in liquid form. If you cannot answer that then your argument does not have any relevance, because you lack crucial details of the experiment. You can make tea pots with water pump, but you need to know what is the volume of the teapot. If you want to know the volume, look at the photos, estimate the volume of the cylinder, subtract 50 mL for the reactor, and maybe as much again for the steel around it. I don't see the relevance, so I'm not going to do it. It is important that tea pot does not overflow, It's not a tea pot. The water flows past the reactor horizontally. It comes in cold on one side, and exits hot or gaseous on the other. It's not like a tea pot. because it messes up calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Well yes, but nature does not pay any attention to Rossi's desire for his calculations to be unmessed. If there is not enough power, the output will not be dry steam, messed up calculations or not. And if the power exceeds 600W, but is below 4 kW, the output has to be a mixture of liquid and gas. Therefore E-Cat's inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the water boils away, core temperature may rise too high. But you're claiming all the water does boil away. Of course, part of the reactor near the cold water input will always be wet, but according to the claim, as the water passes by the reactor it is all converted to steam, so at the output of the reactor, the fluid is pure steam.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the water boils away, core temperature may rise too high. That is an astute observation. Thank you. Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot, and the output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the reactor are both horizontal at the same level. The water is passed by the reactor in a pretty small cylinder, and is heated as it goes by. On the side where the cold water flows in, the reactor is always going to be wet. On the other side, it might dry up, in which case the steam would increase in temperature. That has not happened in any of the demos. You are right that if the water boils away the temperature will rise rapidly. Rossi claims the water does boil away. It's the central assumption to his calculations. While the machine is running, Rossi is constantly checking the screen numbers and adjusting the anomalous heat. No he's not. He's walking in to the next room and holding the hose up in front of a t-shirt. He's stroking his invention and explaining it to Krivit. He's walking over to the hydrogen bottle and explaining how to charge the cell. And what is this adjusting the anomalous heat? Is he Kreskin? This thing is supposed to be ready for commercialization. Does every ecat sold come with a clone of Rossi? I'm beyond incredulous. I do not know he does this, but apparently he is able to do it. He changes the input power slightly, I think. Aha. And yet before you said he couldn't be changing the input power because Krivit woulda noticed. I assume he is keeping the teapot full without letting it overflow. It would be easier to do this with a tube on the outside. Of course this can be automated. He is running the thing manually. You're just making excuses so you can cling to what is becoming an untenable position. Automating what you are suggesting is harder than engineering self-power (assuming the claims are valid), and you say that's too hard.
[Vo]:Randall Mills Debunks Rossi in Yahoo's SocietyforClassicalPhysics
Re: [SocietyforClassicalPhysics] Hydrinos vs. Recent Extraordinary Cold Fusion Claims On Jun 22, 2011, at 12:55 AM, scarmani wrote: Dear Dr. Mills, In the email post below, you state If you are looking for a theoretical explanation for recent extraordinary cold fusion claims, my assessment is that you are wasting your time. Based on theory and experiments, I'm confident that the claims will not be reproduced independently. You were likely referring to the recent extraordinary cold fusion claims made by Andrea Rossi, Dr. Focardi and Dr. Levi. I agree with your assessment that Rossi's claims will not be reproduced independently. I will further state that, in my opinion, they are fraudulent. Rossi described (via Swedish observers), a cylindrical 50 cm^3 stainless steel reactor, containing 50 grams of isotopically enriched powdered nickel and 0.11 grams of hydrogen gas plus a secret catalyst, to which was input 0.3 kW of heat. Upon reaching a threshold temperature, this reactor output approximately 4.4 kW of continuous power and a net 25 kWh of excess energy over the course of about 6 hours. According to Rossi, this energy was produced by a non-chemical reaction which consumed the hydrogen. In 2008 you issued a paper, Commercializable Power Source from Forming New States of Hydrogen, R.L. Mills, G. Zhao, K. Akhtar, Z. Chang, J. He, Y. Lu, W. Good, G. Chu, B. Dhandapani, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 34, Issue 2, January 2009, pp. 573-614. The water-flow calorimetric details and materials characterization are given in our paper along with the mechanism and hydrino product identification. Our results have been independently reproduced off- site starting with obtaining the chemicals from vendors, then characterizing the reactants, and performing power measurements and product and hydrino characterizations. Regarding Rossi et. al., the results we obtained at BLP from following the description in the Rossi patent application are consistent with the known heat of formation of nickel hydride of about -2 kcal/mole H2 corresponding to 10^-2 Wh for 0.011g H2. B. Baranowski, S. M. Filipek, “45 years of nickel hydride—history and perspectives,” J. Alloys Compd., 404-406, (2005), pp. 2-6. No isotopic enrichment is disclosed. Nor, is a method of enrichment shown if it is possible. No catalyst is disclosed. A patent must teach one skilled in the art how to make and use the invention. The speciation teaches how to make about -2 kcal/mole H2 forming nickel hydride that is known in the art. But, even here, the H2 pressure is far too low. The fusion reaction is theoretically impossible and not shown experimentally. Nor, is net power shown experimentally by the method presented. At 4.4 kW output, the heater power could be disconnected and threshold temperature to maintain the claimed reaction will be far exceeded. The proper method of measuring power from steam is to condense it and measure the heat delivered by the steam. This was not done. Based on the energy balance and power density in this case as well as in more aggressive claims, it is overwhelmingly possible that the heat balance was not measured properly.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: It is notable that the power input varies depending on the controller actions, that if the power input (plus any nuclear output heat if any) should become less than that required to convert all the input water to steam then the liquid excess will eventually simply overflow, i.e. be pumped out into the hose and down the drain. I find this description (like Jed's and others') odd, with the term overflow. The system starts with liquid water flowing through it, past the reactor, and probably never reaches the point you use as a starting point where all the water is converted to steam. So when the bp is reached, when the input power is 600W, some of the water begins to change phase. That of course increases the volume, and pushes the liquid ahead of it out. In that vertical chimney, there's going to be all sorts of turbulence that will likely produce a sputtering at first, but then as the power increases, a mist that mixes with the steam and proceeds down the hose. After that, as the power increases further, more of the water changes phase to absorb the additional heat, but the output will still be a mixture of steam and mist at the boiling point. The fraction of dry steam will increase as the power increases. If it were ever to reach 5 kW (or so), then as the water passes the reactor, it is all converted to steam. That transition from 600W to 5 kW would have to correspond to an increase in the temperature difference between the reactor and the water by the same factor of 8 (in this case). That would take time, which can be estimated by the time it takes to go from zero power transfer to 600W, and corresponds to hours. Yet Rossi and his believers assume that at the moment the bp is reached, or very soon thereafter, there is a magical transition from 600W transfer to 5 kW transfer. It makes no sense. To come back to your scenario, if the power is then reduced a little, some of the water entering the ecat will not change phase but will be rapidly mixed with the fast moving steam to form a mist again. I don't see this as an overflow. Any liquid filling the hose will be blown apart by the steam forming behind it. Note that the pump rate is small, on the order of a few cc per second, so it can take a while to fill up a hose held upright into the air, even if the device itself is full of water - which probably can not happen due to percolator type effects. Right, except I don't find the comparison to hot beverage makers very useful because this system has a clear inout and output, and a pump that keeps the flow rate constant. Maybe an espresso maker might be better, but I'd rather just think about the actual device itself.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Harry Veeder wrote: From: Joshua Cude wrote: What's not plausible is that at the moment it hits the bp, which requires 750 W, it immediately begins to vaporize all the water, which requires 5 kW. A 7-fold increase in power requires a 7-fold increase in the temperature difference between the reactor walls and the fluid. How can that happen so fast? What is the size of this initial temperature difference that increases 7-fold? Don't you mean a 7-fold increase in the heat absorbed by the water? Harry hang on, I see what you mean. Firstly some of the input electric power might not be used to make heat. It might be used to make an electric or magnetic field which enables the exothermic reaction. Secondly perhaps some the resistive heat initiates an endothermic-exothermic nuclear cycle, where the applied heat is changed into matter and then the matter releases much more energy. Harry
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
2011/6/24 Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com ** Dear Angela et al, On 23-6-2011 22:30, Angela Kemmler wrote: The electrical input was 750W No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. I already posted the link to the italian wikipedia article abt mains tension in Italy. Must I repeat it? It was 220 V there until the end of the 90ies. When I was a child, it was 110 V in some areas, I remember it very well. Lewan measured the tension in the Rossi showroom in april, and the tension was even above 230 V: on 19th and 28th of april it was 236 V AC. I dont know why Rossi talks about 220 V. You are right that the current voltage (ref. *count Alessandro Giuseppe Antonio Anastasio Volta*) is 230 Volt AC (50 Hz) in Europe; as a result of European Harmonisation in 1995; but as you mention that was not always the case. For precision sake I can tell that, here in Italy, the voltage, excluding very few cases near the end of heavy loaded power lines, is always over 230 an mostly near 240 V. Checked by my self several times. Rossi could have shown the line voltage too in order to better support his claim of 750W. Very smart guy, isn't it ?
[Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Hello group, Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Jun 23, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: 2011/6/23 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Liquid LiquidGas PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.000 0. 100.00 0.001 0.6252 0.3747 I will just concentrate in the second entry. Are you suggesting that a gas can carry twice of its weight in a liquid form? I did not intend to get sucked into a conversation, but this is an excellent point that I think deserves a response. If you look at the E-cat design you can see that it has the potential to act similar to a coffee percolator. See: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VIn_mQi1H-M/TZ1ZIpKD4-I/LAE/ xo1T4ZRm41o/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 It is a boiling chamber followed by a vertical tube and elevated ejection port. A relative humidity sensor will max out at 100%, and would not be capable of detecting a percolator style of operation. It is merely a polymer or metal oxide thin film protected by a porous metal electrode. It can not measure steam quality. There is no reason to expect that water on the surface of the protecting porous metal electrode will have a significant effect on an already 100% RH reading. A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume of gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device. Water has been seen coming out of the hose. Unless careful measurements are taken it is not known the quantity of water vs gas. It is far easier to do calorimetry. Flow calorimetry of a gas-liquid regime is difficult at best. This is why I suggest the use of a copper oil to obtain an all liquid flow, i.e. to extract the heat from the steam by condensation, or to use ice calorimetry. This in effect provides dual calorimetry methods, an (integrating) isoperibolic method combined with a flow method. What my table demonstrates is that a very small error in liquid volume measurement results in a very large calorimetry error. Note that I suggested using a coper coil, for condensation, not merely sparging the steam through a barrel. I suggested that this method can be applied periodically as a check. It only needs to be designed to handle about twice the total input energy for the duration applied to prove something extraordinary is going on. A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of 12 kW of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs. Condensation in the hose can therefore not explain away a mere 1.4% by volume flow of water from the hose while the device is supposedly producing 12 kW heat flow. Rossi himself said it was dangerous to hold the rubber tube vertically for an extended period. The reason for this is obvious - if water flow production is occurring then the holder of the tube is likely to eventually get scalded. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
I wrote: A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of 12 kW of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs. To be more specific, it can be expected the heat flow through the rubber tube walls is about 220 W per m of hose. Using the thermal conductivity for rubber at about 0.14 W/(m K): http://www.monachos.gr/eng/resources/thermo/conductivity.htm a roughly 1 cm radius (i.e. 0.0628 m circumference) hose with 0.2 cm walls, across a 75 K thermal differential we have: Heat flow = (0.14 W/(m K))*(1 m)*(0.0628 m)*(75 K)/(0.002 m) = 330 W per meter of tubing. However, the thermal differential of 75 K is greatly exaggerated because achieving that would require water cooling of the tube exterior at 25 °C. More likely the external temperature of the hose is at about 75 °C, giving a differential of 50 K, and a heat flow of 220 W per meter of hose, or about 440 W for 2 meters of hose. At 615.6 Wh/kg that 440 W provides a condensation rate of about 0.714 kg/hr, or 0.2 g/s, or 0.2 cc water/s. This condensation can be essentially eliminated by insulating the rubber hose. The thermal conductivity of copper is 386 W/(m K), about 2700 times that of rubber. Several meters of similar sized copper pipe coiled a barrel of water at 75 C should easily condense 12 kW of steam. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: Andrea Selva wrote: Angela Kemmler wrote: The electrical input was 750W No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. Sorry but this is still incorrect. You have not taken into account the required RMS (root mean square) calculation for AC - which lowers the average power considerably.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Hi, On 24-6-2011 15:22, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Andrea Selva wrote: Angela Kemmler wrote: The electrical input was 750W No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. Sorry but this is still incorrect. You have not taken into account the required RMS (root mean square) calculation for AC - which lowers the average power considerably. I'm afraid you're mistaken. 230 Volt AC (single phase) is the _*average*_ AC voltage and not the peak. So 230 Volt AC means essentially 325 Volt AC peak. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On 11-06-23 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's flowing water, not a kettle. So the input power can only heat it so much. In the chart of temperature, a sudden change in rate of temperature rise appears, at 60 degrees C. I assume that this represents the time when the core reached turn-on temperature. Something certainly happens there. It could be a reaction (chemical or nuclear) initiated in the reactor. It is consistent with an increase in the input electrical power. (It's not consistent with a sudden reduction of flow rate, because that would produce a step change in the temperature, not just a change in the gradient.) Good point -- I had overlooked that. In fact, the flow rate must have been more or less constant (or changed only slowly) during the warming phase or there would be a temperature step where it changed. (This argument is quite aside from any consideration of what kind of pump was used or what else is known about the flow rate, of course.) There are lots-o-mysteries here. The original point was that the thing shows no sign of settling at 60 degrees without excess heat, it was rising linearly to that point. That's true. And that suggests that the power going to the reactor (from wherever) was already greater than 300W (or there would be an indication of saturation), or that the flow rate was lower than claimed. Indeed. For whatever reason it hadn't occurred to me that a higher input power could produce a curve that looked like that also -- I'd been thinking solely in terms of the flow rate when I saw that piecewise linear graph. *** And now I've got to get my nose back out of Vortex and go do something useful with the rest of the day...
RE: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner Thanks for jumping back into the analysis, as tiresome as it has gotten to be (even for this particular audience). Almost everyone agrees that it would be very easy for Levi and his crew to rectify the wet/dry steam controversy - that his continuing failure to do so, is itself damning. It now seems that the vertical riser (original purpose unclear) was designed (hopefully inadvertently) in such a way as to skew the results in this exact kind of percolator scenario. It is silly to think that was a real design goal, but why else is the riser a feature of the device? Your suggestion: Note that I suggested using a copper coil, for condensation, not merely sparging the steam through a barrel ... is so obvious, that the failure of the UB team to do it, is either an admission that they do not care very about the validity of the original claim, and the science involved - or more likely - more evidence of gross incompetence. Jones Daniel Rocha wrote: Liquid LiquidGas PortionPortion Portion by Volume by Mass by Mass - --- --- 0.000 0. 100.00 0.001 0.6252 0.3747 I will just concentrate in the second entry. Are you suggesting that a gas can carry twice of its weight in a liquid form? I did not intend to get sucked into a conversation, but this is an excellent point that I think deserves a response. If you look at the E-cat design you can see that it has the potential to act similar to a coffee percolator. See: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VIn_mQi1H-M/TZ1ZIpKD4-I/LAE/ xo1T4ZRm41o/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 It is a boiling chamber followed by a vertical tube and elevated ejection port. A relative humidity sensor will max out at 100%, and would not be capable of detecting a percolator style of operation. It is merely a polymer or metal oxide thin film protected by a porous metal electrode. It cannot measure steam quality. There is no reason to expect that water on the surface of the protecting porous metal electrode will have a significant effect on an already 100% RH reading. A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume of gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device. Water has been seen coming out of the hose. Unless careful measurements are taken it is not known the quantity of water vs gas. It is far easier to do calorimetry. Flow calorimetry of a gas-liquid regime is difficult at best. This is why I suggest the use of a copper oil to obtain an all liquid flow, i.e. to extract the heat from the steam by condensation, or to use ice calorimetry. This in effect provides dual calorimetry methods, an (integrating) isoperibolic method combined with a flow method. What my table demonstrates is that a very small error in liquid volume measurement results in a very large calorimetry error. Note that I suggested using a copper coil, for condensation, not merely sparging the steam through a barrel. I suggested that this method can be applied periodically as a check. It only needs to be designed to handle about twice the total input energy for the duration applied to prove something extraordinary is going on. A couple meters of rubber hose cannot radiate away 80% of 12 kW of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs. Condensation in the hose can therefore not explain away a mere 1.4% by volume flow of water from the hose while the device is supposedly producing 12 kW heat flow. Rossi himself said it was dangerous to hold the rubber tube vertically for an extended period. The reason for this is obvious - if water flow production is occurring then the holder of the tube is likely to eventually get scalded. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ attachment: winmail.dat
[Vo]:UN-subscribe
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication, there is nothing to critique. Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in 1993 and 1994. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Akira Shirakawa wrote: Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA I do not see anything controversial about it. He almost forgot to multiply the mass of water times 7 kg, but apart from that there are no mistakes. - Jed
[Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
This comment is tangled in another long thread. I would like to repeat it, to draw attention to it. Joshua Cude wrote: Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication, there is nothing to critique. Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in 1993 and 1994. If Cude knew that, he was being dishonest. If he did not know that, he has never bothered to read the literature on cold fusion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
. right you are - MoB. 230 Volt AC (single phase) is the average AC voltage and not the peak. So 230 Volt AC means essentially 325 Volt AC peak. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Nope. If you use fuzzy data as input and elastic math a power gain of 1 can easily rise to 6 or even more ... 2011/6/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Andrea Selva wrote: Rossi could have shown the line voltage too in order to better support his claim of 750W. Very smart guy, isn't it ? You can say the line voltage was 260 V. That would not affect the conclusion. This kind of nitpicking is a waste of time. Anyone can see that Rossi is making a rough estimate of input and output power. There is no chance his estimate is wrong by a factor of 6, so the details do not matter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Andrea Selva wrote: Nope. If you use fuzzy data as input and elastic math a power gain of 1 can easily rise to 6 or even more ... There is nothing fuzzy about the data. The method Rossi is using has been used successfully by physicists and engineers since the 1840s, millions of times. The discussions here about how wet steam might produce a gigantic error are nonsense. No one has demonstrated such an error with a system like this. No one here has run a test demonstrating how to make steam with 6 times less energy than it normally takes. That is impossible. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/input values of 6 to 30, I think this parameter needs serious improvemens Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Akira Shirakawa wrote: Here's a video that will generate MUCH discussion, filmed by Steven Krivit during his visit in Bologna on June 14th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=YrTz5Bq6dsAhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA I do not see anything controversial about it. He almost forgot to multiply the mass of water times 7 kg, but apart from that there are no mistakes. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
The pressure of the hose is too small, in another thread I wrote this : Considering a stream of 10m/s, 1.5g/s out of the hose, with, 5cm2 of area, the pressure inside above 1atm the chamber is P=F/A=(1.5*10(-3)*10)/5*10(-4)=(1.5*10(-2)*10(4))/5=1.5*20=30N/m2 or and increase of 3*10(-4) atm. It cannot raise water more than 3 milimeters. That sort of rubber, I made some calculations elsewhere, does not radiate more than 25W per meter. The steam must be dry to be pumped out. A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume of gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
Just to be sure of my position. I am completely convinced that the data that has been provided is coherent with a power generation of 2.5KW. My doubt is from where the power is drawn. Rossi does have control over the current, using his computer, so he can surely change the power while cheating on the data being read by his computer. The least someone could do is a 48hours observation, using pen and paper, reading the wall input and seeing the output in condensated liquid inside a bucket. That would completely rule out any cheating on drawing power and battery source.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
The appended response appears to be nonsensical. Perhaps it is due to a language barrier? The calculation provided appears to be meaningless. It appears to *assume* a priori a free flow of steam, i.e. no percolator effects, no pressure or flow variations. Also, it would be more professional if physical units and descriptions were actually provided for the input values, which amount to assumptions. Actual pressure *measurements* inside the vertical column, not calculations, are required. Note that the type of pump used, at least in the initial experiments, varies the water input pressure significantly. It pumps with a loud clack-clack-clack noise in the demo experiment videos. The water is pumped in surges. That is a perfect set-up to initiate water spray or bubbling percolator type effects. I would also note that my comments were in regard to the January- April tests, which involved supposedly large powers, about 12 kW. I made generous allowances on the size estimates for the hose. It should indeed radiate less than estimated. However, do you not see that the *less* energy the hose radiates the less water output from the hose can be accounted for due to condensation inside the hose, the *more* that water has to accounted for from another source, and therefore the *worse* the estimates of power out are? I see this kind of discussion as relatively meaningless, because no amount of talk can replace sound calorimetry. This discussion is just talk from the peanut gallery. What I take as most obvious and not just talk is that it is less than diligent to invest in a free energy scheme without having independent professional calorimetry on the energy inputs and, especially, the energy outputs. Further, as anyone knows who has been in this field long, it is essential to measure a complete energy balance, not just track power. It is nonsensical in the extreme to simply run the output down a sink drain. It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. As I said last April, this is a case of a lot of hoopla and maybe money changing hands, when the basic science applied to the main claim, excess heat, is laughable. The science applied to that issue is less than amateur. Personally, I don't see any sense in wasting much time even discussing further, because the evidence is so shabby. The whole thing looks like a big joke at this point. It looks like a Barnum and Bailey act, the greatest show on earth! That's what I said in April. Apparently nothing has changed. I still see no point in further discussion from here in the peanut gallery. It is a far better use of time to merely wait until the end of the year and see what develops. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Jun 24, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: The pressure of the hose is too small, in another thread I wrote this : Considering a stream of 10m/s, 1.5g/s out of the hose, with, 5cm2 of area, the pressure inside above 1atm the chamber is P=F/A=(1.5*10(-3)*10)/5*10(-4)=(1.5*10(-2)*10(4))/5=1.5*20=30N/m2 or and increase of 3*10(-4) atm. It cannot raise water more than 3 milimeters. That sort of rubber, I made some calculations elsewhere, does not radiate more than 25W per meter. The steam must be dry to be pumped out. A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume of gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. Considering the temperature of only 100C of the ecat output, the value of the thermal energy is not even 1/3 (as you say). It is probably closer to half that, meaning there is little practical gain from this device at all. In fact, you can buy commercial ground-source heat pumps with COP around 5. Of course the capital cost is much higher, but still, until Rossi gets enough output to power the input, it will not represent a revolutionary product.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:09 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I wrote: A couple meters of rubber hose can not radiate away 80% of 12 kW of heat suggested to be produced in the original runs. To be more specific, it can be expected the heat flow through the rubber tube walls is about 220 W per m of hose. Using the thermal conductivity for rubber at about 0.14 W/(m K):... I think the heat dissipated by the hose is limited by losses to the room by convection and radiation, and not by the thermal conductivity of the hose. Losses to the room are much less sensitive to the type of material, and you can look up the amount of heat dissipated in a room from a cast iron radiator at 100C. For the same area as the hose, at 100C, that would be about 150 W.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
As for the Krivit's test, there is nearly no condensation inside the hose. That is visible in any of the video. The water output due vapor doesn't require a very fast flow, so it is certainly free, with no turbulence. The kinetic energy is just too small due vapor, 0.2W.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Just to be sure of my position. I am completely convinced that the data that has been provided is coherent with a power generation of 2.5KW. But the presented data is also consistent with power equal to the input electrical power of 800W. That's Rossi's con. If he restricts the data to temperatures, and input flow rate, and brings the flowing water to a boil, the same data can represent output power over a 7-fold range. He of course claims the high end of that. And until Krivit, he was not directly challenged. Even Krivit's challenge (so far) is pretty mild.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Peter Gluck wrote: For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? I have done that calculation many times, but if I were doing it on a blackboard for a video audience in Japanese I doubt I would be as smooth as Rossi was. And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/input values of 6 to 30, I think this parameter needs serious improvemens That's only a matter of engineering. The ratio can be made much higher. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing. They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them, that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by heating water and vaporizing requires more than 2000KW. I don't think the con comes from that. If that was so easy, he wouldn't be ashamed of making 3 day long presentations. Rather, I focus on the small time he takes with presentations. Notice that the only long presentation that we know, 18hours or so, was done with his friend that is always in the background in other experiments, Levi.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
My only complaint it is that Rossi needs glasses. He finds it difficult to read his own notes.
[Vo]:Hot Fusion Delays -- Livermore Laser
Fusion Experiment Faces New Hurdles http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/us/24bclivermore.html (free registration may be required) [ Tritium filters getting clogged ] The tipping point for nuclear fusion is ignition, the moment when the lasers release the same amount of energy that is required to power them. But that goal has remained elusive. If it was easy, we would have done it 50 years ago, said Doug Eddy, a senior nuclear security agency operations manager working on the project. But some scientists question whether ignition will ever be possible. Its a tough job, and some of the peer review questioned whether it would work, said Frank von Hippel, a Princeton University physics professor and former science adviser to President Bill Clinton. I think there are still skeptics out there. [ $3.5 BILLION and Counting ]
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The discussions here about how wet steam might produce a gigantic error are nonsense. No one has demonstrated such an error with a system like this. No one here has run a test demonstrating how to make steam with 6 times less energy than it normally takes. It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 times lower than it is for 100% steam. Rossi has never provided data to distinguish between those two extremes, and the video evidence that is available is strong evidence that it is much closer to very wet, than it is to very dry.
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This comment is tangled in another long thread. I would like to repeat it, to draw attention to it. Joshua Cude wrote: Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past replication, there is nothing to critique. Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in 1993 and 1994. If Cude knew that, he was being dishonest. Of course I knew that. We've been over this a dozen times. That's why I said *replication*. So it was not dishonest. Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and they were controversial, and challenged in refereed literature. Whether or not you think Jones or Miles prevailed in that exchange, I think most people would agree that a resolution to such a controversy requires replication, with improvements. But in 16 years, no quantitative replication of what is surely an important CF experiment have made it past peer review. So, I see nothing to critique. That was my point. Just yesterday, you said, I am sick of your puerile nonsense. I will not respond to you again. So, you are not only blatantly dishonest, but took some trouble to draw attention to your dishonesty. (Not that it is particularly consequential, to be sure.)
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
He doesn't need to provide data for that. 1% of liquid mass would mean an intense bubbling foam outside the hose. Just for a comparison, a nebulizer with an output of 46L/min of oxygen takes several minutes to deplete a shallow reserver of a few grams of liquid, and the fog is very thick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xre92Ap0vrA
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 times lower than it is for 100% steam. This vessel is shaped like a teapot or a steam locomotive. For a reason. Unless the liquid flows through too fast and overflows, only dry steam can escape from it. If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature. The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates. It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C. If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings. This has been common knowledge for 170 years. Anyone familiar with teapots knows this. The speculation and handwaving here about a magical ability to make water appear to boil with far less energy than this is complete, 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit. Naturally, the steam is quite wet by the time it reaches the end of that hose. Plus there is probably water in there from the start-up, when the vessel itself was heating. By the way, Rossi uses exact numbers with 2 decimal digits of precision, but obviously the total mass of water over 1 hour was not exactly 7 kg. That was a rough approximation. He probably measured it, but he is the kind of guy who does not write things down. He just remembers it was around 7 kg. It might have been 5 kg or 8 kg. Who knows? It does not matter. The test probably wasn't exactly 1 hour long, either. The details do not matter, but if I had been there instead of Krivit, you can be darn sure I would have written them down. Krivit's preliminary report was long on impressions, coffee, and (somewhat) impertinent question, and short on hands-on details such as the weight of the water, the duration of the test, and so on. It would better with less Krivit and more facts. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
It was replicated several times. But never reliably or convergent, that is, around 24MeV. The results always turned out values between 20 and 80 MeV.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing. They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them, that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by heating water and vaporizing requires more than 2000KW. Well, we're all just guessing, of course. I don't think we can easily quantify the steam coming out of that hose from the video. Neither its wetness (visibility), nor its flow rate. But in comparison to the you-tube videos someone linked to that show 2 kW of steam output, I don't think the feeble puffs of steam in Krivit's video represent more than a few hundred watts.
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It was replicated several times. But never reliably or convergent, that is, around 24MeV. The results always turned out values between 20 and 80 MeV. and were published in conference proceedings or the like...
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
Joshua Cude wrote: Of course I knew that. We've been over this a dozen times. That's why I said *replication*. So it was not dishonest. Ah. So you did. I did not notice the word replication. I apologize. However, other people have published similar helium results in the peer-reviewed literature. Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and they were controversial, and challenged in refereed literature. That is nonsense from start to finish. He worked on that project for 5 years as I recall, and he wrote hundreds of pages. That is not a preliminary result. It was not crude all. His research partners who did blind tests include two groups with the best helium detection equipment in the world. The results are only controversial in your imagination. As far as I know, no papers in the refereed literature challenging these results. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
But 2KW does give a very feeble buff, unless it is ousted in a very thin cavity and accelerated by propellers, like in a hand vaporizer.
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
Yes, they were. And this is what makes a Krivit a skeptical of cold fusion. As I said somewhere else, he believes that what causes the heat is the transmutation of elements and not just fusion.
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
My above answer was to Joshua Cude.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
THe ratio HAS to be made much higher. The story has started from 200:1 according to Focardi. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck wrote: For such a routine-routine calculation he supposedly made hundreds of...he seems a bit slow. Or too pedagogical? I have done that calculation many times, but if I were doing it on a blackboard for a video audience in Japanese I doubt I would be as smooth as Rossi was. And the output/input ratio( 6.7) has to be divided with at least 3 if we speak about the value of energy- 1kW electric = 3 kW thermal energy. The Defkalion brochure speaks about output/input values of 6 to 30, I think this parameter needs serious improvemens That's only a matter of engineering. The ratio can be made much higher. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude wrote: It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 times lower than it is for 100% steam. This vessel is shaped like a teapot or a steam locomotive. For a reason. Unless the liquid flows through too fast and overflows, only dry steam can escape from it. And yet, before it is boiling, liquid water escapes from it. Below the boiling point. If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature. How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam mixture would be at 100C. The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates. There is no evidence that it does that. It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C. You don't need pressure to increase the temperature of dry steam above 100C. If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings. If the vessel gets hotter, the water will boil earlier in its path through the device, and the steam will have to get through this hotter device. When you pass air, far above its boiling point, past a heating element in a furnace, what happens? Why, it gets hotter. That's how I keep my house warm in winter. The heat capacity of steam is pretty small (half that of water), so only a little heat transferred to the steam would show up as a substantial increase in its temperature. This has been common knowledge for 170 years. Anyone familiar with teapots knows this. It's not a teapot. The fluid is pumped through the system. The speculation and handwaving here about a magical ability to make water appear to boil with far less energy than this is complete, 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit. To get water to boil, you only have to heat it to 100C. To convert it all to steam takes 7 times the energy. That's been known for 170 years.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with the experiments that you mention of Focardi.
Re: [Vo]:Hot Fusion Delays -- Livermore Laser
Heh, it would require a Q1000/pellet for that to happen...
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
If you don't want to hot bubbles outside he machine, you have to heat almost all to steam. Using a teapot shaped boiler is a way to not let that happen. Jed is right this time.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Peter Gluck wrote: THe ratio HAS to be made much higher. The story has started from 200:1 according to Focardi. The ratio has been made infinite in some cases. Rossi has run the cells with no power input. As I am sure you know he says this is dangerous. Assuming that is true, it still means that the input power is for control purposes. It is not amplified in any sense. There is no fixed ratio between input power and output power. Increasing the ratio may take a lot of engineering work, but it is clear from experiments already done that this ratio can be increased, up to any number you want. A small ratio, such as 1:5 (input:output) would not be suitable for small scale electric power generation, but it would be fine for process steam or hot water. Presumably, whatever makes it dangerous (instability, I suppose) can be addressed and the control power can be reduced to a minimal level of a few percent; i.e. 1:50. I expect that would be less than generator overhead such as pumps, or friction at the bearings. A cold fusion generator will probably be run at low efficiency and low temperatures, to reduce wear and tear on the equipment. This is how uranium fission reactors are run, with only ~33% efficiency. Carnot efficiency could easily be improved but the equipment cost would exceed the cost of fuel, so that is not justified. With cold fusion the fuel cost is zero, so I expect they will be roughly 33% efficient. Small, household ones will probably be ~25% efficient. The waste heat will be used for co-generation (combined heat and power). - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Excuse me I don't get exactly what you are saying.\ It seems there are 2 problems; a) we don't know exactly how the system has to be controlled to give maxim performance i.e. intensity and efficiency (output/input0; b) Rossi is not mastering perfectly the same parameters - he has made scale down (from 15 KW to 2.5kW) and the output/input ratio has alaso decrease and that's worse.. One obvious but fuzzy problem is heat transfer. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with the experiments that you mention of Focardi. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:NASA Mission Suggests Sun and Planets Constructed Differently
On possible explanation for the difference is that LENR processes are common. Harry NASA Mission Suggests Sun and Planets Constructed Differently http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Mission_Suggests_Sun_and_Planets_Constructed_Differently_999.html These findings show that all solar system objects including the terrestrial planets, meteorites and comets are anomalous compared to the initial composition of the nebula from which the solar system formed, said Bernard Marty, a Genesis co-investigator from Centre de Recherches Petrographiques et Geochimiques and the lead author of the other new Science paper. Understanding the cause of such a heterogeneity will impact our view on the formation of the solar system.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Joshua Cude wrote: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: The output temperature and flow output, even visually, are convincing. They are visually equivalent to putting off a candles by blowing them, that is 0.2W - 0.4W. But to make it only by heating water and vaporizing requires more than 2000KW. Well, we're all just guessing, of course. I don't think we can easily quantify the steam coming out of that hose from the video. Neither its wetness (visibility), nor its flow rate. But in comparison to the you-tube videos someone linked to that show 2 kW of steam output, I don't think the feeble puffs of steam in Krivit's video represent more than a few hundred watts. It is notable that the power input varies depending on the controller actions, that if the power input (plus any nuclear output heat if any) should become less than that required to convert all the input water to steam then the liquid excess will eventually simply overflow, i.e. be pumped out into the hose and down the drain. Note that the pump rate is small, on the order of a few cc per second, so it can take a while to fill up a hose held upright into the air, even if the device itself is full of water - which probably can not happen due to percolator type effects. It is essential to do first principles calorimetry on the output, especially integrating calorimetry which determines total energies. I'm a complete amateur, and even I know that. For example, page 9 ff in this reference is a sample experiment I did in Dec. 1997: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/BlueAEH.pdf which shows some basic amateur calorimetry, including use of a post experiment temperature decline curve to estimate heat loss thorough the container walls, a technique which might be useful applied to a barrel calorimeter, though it is obviously best to insulate the barrel. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature. How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam mixture would be at 100C. With this flow configuration, in my experience it would around ~95°C as soon as the feed water starts overflowing. You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot). Again, in my experience, with a closed vessel the temperature is just below 100°C: ~99°C. With a flow system like this, it would be very hard to manually adjust the flow rate to keep it close to 99°C, to mimic a teapot. (You could do it with computerized controls.) When the cell is first heating up, the feed water overflows. The temperature rises. You can easily tell when water stops coming through and it converts entirely to steam. The sound changes. You can tell this with a miniature steam engine, for example. It is readily apparent. You can also hear when water is coming to boil, a very distinct hissing, roiling sound, familiar to cooks and people who play with steam engines. It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C. You don't need pressure to increase the temperature of dry steam above 100C. It only goes up to ~101°C in Rossi's test, as you see on the screen. If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings. If the vessel gets hotter, the water will boil earlier in its path through the device, and the steam will have to get through this hotter device. A little. That's why you see the numbers on Rossi's screen fluctuate, occassionally going up to ~102°C. This has been common knowledge for 170 years. Anyone familiar with teapots knows this. It's not a teapot. The fluid is pumped through the system. That's true but I was referring to the shape of the vessel preventing unboiled water from leaving. Mostly preventing it. Pumping fluids through boilers is also something people have been doing for a long time. It is well understood. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:20:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea... The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates. To get water to boil, you only have to heat it to 100C. To convert it all to steam takes 7 times the energy. That's been known for 170 years. Liquid water will produce a hot mist (wet steam) just below the boiling point. At the boiling point it produces dry steam. What happens is that the water keeps absorbing energy until it becomes dry steam. The temperature of the vessel walls doesn't increase 7 times while this is happening. It would increase 7 times if the vessel contained no liquid water. Harry
Re: [Vo]:More evasions and dishonesty from Cude
However, other people have published similar helium results in the peer-reviewed literature. No quantitative correlations were published in peer-reviewed literature. Even advocates admit that Miles' results were preliminary and crude, and they were controversial, and challenged in refereed literature. That is nonsense from start to finish. He worked on that project for 5 years as I recall, and he wrote hundreds of pages. That is not a preliminary result. It was not crude all. Miles eyeballed peaks, and assigned the detection limit to the smallest (later changed to fit his theory better). Here's a quote from a much later review: Therefore, in Table 1, the small, medium, and large helium-4 peaks are assigned values of 10^13, 10^14, and 10^15 helium-4 atoms per 500 mL above background levels. That's crude. Even his best results are all over the map, varying by close to an order of magnitude or so. That's crude, regardless of how many years he worked on it, or how many pages he wrote. Here's Lomax's assessment: (...Miles' helium measurements were relatively crude compared to what was done later.) The results are only controversial in your imagination. As far as I know, no papers in the refereed literature challenging these results. Well, you should access your own database now and then. Here's one example: *Jones and Hansen, *Examination of Claims of Miles et al. in Pons-Fleischmann-Type Cold Fusion Experiments,* **J. **Phys. Chem. **1995,**99, *6966-6972 There were others, and there was some back and forth after this one. As Storms says in his review: Although many critiques (Miles and Jones 1992; Miles 1998) were offered at the time to reject the results, subsequent studies support their conclusion... Storms didn't have the integrity to actually cite the critiques though; only the replies. But they were controversial, even outside my mind. And no replications in peer-review have settled the controversy.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Peter Daniel, I think the steadiness of the heat transfer is the only real problem and I suspect that the water pump is making it worse. A simple drain valve on the output of the e-cat using a high temperature transfer FLUID would make the rate of heat transfer much more stable and avoid the state change we have with steam. A more stable transfer rate means the device can operate closer to the critical point so less energy is required for the PWM to turn it on hard and the level falls back to more evenly distributed sub critical temperature more easily. I think Rossi was damaging his powder at 15kw because the pump creates a certain amount of thermal noise that results in hotspots even when the average reactor temperature appears steady. I don't believe any heat sinking method can react fast enough to abort a runaway and any self running modes must rely on limiting other parameters like hydrogen pressure or they will self limit by damaging the energy producing geometry as they overheat. I do think powder uniformity of geometry and heat sinking will also improve the ability to operate at higher gain. Fran From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:34 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th) Excuse me I don't get exactly what you are saying.\ It seems there are 2 problems; a) we don't know exactly how the system has to be controlled to give maxim performance i.e. intensity and efficiency (output/input0; b) Rossi is not mastering perfectly the same parameters - he has made scale down (from 15 KW to 2.5kW) and the output/input ratio has alaso decrease and that's worse.. One obvious but fuzzy problem is heat transfer. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.commailto:danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: It is, but it is either explosive or the power is too slow, like with the experiments that you mention of Focardi. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
What fluid would you suggest?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Joshua Cude wrote: If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature. How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam mixture would be at 100C. With this flow configuration, in my experience it would around ~95°C as soon as the feed water starts overflowing. I'm not familiar with your experience, so this means nothing to me. You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot). Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then only part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have to have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. What other possibility is there? Again, in my experience, with a closed vessel the temperature is just below 100°C: ~99°C. With a flow system like this, it would be very hard to manually adjust the flow rate to keep it close to 99°C, to mimic a teapot. (You could do it with computerized controls.) Again, your experience is no help here. If the power is just above what's necessary to bring the water to the bp, then you must have a mixture of steam and liquid, and it must be at the bp. Not hard at all. It's hard to get anything else. When the cell is first heating up, the feed water overflows. It's not overflowing. It's simply flowing through a conduit. The temperature rises. You can easily tell when water stops coming through and it converts entirely to steam. As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700 times the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around. It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the water (by mass) changes phase, the fluid is 95% gas, with a fine mist entrained in it. This looks like steam, and that's Rossi's ace in the hole. Because uncritical people like you, are so eager to believe in it, that you simply accept it. It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C. You don't need pressure to increase the temperature of dry steam above 100C. It only goes up to ~101°C in Rossi's test, as you see on the screen. That's because there is liquid water mixed with it. If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings. If the vessel gets hotter, the water will boil earlier in its path through the device, and the steam will have to get through this hotter device. A little. That's why you see the numbers on Rossi's screen fluctuate, occassionally going up to ~102°C. It's perfectly flat. There is far more fluctuation on the heating and cooling gradients, where the water is liquid with a higher heat capacity. Gas heats up when it passes a hot element. And not just a little. That's true but I was referring to the shape of the vessel preventing unboiled water from leaving. Mostly preventing it. The fluid is pumped through it. There is nothing preventing water from going through it. You're not making any sense. Pumping fluids through boilers is also something people have been doing for a long time. It is well understood. Yes, but not by you, evidently.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
The best heat transfer liquid is water, any organic heat transfer liquid (Defkalion speak about glycol but this has to be a glycol of higher moleculr weight) is dangerous- comustible toxic and is degrading and fouling the very hot surfaces as in this case.I have worked long years with Diphyl, not a pleasant stuff. I think some alternative engineering solution will be found. Peter On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: What fluid would you suggest? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then only part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have to have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. What other possibility is there? The wet part falls back until it becomes dry vapor later, when more energy is added. How can it fall back if there's more water coming in all the time to occupy the space. Come on people. There's a pump pushing the water through. The water is only in contact with the heater for a limited time. If that time is not long enough to change the phase, it's gonna exit as liquid.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi calorimetry, volume vs mass, etc.
It won't change much. I used 1.5g/s which gives 3.300W, so, 1.8g/s fits the bill. So, it is just a slightly stronger blow.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
You have to trap most of the steam until all the heat gets transfered. And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged out by the flow.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Isn't there a small transparent hose besides the one that pumps water inside?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700 times the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around. It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the water (by mass) changes phase, the fluid is 95% gas, with a fine mist entrained in it. This looks like steam, and that's Rossi's ace in the hole. I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below 99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the difference, Of course this is thermometer reading is trivial to fake e.g. putting carefully calibrated and electronically controlled electric resistor near thermometer sensor. Of course there are many other easy or difficult methods to fake results. E.g. mixing some H2O2, into water then catalyze the reaction that produces enough heat to account excess energy. It is plain foolish to crap insignificant and probably false details, because there is not enough information of all the relevant variables, if the whole system does not even resemble science and can be fabricated quite easily. Those recent demonstrations are not even demonstrations, because Rossi has only let observers to watch when he is performing alleged E-Cat tests for 1 MW plant. –Jouni
[Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
Joshua Cude wrote: You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot). Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then only part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have to have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. It is hard to arrange things so it transfers just enough heat to bring the temperature up to boiling, and boils some of the water in the time it takes the water to transit the hot surface. You can get it below that a little, or above it, but manually adjusting the flow rate or input power just right to hit that level is tough. (As I said, doing it with computer control is a piece of cake.) It usually ends up at ~95°C, as I said. That's what you see in data from people who run flow calorimetry close to boiling. Let's look at the facts here: 1. Rossi did not adjust the flow at all. Krivit would have said if he did. 2. Rossi did not adjust the input power. Krivit would seen this, too. 3. The video shows some steam coming out of the 3 m hose. 4. Input power was ~800 W. 5. The flow rate was ~7 L/h = ~1.9 g/s So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous heat that he can push the temperature up to 99°C and have mostly liquid water go through plus a little steam. If he can do that, he has truly mastered cold fusion! And if he can do that, why not just vaporize the whole stream of water? I realize you do not think there is any anomalous heat. You think the electric power input balances the heat output. That is barely possible with this test, assuming you can magically transfer all of the heat to the water without heating the vessel. But in previous tests the input power was lower and the water temperature would only be 60°C so there must have been anomalous heat. I realize you think there is some sort of trick or fraud at work, and the input power was really larger than shown. But let me suggest that for you assume for the sake of argument there were no tricks. Without tricks, there had to be anomalous heat in previous test runs, as I said. And with this run, ~800 W input and 1.9 ml/s flow rate, assuming not one joule of heat radiated from the cell and it remained miraculously at room temperature . . . 800 W = 190 calories per second. To bring 1.9 g from 25°C to 99°C takes 140 calories. That leaves 50 calories to vaporize some of the remaining water: 0.09 grams, to be exact. Not much! I don't think you could see 0.09 g/s of vapor. Do you? How much do you think would reach the end of the 3 m hose? In real life we know the cell got hot. It would have to get hot. There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W input. You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700 times the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around. It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the water (by mass) changes phase, the fluid is 95% gas, with a fine mist entrained in it. This looks like steam, and that's Rossi's ace in the hole. I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below 99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the difference, It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat. If the steam were dry, its temperature would be free to increase, but it never does. In all the experiments, at various different flow rates and input powers, when boiling is reached, it stays flat. The actual value of the bp depends on pressure (which could be slightly elevated inside the conduit because of the production of steam and pressure from the pump), and on impurities, and on the exact placement of the probe (in relation to the heater). (I suspect the last point is the reason the temperature is slightly different (but always flat) in the different experiments: 101.6 in some 100.1 in others. If Rossi wants to use the fact that the temperature is above the bp as evidence for dry steam, then reduce the flow rate a little, and let the temperature go to 110 or 120C. He never does this.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: You have to trap most of the steam until all the heat gets transfered. I don't know what that means. And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged out by the flow. It's not given a choice. There is a pump forcing it out.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Jouni Valkonen wrote: I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Yup. It is ~99°C here in Atlanta, GA, elevation ~300 m. Of course this is thermometer reading is trivial to fake e.g. putting carefully calibrated and electronically controlled electric resistor near thermometer sensor. That's true. It is plain foolish to crap insignificant and probably false details, because there is not enough information of all the relevant variables, if the whole system does not even resemble science and can be fabricated quite easily. Those recent demonstrations are not even demonstrations, because Rossi has only let observers to watch when he is performing alleged E-Cat tests for 1 MW plant. That's true too. What Krivit saw was not a scientific test, or an engineering test. It was more like a trade show demo. As I said, when Rossi invited me, I asked him to do a test. He politely refused, saying he did not have time, and he does not want to do any more tests until the 1 MW demo. There is nothing wrong with a trade show demo! It is educational. We can draw some conclusions from it. We can't prove anything, because it would be a trivial matter to fake the results, as Valkonen says. But, as I just noted, if we assume that Rossi is being honest, and that Krivit would have noticed gross problems such as the flow rate not being ~7 L/h, then we can conclude there was some anomalous heat with 800 W input. The amount is hard to estimate. What I wanted to do on a visit to Rossi would be closer to an engineering test. I was hoping to spend many hours measuring the effect, first with flowing water, and then later with steam. I was planning to measure the input power, flow rate, inlet and outlet temperature with my own instruments. I was planning to sparge the steam. This would make the results somewhat independent of Rossi. Not fully independent of course, but more independent than what Krivit observed. There is a spectrum of demonstrations. At one end we have what Krivit saw, which is completely dependent on the good will and honesty of Rossi. At the other end we have a replication from scratch done by a researcher who has never met Rossi. What I wanted to a little more toward the center of spectrum than what Krivit saw. Not because I don't trust Rossi. I wanted to do this because it is more fun, and more convincing. I am pleased that Rossi took the time to do this trade-show demo for Krivit. I thought Rossi did a good job. The two video segments are very interesting and revealing. Krivit did a fine job with the video camera position, lighting and sound. That's not easy! Kudos to both of them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below 99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the difference, It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat. This is explained that the heat resistor is below the water level. If you want to go significantly above 102 without increasing pressure, then it is necessary to boil all the water away and start heating steam directly. However one method, how to fabricate the result, is to increase pressure so that the boiling point increases. But as it is said quite clearly, the pressure is near room temperature, therefore boiling point is significantly below 100,1 °C, if we trust Rossi. If we do not trust, then discussion is meaningless, because E-Cat can be fabricated on all possible levels There is not just enough information on all the variables that are affecting to the system. Therefore any constructive criticism is not possible, but we need to only trust or distrust what Rossi is saying, (he has 30 year experience on energy industry, therefore it is safe to assume that he knows what he is doing). Any arguments on validity of measurements are just speculative because all the necessary variables are not known. You should know that neither Rossi's Demonstrations, nor these speculative steam discussions are science, This is really important to remember what can be said and what cannot be said if there is insufficient knowledge available. Therefore this is only a matter of trust and distrust, not a matter of facts. However on Thursday, University of bologna did sign a research contract and they are free to publish any measurements that they make on arbitrary detail. If I understood rumors correctly, we should get independent scientific verification of E-Cat in early July. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What fluid would you suggest? Jones suggests therminol which is used in solar power applications; but, as Peter points out about glycol, there are also disadvantages. The system would have to be securely closed. T
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Joshua Cude wrote: You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot). Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water to 100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then only part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have to have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. It is hard to arrange things so it transfers just enough heat to bring the temperature up to boiling, and boils some of the water in the time it takes the water to transit the hot surface. You can get it below that a little, or above it, but manually adjusting the flow rate or input power just right to hit that level is tough. What are you on about. We can calculate the heat needed to bring the water to the boiling point. I was suggesting we exceed it by 50%. There's nothing hard about that, and no computers are needed. It usually ends up at ~95°C, as I said. That's what you see in data from people who run flow calorimetry close to boiling. I was talking about running it above boiling, but way below the level needed to boil it all. Different thing. And it's easy. The power can range within a factor of 7. In this case, anywhere between 600W and about 5 kW. Let's look at the facts here: 1. Rossi did not adjust the flow at all. Krivit would have said if he did. We don't know that, but it's not relevant to this discussion. 2. Rossi did not adjust the input power. Krivit would seen this, too. Again, we don't know that, and again it's not relevant. 3. The video shows some steam coming out of the 3 m hose. 4. Input power was ~800 W. 5. The flow rate was ~7 L/h = ~1.9 g/s OK. So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. Wrong. As you showed, only 600 W is needed to bring the water to the boiling point.That leaves 200W to produce a little steam and a lot of hot water. It would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous heat that he can push the temperature up to 99°C and have mostly liquid water go through plus a little steam. I don't get your problem. The electrical power raises the water to 100C and produces a little steam on top of it. Simple so far. You can argue that the steam coming out represents more than 200W worth of steam, and therefore that the reactor must have contributed some heat. But there is no fine control needed for this. The more heat it produces, the more steam you would get. Nothing at all magic is needed here. And my guess is that the Ni-H produces a little chemical heat, but the evidence for even that is not convincing. I still think Rossi could easily have adjusted the power (and less likely the flow) without Krivit noticing. I also think his claim of the flow is wrong based on the esowatch evidence. I realize you do not think there is any anomalous heat. You think the electric power input balances the heat output. Then you haven't read my posts. I have frequently allowed the possibility of some heat production in the reactor; a few hundred watts seems to fit some of the data. That is barely possible with this test, assuming you can magically transfer all of the heat to the water without heating the vessel. It's not magic to transfer nearly all the heat to the water. The vessel gets hot sure, but it doesn't radiate much with all that insulation around it. Once it reaches equilibrium temperature, then the input heat goes to the water, or to radiation from the insulation. But in previous tests the input power was lower and the water temperature would only be 60°C so there must have been anomalous heat. Right. I've addressed those too. There are 3 obvious possibilities. The power is higher than claimed, the flow is lower than claimed, or the device produces a little chemical heat. It's really only needed in the EK run, and then only about 300 W. Without tricks, there had to be anomalous heat in previous test runs, as I said. In the EK run, without tricks or mistakes, it seems the reactor would have to produce a few hundred watts, yes. I've said this many times. But a few hundred watts does not convincingly exclude chemical heat. In the Lewan runs, less than 100 W were needed, if any at all. In the January run, I cannot exclude mistakes, because they are too obvious. The claimed flow rate exceeded the pump specs by a factor of 2. (Even Levi made such obvious mistakes in his written report as claiming the temperature was at 100C for 40 minutes, when it was only 18 minutes; it is hard to trust anything from that run.) But if you use the max flow rate of the pump, then no additional power from the reactor is needed to explain the data. And with this run, ~800 W input and 1.9 ml/s flow rate, assuming not one joule of heat radiated from the cell and it
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Joshua Cude wrote: It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat. If the steam were dry, its temperature would be free to increase, but it never does. If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home: Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the steam. You will find it is ~101°C. Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out. Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C. You have to pressurize it to make it any higher. When you add more heat, all you do is boil more water. Of course a flow configuration is not quite the same, and there may be a little more opportunity for the vapor to cross the hot surface and heat up before it escapes, but with something the size of the Rossi device, at 1 atm, you would have to make it produce many kilowatts of anomalous heat before you get the steam up to up to 110°C or 120°C. (I realize I got this wrong before, but not that wrong!) In all the experiments, at various different flow rates and input powers, when boiling is reached, it stays flat. Yup. This is exactly what you see when you calibrate with a joule heater. Turn the power way up; the line will stay flat. Try it! Build a flow calorimeter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
a mixture of ground coffee and water should do the trick. ;-) Harry - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 5:10:35 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th) On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What fluid would you suggest? Jones suggests therminol which is used in solar power applications; but, as Peter points out about glycol, there are also disadvantages. The system would have to be securely closed. T
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below 99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the difference, It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat. This is explained that the heat resistor is below the water level. If you want to go significantly above 102 without increasing pressure, then it is necessary to boil all the water away and start heating steam directly. Well, if you're claiming that all the water is boiled away, then the steam would be heated directly. You would have to supply a very carefully regulated power exactly equal to the power required to vaporize the all the water to satisfy the claim that the steam is dry. Just one per cent more power would cause the steam temperature to rise about 10C. It is not plausible that in all these different runs with different flow rates and different power inputs the ecat always gave just enough power to exactly vaporize all the water, and not a per cent more or less. A far easier explanation for the flat temperature is that there is liquid in the output fluid. if we trust Rossi. If we do not trust, then discussion is meaningless, because E-Cat can be fabricated on all possible levels I suppose trust is not binary. But if we blindly trust him, then there is no need for demos at all. My point is that only a few hundred watts are needed from the ecat to explain even the numbers as given by Rossi.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
Joshua Cude, Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that would imply important, accessible new physics...
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
While I am also a skeptical, even rough approximation gives a huge output gain. Above 100 degrees means gas, and pumping a mixture would require either another pump, by means of ventilation. Ventilation is noisy and would require a large opening. Even 1% of liquid is a thick fog, which is not the case, it doesn't change the end result as much as 1% of the volume were liquid, which would basically mean a foam as the output. The actual results are all more consistent with at least 2500KW than less than 1000W. You'd have to put a lot of things that are not there. It is much easier to suppose that Rossi is just draining energy from somewhere else.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home: Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the steam. You will find it is ~101°C. Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out. Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C. Of course, because there is liquid water present. You are heating the water, not the steam. You have to pressurize it to make it any higher. When you add more heat, all you do is boil more water. In a pot, yes. The ecat is not a pot. Of course a flow configuration is not quite the same, and there may be a little more opportunity for the vapor to cross the hot surface and heat up before it escapes, but with something the size of the Rossi device, at 1 atm, you would have to make it produce many kilowatts of anomalous heat before you get the steam up to up to 110°C or 120°C. Well, for the flow rates used, you have to produce many kW to vaporize all the water. That's Rossi's claim. But once the water is all vaporized, you only need another watt to raise the temperature of 1 g/s steam flow by 2 C. In the Krivit demo, with about 2 g/s, 10 W more will increase the steam temperature by 10C. Now, it may not be exactly like this, but the additional heat has to get out somehow. If the steam doesn't take it, then the ecat will get hotter, and maybe lose a little more through the insulation. But if the ecat gets hotter, the water boils quicker, and exposes the dry steam to more heating element and allows it to get hotter. It's conservation of energy. If all the water is already in the form of steam, and if you put more power into the ecat, or if it produces more power, then the only way for it to come out is if the steam gets hotter. (I realize I got this wrong before, but not that wrong!) Yes. Completely, unequivocally, blatantly, wrong. You still don't seem to grasp it.
Re: [Vo]:[Video] Andrea Rossi Crunches the Numbers for His Energy Catalyzer (June 14th)
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude, Are you conceding that the Rossi device produces some anomalous excess heat -- in a fully reproducible setup, capable of explosions, that would imply important, accessible new physics... I make no definite claims. I am saying that the evidence as presented does not require any nuclear reactions to explain it. I do think it is not implausible that the ecat produces some energy by chemical means. I do not see how that suggests new physics.
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
Joshua Cude wrote: There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W input. You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat. What are you talking about. You just did the calculation yourself showing that it takes only 3/4 of that (600W) to bring the water to the boiling point. If you are putting 800W into the cell, and the only way you are taking it out is with water, some of the water would vaporize. Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it radiates from the cell into the surroundings. The recovery rate for the water flowing through will be maybe 50% to 75%. In other words, only 400 to 600 W reaches the water. Barely enough to boil it, and none of that steam would make it to the other end of the 3 m hose. Even if 700 W reached the water, I doubt you would see any steam emerge from the other side. I believe the most pessimistic estimate here is that the hose radiates ~100 W. What I am saying is that this is a poor design for a flow calorimeter. If you want to recover 80% or 90%, you need to run at a much lower temperature (below 50°C I think), and you need convolutions in the cooling water path. You can make a fantastic flow calorimeter, with 98% recovery, with the water below 30°C and lots of other techniques. That's what McKubre did. Rossi is claiming these things produce multi-kW, but only a few hundred watts are enough to explain all the quoted data. You have it backwards. Rossi is assuming the steam is dry, which it almost certainly is. Based on that assumption he estimates that it produces multiple kilowatts. He does not start off with that assumption and then work backwards. _You_ are doing that! You assume there must be only 800 W so there has to be some way to explain these temperatures and the appearance of the steam, and there must be hot water coming through. Rossi has spent a lot of time with teapot-shaped flow calorimeters, where the steam exit is placed well above the hot surface. That ensures dry steam, as long as you keep the flow rate reasonable. I have seen tons of calibration data from Fleischmann and Pons and the Italians who did boiling calorimetry to know that he is right. You're saying even those few hundred watts prove a nuclear effect, and maybe if they ran it long enough there would be something, if all the numbers were really nailed down with credible observers. But if it's really nuclear, why is this experiment, just like all CF experiments, in this pergatory, where it's even possible to quibble day after day? Why is there never enough power to make it obvious, and better, to power itself? There is enough power to make it obvious! The power is in kilowatts. Rossi's method of estimating power is correct. You imagine it is wrong, and you invent all kinds of improbable Just So Stories to explain how your fantasy might be true, but you are wrong. You know perfectly well why this one does not power itself. Because it is likely to explode. Ask Mizuno what that's like. There will be self-powered ones with electric power generation within a year or so. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: While I am also a skeptical, even rough approximation gives a huge output gain. Above 100 degrees means gas, A temperature reading within a degree or two of 100C is consistent with a mixture of gas and liquid. and pumping a mixture would require either another pump, by means of ventilation. Why? The pump is capable of pushing through pure liquid. It should have no trouble with a mixture of gas and liquid. Ventilation is noisy and would require a large opening. Why? Pure steam would require more ventilation than a mixture of steam and water. The volume is 1700 times higher. It would be louder and hotter. Even 1% of liquid is a thick fog, which is not the case, This depends on droplet size etc. There are papers on 2-phase flow that measure the size of the droplets; they're larger than in a fog. The actual results are all more consistent with at least 2500KW than less than 1000W. OK. We clearly disagree about this. That little puff of steam looks like a few hundred watts to me. I don't think we can resolve this by typing. In any case, it's not a quantitative measure. Using the quantitative measures (temperature and flow rate), only 600 W is needed. The rest is hand-waving arguments about steam dryness. Rossi could easily prove it's dry by heating it to 120C (by reducing the flow rate), or by measuring the flow rate of the steam. Wonder why he doesn't do it. It is much easier to suppose that Rossi is just draining energy from somewhere else. I think that's harder, actually.
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
This is going into an infinite loop. Trying to explain that with only 800 is just too hard for me. Thanks for trying.
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ** Joshua Cude wrote: There is no chance any of the water would vaporize with only ~800 W input. You would not any steam at all. Even with this high input power, any steam at all is proof there is anomalous heat. What are you talking about. You just did the calculation yourself showing that it takes only 3/4 of that (600W) to bring the water to the boiling point. If you are putting 800W into the cell, and the only way you are taking it out is with water, some of the water would vaporize. Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it radiates from the cell into the surroundings. The cell is insulated. The recovery rate for the water flowing through will be maybe 50% to 75%. In other words, only 400 to 600 W reaches the water. I don't believe it. Then the insulation would be radiating 200W to 400W. Not plausible. But go ahead. Try to make it plausible. Estimate the area and the temperature necessary for this. And if you're claiming 50 - 75 % for any power, then at 5 kW, about 2.5 kW would have to radiate from the insulation. Are you claiming that? Rossi is claiming these things produce multi-kW, but only a few hundred watts are enough to explain all the quoted data. You have it backwards. Rossi is assuming the steam is dry, which it almost certainly is. Based on that assumption he estimates that it produces multiple kilowatts. He does not start off with that assumption and then work backwards. *You* are doing that! You assume there must be only 800 W so there has to be some way to explain these temperatures and the appearance of the steam, and there must be hot water coming through. No, I'm looking at the output, at the temperature curves and concluding that dry steam is laughably implausible, and therefore I do not accept the claim of multi-kW output. Rossi has spent a lot of time with teapot-shaped flow calorimeters, where the steam exit is placed well above the hot surface. That ensures dry steam, as long as you keep the flow rate reasonable. No. It doesn't. Whatever the fluid is, and regardless of the shape, it's gonna flow through. It does it as a liquid, and it does it as a steam-liquid mixture. There's a pump forcing it through. You're saying even those few hundred watts prove a nuclear effect, and maybe if they ran it long enough there would be something, if all the numbers were really nailed down with credible observers. But if it's really nuclear, why is this experiment, just like all CF experiments, in this pergatory, where it's even possible to quibble day after day? Why is there never enough power to make it obvious, and better, to power itself? There is enough power to make it obvious! Even several of the CF advocates here are skeptical, so it is clearly not obvious. There will be self-powered ones with electric power generation within a year or so. And will that be used to power the CF car you predicted would be built before the year 2000?
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home: Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the steam. You will find it is ~101°C. Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out. Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C. Of course, because there is liquid water present. You are heating the water, not the steam. That is good insight, because E-Cat heats water in liquid phase. Heating element is completely submerged into water. Input water flow is adjusted for exactly on that reason, so that E-Cat's heating element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so that it matches evaporation rate. Therefore E-Cat is exactly the same thing as a kettle where there is a hose plugged into nozzle and input water flow is adjusted so that there is always water present in liquid form. This why E-Cat has a tall chimney, to prevent overflow of water and boiling away all the water coolant. If there is no water in liquid form around heating element, E-Cat melts down. –Jouni P.S. It is surprising that you and abd have written hundreds of very long messages although misunderstanding is on such a basic level that people do not know how tea pot is functioning!
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous heat that he can push the temperature up to 99°C and have mostly liquid water go through plus a little steam. If he can do that, he has truly mastered cold fusion! Jed, man, think about that -- don't just jerk your knee at me in an automatic defense of Rossi, really think about it. Rossi has a factor of SEVEN in output level in the range he has to hit in order to produce SOME steam and SOME hot water, and you have just said it would be hard for him to control the anomalous heat well enough to do that. But Rossi's claiming to have produced exactly enough heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, and NOT HEAT THE STEAM beyond boiling -- that target is orders of magnitude smaller than the target he'd need to hit to produce some steam and some hot water! If he overshoots his dry steam power level by even a little, the steam temperature will go up by a lot; the specific heat of steam is very small compared to the heat of vaporization of water. But the temperature never rises more than about a degree over boiling! Jed, the point you just made is the point that's been bugging me all along -- it would take a miracle of fine control to generate EXACTLY enough anomalous heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, without superheating the steam, and without leaving wet steam or having the device spit water! There's no evidence of that degree of control, no evidence of a feedback loop which could be providing it, no reason except wishful thinking to believe such control exists ... so the conclusion is that he's actually got the power level set somewhere within the factor of 7 window, and he's producing very wet steam or a mix of steam and liquid water; he does *NOT* have it right on the edge, producing dry steam just over the boiling point. It's absurd to think he could exercise the level of precise control needed to produce exactly dry steam. (And that about uses up my Friday night send-some-useless-email time...)
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home: Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the steam. You will find it is ~101°C. Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out. Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C. Of course, because there is liquid water present. You are heating the water, not the steam. That is good insight, because E-Cat heats water in liquid phase. Heating element is completely submerged into water. Input water flow is adjusted for exactly on that reason, so that E-Cat's heating element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so that it matches evaporation rate. First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the experiment is started. The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating element remains wet. To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Neither are believable. Rossi's admitted in the secret run, where there was no water/steam regulation that the output power fluctuated significantly. Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up. I've often thought a better way to do this experiment would be to adjust the flow rate (reduce it) until the temperature of the steam begins to climb to 110C or 120C. Then you could be sure the steam is dry, the calculation he likes to stumble over would have some validity. Therefore E-Cat is exactly the same thing as a kettle where there is a hose plugged into nozzle and input water flow is adjusted so that there is always water present in liquid form. Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat, vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam leaves as it is produced, and so it would be forgiving of fluctuations in the power or input flow rate. That is, the output mass flow rate does not have to match the input flow rate. But the ecat is not open like that. The output mass flow rate must match the input. So, even if the flow rate matched the output of dry steam, a very small decrease in the flow rate or a very small increase in the power would show up as a substantial increase in the steam temperature. The ecat is not a tea pot. Get used to it. This why E-Cat has a tall chimney, to prevent overflow of water and boiling away all the water coolant. The water or steam is pushed out no matter what. It's a closed system. There is no concept of overflowing. My theory of the chimney is it provides a place for the liquid water to become aerosolized by the turbulence of the little steam that is produced, so that what comes out looks like steam. If there is no water in liquid form around heating element, E-Cat melts down. Or the steam gets hotter. Or both. But the steam would get hotter. P.S. It is surprising that you and abd have written hundreds of very long messages although misunderstanding is on such a basic level that people do not know how tea pot is functioning! We unfortunately do not have the benefit of being trained by members of the tea party.
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous heat that he can push the temperature up to 99°C and have mostly liquid water go through plus a little steam. If he can do that, he has truly mastered cold fusion! Jed, man, think about that -- don't just jerk your knee at me in an automatic defense of Rossi, really think about it. Rossi has a factor of SEVEN in output level in the range he has to hit in order to produce SOME steam and SOME hot water, and you have just said it would be hard for him to control the anomalous heat well enough to do that. But Rossi's claiming to have produced exactly enough heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, and NOT HEAT THE STEAM beyond boiling -- that target is orders of magnitude smaller than the target he'd need to hit to produce some steam and some hot water! If he overshoots his dry steam power level by even a little, the steam temperature will go up by a lot; the specific heat of steam is very small compared to the heat of vaporization of water. But the temperature never rises more than about a degree over boiling! Jed, the point you just made is the point that's been bugging me all along -- it would take a miracle of fine control to generate EXACTLY enough anomalous heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, without superheating the steam, and without leaving wet steam or having the device spit water! There's no evidence of that degree of control, no evidence of a feedback loop which could be providing it, no reason except wishful thinking to believe such control exists ... so the conclusion is that he's actually got the power level set somewhere within the factor of 7 window, and he's producing very wet steam or a mix of steam and liquid water; he does *NOT* have it right on the edge, producing dry steam just over the boiling point. It's absurd to think he could exercise the level of precise control needed to produce exactly dry steam. (And that about uses up my Friday night send-some-useless-email time...) Thanks. You put it better than I did.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com: First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the experiment is started. The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating element remains wet. To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Neither are believable. Rossi's admitted in the secret run, where there was no water/steam regulation that the output power fluctuated significantly. Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up. I've often thought a better way to do this experiment would be to adjust the flow rate (reduce it) until the temperature of the steam begins to climb to 110C or 120C. Then you could be sure the steam is dry, the calculation he likes to stumble over would have some validity. On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Therefore E-Cat is exactly the same thing as a kettle where there is a hose plugged into nozzle and input water flow is adjusted so that there is always water present in liquid form. Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat, vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam leaves as it is produced, and so it would be forgiving of fluctuations in the power or input flow rate. That is, the output mass flow rate does not have to match the input flow rate. But the ecat is not open like that. The output mass flow rate must match the input. So, even if the flow rate matched the output of dry steam, a very small decrease in the flow rate or a very small increase in the power would show up as a substantial increase in the steam temperature. The ecat is not a tea pot. Get used to it. To say this you need to know exactly how much water E-Cat can contain in liquid form. If you cannot answer that then your argument does not have any relevance, because you lack crucial details of the experiment. You can make tea pots with water pump, but you need to know what is the volume of the teapot. So what is the exact volume of E-Cat? It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the water boils away, core temperature may rise too high.
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: YOW -- WHAT YOU JUST SAID On 11-06-24 04:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: So the only way for Rossi to make it produce a little steam and a lot of hot water would be for him to adjust the anomalous heat output. It would be a miracle if Rossi has such good control over the anomalous heat that he can push the temperature up to 99°C and have mostly liquid water go through plus a little steam. If he can do that, he has truly mastered cold fusion! Jed, man, think about that -- don't just jerk your knee at me in an automatic defense of Rossi, really think about it. Rossi has a factor of SEVEN in output level in the range he has to hit in order to produce SOME steam and SOME hot water, and you have just said it would be hard for him to control the anomalous heat well enough to do that. But Rossi's claiming to have produced exactly enough heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, and NOT HEAT THE STEAM beyond boiling -- that target is orders of magnitude smaller than the target he'd need to hit to produce some steam and some hot water! If he overshoots his dry steam power level by even a little, the steam temperature will go up by a lot; the specific heat of steam is very small compared to the heat of vaporization of water. But the temperature never rises more than about a degree over boiling! Jed, the point you just made is the point that's been bugging me all along -- it would take a miracle of fine control to generate EXACTLY enough anomalous heat to EXACTLY vaporize all the input water, without superheating the steam, and without leaving wet steam or having the device spit water! There's no evidence of that degree of control, no evidence of a feedback loop which could be providing it, no reason except wishful thinking to believe such control exists ... so the conclusion is that he's actually got the power level set somewhere within the factor of 7 window, and he's producing very wet steam or a mix of steam and liquid water; he does *NOT* have it right on the edge, producing dry steam just over the boiling point. It's absurd to think he could exercise the level of precise control needed to produce exactly dry steam. (And that about uses up my Friday night send-some-useless-email time...) Hi Stephen, It is not difficult at all to achieve something that *looks* like perfectly regulated high thermal output by simply using percolator type effects to dump water into the output hose. I commented on this earlier in another thread, quoted below. On Jun 24, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: If you look at the E-cat design you can see that it has the potential to act similar to a coffee percolator. See: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VIn_mQi1H-M/TZ1ZIpKD4-I/LAE/ xo1T4ZRm41o/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/WO2009125444 It is a boiling chamber followed by a vertical tube and elevated ejection port. A relative humidity sensor will max out at 100%, and would not be capable of detecting a percolator style of operation. It is merely a polymer or metal oxide thin film protected by a porous metal electrode. It can not measure steam quality. There is no reason to expect that water on the surface of the protecting porous metal electrode will have a significant effect on an already 100% RH reading. A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume of gas. The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device. Water has been seen coming out of the hose. Unless careful measurements are taken it is not known the quantity of water vs gas. On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: It is notable that the power input varies depending on the controller actions, that if the power input (plus any nuclear output heat if any) should become less than that required to convert all the input water to steam then the liquid excess will eventually simply overflow, i.e. be pumped out into the hose and down the drain. Note that the pump rate is small, on the order of a few cc per second, so it can take a while to fill up a hose held upright into the air, even if the device itself is full of water - which probably can not happen due to percolator type effects. Ironically, all that is required to get excess heat is to *reduce* the input power occasionally (or even permanently) so as to pump some excess water out instead of steam. Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See: http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html A transparent U-trap just past the current steam
Re: [Vo]:Okay, suppose there is only 800 W input with no anomalous heat
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Nope. When you put 800 W into something like this, a large fraction of it radiates from the cell into the surroundings. The cell is insulated. It is too hot to touch according to witnesses. The insulation means it takes longer to get hot on the outside; the difference between the inside and the outside is greater; and more heat transfers to the water. But there is still plenty being radiated out. The recovery rate for the water flowing through will be maybe 50% to 75%. In other words, only 400 to 600 W reaches the water. I don't believe it. Then the insulation would be radiating 200W to 400W. Not plausible. That isn't much with a large object that is too hot to touch. And if you're claiming 50 - 75 % for any power, then at 5 kW, about 2.5 kW would have to radiate from the insulation. Are you claiming that? Dunno. Recovery rates change with temperature, flow rates and other conditions. Actually, they usually get worse. Probably this is producing ~4 kW and that makes the surface too hot to touch. If, as you believe, it is only producing 800 W then the insulation isn't very good, is it? All I know is that people have reported it is too hot to touch, as is the hose coming out of it. No. It doesn't. Whatever the fluid is, and regardless of the shape, it's gonna flow through. It does it as a liquid, and it does it as a steam-liquid mixture. There's a pump forcing it through. If the water was overflowing out of the top and down the hose, cold water would be coming in to replace the boiling water and the temperature would drop below boiling, as I said. Probably down to around 95 deg C. It is very difficult to maintain a flow calorimeter outlet temperature of exactly 101 deg C unless the water is boiling, leaving as vapor, and only the vapor touches the temperature sensor. Rossi could tell it is overflowing by watching the temperature. When it falls below 100 deg C, he increases anomalous heat. If not enough water comes in and it dries up, the temperature would rise above 101 deg C, and he reduces it. He can control the strength of the anomalous heat. I do not know how he does that. Apparently he has enough control to keep the bottom portion filled with boiling water but not overflowing. I thank Jouni Valkonen for that observation, by the way. There will be self-powered ones with electric power generation within a year or so. And will that be used to power the CF car you predicted would be built before the year 2000? The only reason we did not have cold fusion powered cars by 2000 was because of academic politics and irrational opposition by people like you. I believe Mallove predicted that, not me. I predicted that academic politics would destroy the field, and end all of the research. - Jed
[Vo]:The WD Files on Rossi (4 of 4) - Personal Assessments Conclusions
The Witch Doctor Files on Rossi (4 of 4) - Personal Assessments Conclusions The source of this information is of an unorthodox nature. I cannot vouch for its authenticity. I know of no traditional scientific way of going about verifying the accuracy of where this information might have been derived from, or who (or what) the source is. The only option left, at least from my perspective, is to evaluate the validity of the information itself. The information is either useful (warts and all), or it isn't. I hope readers may allow themselves to privately ponder the following conundrums: Should we dismiss potentially useful information simply because we cannot verify by any logical scientific means at our disposal where the source of that information may have originated from? Obviously, I would advocate that to summarily dismiss all such unorthodox sources could result in occasionally missing out on useful opportunities in furthering our knowledge base, particularly if it helps us side-step unproductive paths and pursuits. As I understand it, at present few have a good clue as to what's causing the Rossi Effect. This includes Rossi who by all accounts is a very clever monkey. Is it nuclear? Or does Dr. Mills Co. have the inside path to promised glory and riches. And, of course, there may be others feverishly working in undisclosed laboratories trying to grasp the implications of what they are witnessing, but cannot explain. I was struck by the fact that at least according to this unorthodox source the Rossi Effect isn't really an atomic nuclear effect. I thought for sure that atomic nuclei of certain atoms HAD to be directly involved in some mysterious way. Nor, does it exclusively involve the electron shell of atomic hydrogen - as seemingly portrayed in Dr. Mills audacious CQM theory. It would nevertheless not surprise me that once we acquire a better theoretical understanding of what's happening and how to manipulate the Rossi Effect, the energy released may turn out to be orders of magnitude greater than at current primitive levels. At which point the effect might very well induce nuclear reactions in ways that we damned well better get a good handle on... or else there may be hell to pay. To reiterate, according to this unorthodox and unverified source, the Rossi Effect is caused by elements alloys changing state, from a solid, to liquid, to gas, and vice versa. The Rossi Effect apparently effects the outer electron shells, the outer rings pertaining to certain alloy combinations and their underlying crystalline structure. The Rossi Effect also allegedly results in an ...upset [of] the quark balance. Apparently, learning to manipulate the razor's edge, the narrow border line where the crystalline structure of alloys change states may turn out to be a very tricky process to master in the commercial/industrial sense. Learning how to maintain optimal temperatures in order to keep the Rossi Effect constantly turned on may end up employing many researchers, scientists, and engineers for decades to come, and perhaps centuries. It's possible certain Rossi observers might feel a sense of disappointment pertaining to the fact that at least according to this unorthodox source large scale commercializing of the Rossi effect might still at least 10 - 20 years away, dependent on adequate RD funding. I also get the impression that it's questionable as to whether Defkalion will be able to deliver any kind of commercial product by October of this year, 2011. According to this unorthodox source, Rossi still has another serious year of futzing around to do - that we should basically ignore him (leave him alone) for another year. It's extremely important that Rossi NOT cut operational corners in the design of his e-cats. The conflict here is that in order to get adequate funding Rossi and Defkalilon apparently feel they need to continue to make a big public fuss about what they are doing RIGHT NOW! It's the only way they feel they can drum up sufficient venture capital to complete the RD process. But take heart. Maybe it might not be all that dire. I still perceive (or personally interpret) the possibility that Defkalion may still present a small set of products by the end of this year (... or perhaps, more realistically, maybe by the end of next year). Just don't expect the first generation of products to do too all that much! ... perhaps just enough to prove their point, that the e-feline really DOES have claws and knows how to use them - perhaps independently too. Such speculation would suggest that the initial display of Defkalion products are likely to be perceived by subsequent generations as laughably primitive exploitations of the Rossi Effect. But so what. We should not take offense. Such is the business of technological progress. Before I conclude this experiment I must confess the fact that I enjoy occasionally throwing in a monkey wrench of unorthodox information into the
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the water boils away, core temperature may rise too high. That is an astute observation. Thank you. You are right that if the water boils away the temperature will rise rapidly. If the heat is too low, the teapot fills up and starts to overflow, cold water will flow in and replace the hot water, and it will soon stop boiling. The outlet temperature will fall below 100 deg C. While the machine is running, Rossi is constantly checking the screen numbers and adjusting the anomalous heat. I do not know he does this, but apparently he is able to do it. He changes the input power slightly, I think. I assume he is keeping the teapot full without letting it overflow. It would be easier to do this with a tube on the outside. Of course this can be automated. He is running the thing manually. - Jed
