Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow for days. Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy. The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away. You can witness it somewhere near the end of the video. The SR-71 blackbird would be put to shame if the input liquid water rate of 7 kg per hr. were turned into dry steam spewing out at Mach 6. What we see is a pathtic 1.33 meters per second or so out of his 1 cm diameter tube. These are the numbers for the output products given 750 Watts electrical input at 95% efficiency, with a working fluid of 7 liters water per hr at 26.5 degrees C. 3.1% water vapor by mass. 1.8% liquid water by volume. Steven will have indistputable numbers and facts within the next few weeks and present the evidence in a far more digestable manner than my pathetic attempts here.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow for days. Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy. The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away. You're joking. This is ridiculous. There would be no steam at all if the thing was not producing excess energy. Rossi's analysis is crude but reasonably correct, within 20%. There is no way it could be over 100 deg C without excess. There is also no way Levi or EK can be significantly wrong. Ed Storms sent me his analysis of the test. I will upload it here. Steven will have indistputable numbers and facts within the next few weeks and present the evidence in a far more digestable manner than my pathetic attempts here. Krivit does not what he is talking about. His assertion that they might have measured by volume is ridiculous, and his questions to the professors were rude. No wonder they did not answer. - Jed
[Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A variety of ways the Rossi claims might be wrong have been suggested. Let's examine each. The following values are used: Cp (H2O at 65°) = 4.18 J/g-deg , enthalpy of vaporization @ 100°C = 2.27 kJ/g. *1. Not all of the water is turned to steam.* If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with observation. *2. The steam contains water droplets, i.e, was not dry.* Power to heat water to 100° = 592 watt Power to vaporize all water = 1.94 * 2270 = 4404 watt Total = 4997 watt if all water is vaporized Excess power = 4249 watt The only way steam is wet is when water drops are present. If too many drops are present, they fall as rain (precipitate). It is simply impossible to have a large number of drops present. A 5% figure is chosen as an example here (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wet-steam-quality-d_426.html) because this is a plausible amount. Nevertheless, the conclusion would be the same even if 20% water drops were present. Power to vaporize 95% of water = 4183 watt Excess power = 3736 watt CONCLUSION: Significant excess power is being made regardless of how dry the steam may be. *3. Energy is stored in the apparatus that is being released during the demonstration.* Assume e-Cat contained 2 kg of material having an average heat capacity equal to that of copper. Copper has a heat capacity of 0.385 J/g*K. Assume steam is made for 15 min, i.e. the e-Cat remains above 100° C during this time. During 15 min, 1750 g of water is converted to steam = 1.94*15*60*2270 = 3963 kJ Applied energy = 745 *60*15 = 672 kJ Amount of energy that has to be stored = 3291 kJ Energy stored in Cu/degree = 2000*.385 = 770 K/° Initial temperature of e-Cat = about 4400° The e-cat would have to weight over 20 kg to contain enough energy to make steam for only 15 min. after being heated initially to over 500° C. CONCLUSION: The e-Cat cannot retain enough energy to account for the observed behavior during cooling from high temperatures. *4. The flow rate is wrong by a factor of 2.* Power to heat water to 100° = 296 watt Power to vaporize all water = 2204 watt Total = 2500 watt if all water is vaporized Excess power = 1752 watt CONCLUSION: Excess power is being generated even if the flow rate is misrepresented by a factor of 2. *BASIC CONCLUSION: None of the plausible assumptions are consistent with the claim for excess energy being wrong.*
RE: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
LOL. The personal dynamics emerging out of the Rossi story as we move into Independence Day, especially on the journalism end of the spectrum, are becoming quaintly humorous, no? Let's face it: this is either the most important invention of all time or it is a massive, embarrassing scam. It's more important than fire, as one of AR's competitor likes to opine :-) ... or else the impending coup de grâce for LENR. And if you are a fringe journalist, prepared to step-up into the National scene, having already made a little wave with the not really fusion spiel - then this could be the story which is not just a once in a lifetime opportunity, but once in all time ... Certainly, the stakes are high and there is little middle ground by now, so if you have prided yourself on being the Numero Uno top-journalist in LENR - which is to say, in a field which was once a backwater of pathological science, but which is now poised to explode (and with you at the helm) ... priceless ...but wait ... Can this impending Paradigm Shift really be due to a poorly crafted invention by a nutty Italian, and will that device alone essentially become the savior of the Free World and the Western way of life ? (instead of the other lame story which Krivit been spearheading, and promoting non-stop). Let's face it, Steve did not get in on the ground floor of the Rossi 'event,' possibly due to bad advice from his new sponsors W L, and now fears the possibility that he could have blown everything by missing those early clues; and mainly by choosing the 'wrong horse'... ... but that is only if Rossi is for real. And 'scam' is looking to be easily possible, at least to a growing list of smart fence-straddlers, going into July ... but then again, that is due mainly to the whims of a nutty Italian, more so that to the actual results- which are extraordinarily robust according to insiders, but only as glorified anecdote. No good numbers yet - which pleases the skeptic ... and then again, that could be part of the scam (or else part of a pervasive attitude of 'full speed ahead'). In the end, it seems that the easiest recourse for Krivit to save face is this slime-gamble, made worse from by a failed visit to Italy - and based on too-little information, but seemingly the only option: dump on Rossi - big time. His prayer is to get out there and position himself as the journalist who bravely stood up to the scorn and ridicule of colleagues in the field, and exposed Andrea Rossi as the scam artist he is. He will thereby scoop the journalists who beat him to other possibility, and reclaim his rightful position as Numero Uno journalist in the field ... and then, perhaps, be ready to double-down, since his other 'horse,' the one that went lame getting into the gate last year - will now have second-wind. By November, Steve may come out of this looking not only like a top-dog journalist, but also like a bit of an insightful scientist in his own right ... ...or else he will be staring deeply into the wrong end of that proverbial horse ? What are the probabilities ? You have four months to decide. From: Jed Rothwell Subject: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't Here is a long posting by Steve Krivit: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/Report2-372-EnergyCatalyzerScienti ficCommunicationAndEthicsIssues.shtml I would say this is correct. He points out many weaknesses in Rossi's presentations and data. He exaggerates the problems, but basically it is correct. Then he nullifies the discussion: I went to Bologna to seek scientific answers to scientific questions that deserve forthright and detailed responses. Rossi does not claim to be a scientist, and he was under no ethical obligation to give me the scientific answers I sought. He is not bound to any scientific credo, and he answers to no institution. Levi, however, is a scientist and, to a certain extent, represents the University of Bologna. (Levi is, of course, entitled to academic freedom to conduct research as he chooses.) My response: I did not go to Bologna because Rossi told me he would not answer scientific questions. He made that abundantly clear. Krivit should have asked, as I did. If he had scientific questions, he should have asked them over the telephone. Rossi would not have answered them, and Krivit would have saved the cost of airfare. If Krivit did ask before he left, and he knew that Rossi would not answer scientific questions, then perhaps this whole thing was a set up. Perhaps Krivit went there to make Rossi look bad. It is the easiest thing in the world to make Rossi look bad. I have been dealing with Rossi for over a year and he has not answered any scientific questions yet, so why was Krivit expecting anything different? Rossi answers engineering questions, albeit not to my full satisfaction. Since Rossi is not bound to any scientific credo, and he answers to no institution why is there dispute? Why is there any issue?
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate test (where there was no vapor produced). I'll be less skeptical, when independent groups definitively show a large tank of water being heated with input power carefully monitored. My skepticism comes from: 1. Rossi used a water vapor based analysis that could be easily faked (i.e. faked input water mass flow rate or faked vapor output). He could easily have done a test and made 30 gallons of hot water but multiple times he chose the vapor down the drain / hide the evidence method. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. There is probably more, but I'm not following Rossi close enough to know it all. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Jeff On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 10:48 AM 7/3/2011, Jeff Driscoll wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. Or something in between. Levi has a lot to gain monetarily so I don't trust his high flow rate test (where there was no vapor produced). I'll be less skeptical, when independent groups definitively show a large tank of water being heated with input power carefully monitored. or the like. My skepticism comes from: 1. Rossi used a water vapor based analysis that could be easily faked (i.e. faked input water mass flow rate or faked vapor output). He could easily have done a test and made 30 gallons of hot water but multiple times he chose the vapor down the drain / hide the evidence method. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). The rest is circumstantial evidence. There is also circumstantial evidence that Rossi is real. The serious flaws in the public demonstrations, that there is water in the hose, don't prove that the heat was not generated. They are only evidence of lack of demonstration, not of nonworkability. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. There is probably more, but I'm not following Rossi close enough to know it all. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? They look well-funded. They also look hyped. Again, circumstantial evidence. They, as well as Rossi, could arrange a public demo that was convincing. As far as I know, they haven't done this. What does that mean? I don't know.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
The analysis of Ed Storm is consistent with the book chapters of 2 phase flows that I posted here another day. No one bothered to read that with attention and in case anyone does that will see that the only consistent solution is that there is at least 3200W of excess energy. The only way this could be a scam is by hiding an energy source, which also Ed Storm agrees with.
Re: [Vo]:renamed Axil\'s Tungsten
Axil, I realize that high pressure hydrogen is presently necessary and that the Rossi device is very tolerant of ambient gases. My posit was that next generation devices may not need as much pressure if smaller geometries can be accomplished by milling and maintaining the powder in vacuum. Like Rayney nickel on steroids such a powder would need more than just wetting to negate pyrophoricity - It would require a partial vacuum to keep the bulk material outgassed. An inert gas might prevent combustion but would later make hydrogen loading difficult. I suspect that surfaces once exposed to ambient gases remain damaged or contaminated - forever less active than their potential in vacuum where newly formed powder exposed to oxygen would combust while sites exposed to inert gases would be simply contaminated. I understand your opposition to my posit because it is based on scaled down inverse Rydberg material instead of your perspective of much larger scaled up Rydberg material. Your model is in conflict with those of condensed matter or clusters and possibly even Casimir effect where your atoms are trying to grow larger as the energy density and available space decrease. It may even be possible that both types of Rydberg matter exist in some sort of balanced relationship between the inverse Rydberg in cavities and normal Rydberg in your pointed external surfaces. I am convinced that inside a cavity the inverse Rydberg/hydrino/fractional atoms are all interpretations of a relativistic effect where lower energy density simply makes them appear smaller -It is actually t' that changes - likewise please consider that your high energy may not be due to ds/t but rather ds/t'. It remains unproved but I expect both types of Rydberg material only exist from a remote perspective and that a local observer would see only a normal atom. Regards Fran Axil Axil Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:43:35 -0700 Francis wrote, You said it much better than I and we are almost on the same page even though you suggest higher hydrogen pressure where I propose keeping the powder under vacuum so the more active sites don't self destruct from ambient gases and can be employed under less pressure. Regarding ambient gases, they are not important; the demo for the Swedes showed that at initiation of the reaction, the Rossi reactor can tolerate latent air contamination at ambient pressure within the hydrogen envelope. Next, Rossi has said that it is the high hydrogen pressure in his reactor that is the key to its high productivity. He also said that reducing that pressure will kill the reaction. Hot high pressure hydrogen is the smoking gun for Rydberg matter. High hydrogen pressure is the key to the formation of Rydberg matter. Rossi has turned Rydberg matter production from a low pressure microscopic local phenomenon into a high pressure global one expansive throughout the entire hot hydrogen envelope. Rydberg matter production and maintenance needs the high density and kinetic energy inherent in a hot high pressure hydrogen envelope to first develop, next to grow in terms of molecular sizes and higher quantum states, and finally to maintain a very long life cycle. It has been experimentally observed recently, ions will accumulate and stick to bumpy surfaces on the metal powder as well as pack into sub-nano-meter sized cavities. Furthermore, the years long service life of the reaction vessel demonstrates a lack of surface damage to the metal powder. This suggests to me that the Rossi reaction can initiate in these accumulations of Rydberg matter on and immediately around the tops of the nano-powder grain protrusions. If the nuclear active sites were found exclusively in nano-holes, these holes would be destroyed in short order. The rigid surface produced by imbedding nano-powder baked into the walls of his reaction vessel is a key feature in enabling the high reaction productivity that manifests in his reactor. The many high points at the tips of nano-powder grains imbedded in those walls are where the nuclear action happens. For 'would be' Rossi imitators that only heap nano-powder in a pile at the bottom of their reaction vessel will see few nuclear active sites and low productivity. A old wives tail of past cold fusion development is that hydrogen absorption triggers the cold fusion reaction. If this were true, Rossi's introduction of nano-powder would not be very effective. But it is the high rigid surface area that nano-powder provides that does the trick for Rossi. Until the many Rossi imitators imbed their powders in the metal walls of their reaction vessels, their efforts at the end of the day will be frustrated and unsuccessful.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
- Original Message - From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Let's face it: this is either the most important invention of all time It is one of the most important inventions right NOW. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. You saw in the video that it was steam! And in the video made by Lewan. You don't believe your own eyes? Levi has a lot to gain monetarily . . . From who? How? Where did you get this information? Levi's university will reportedly get a grant from Rossi, but grant money does not go the professor personally. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. This is a bit like saying that Newton and Darwin were not trained as scientists. Newton invented most of what we now call science, and before Darwin biology did not exist, so there was no one to train them. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. That was ordinary RD, not a fiasco. It may yet be revived and made successful. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Their devices have been tested by Greek regulators; they have $280 million; their board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company. Do you really, seriously think they are bamboozling the regulators, or faking any of this? As I said, that is akin to the notion that the moon landings were faked, or the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S. Government. There is no doubt Defkalion's claims are real. That proves that Rossi's claims must have been real all along. Do you suppose he is faking and yet by a fantastic coincidence Defkalion tried the same material and it actually worked? Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. Rossi's crude estimate of enthalpy made during Krivit's visit is correct. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. Anyone can confirm this, and it has been confirmed millions of times in the last 200 years. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
These would make excellent absortion refrigerators and air conditioners which may be more efficient than going the electric route. In the Platen-Munters system, ( http://www.absreftec.com/downloads/chapter01.pdf ), ammonia water is freed of it's amonia by heat which is condensed into liquified amonia gas. In the liquid dessicant system, lithium bromide solution is regenerated to a saturated solution by heat, which then absorbs the water out of humid air, which is then cooled by evaporating water into it ( http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/gdiaz/resume/JIJR_2011.pdf -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 1:50 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense Here is some of the information from the forum gathered into a single document: http://ecatreport.com/hyperion/defkalions-hyperion-unit-equipped-with-gsm It says, for example: Question: What is the maximum temperature of steam that can be produced using Hyperion? Answer: In a Hyperion/external heat exchanger system, the maximum temperature we can get for the steam at the heat exchanger output is 414C.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Ed Storms posted: 1. Not all of the water is turned to steam. If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble. The extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving. As the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense back to water. Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat. CONCLUSION: No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with observation. Rich Murray: Some heat is lost by radiation and convection from the device and the hose. There may be only enough heat to vaporize a tiny fraction of the water, as evidenced by the steady 100.1 C temperature of the water exiting the device into the hose. No evidence for invisible steam at the output of the device has been shown. The system, device and hose, would be full of water from the pump outlet to the device to the end of the hose in the wall, dribbling water at 2 cc/sec, while any tiny bubbles of steam would have been condensed back into the water in the hose. This is a system that would behave as a continuous siphon, with rate of flow controlled by the input pump, from the input pump and electric heater device on the table to the hose on the floor and all the way to the hose end in the drain, about half the height of the table. Rossi and associates may have become adept at adjusting the system to behave in this way, allowing delusional claims of excess energy produced by vaporization, while maintaining a stable process for hours, presenting convincing appearances for those who are motivated to be convinced. At the end of the very warm hose, which was emptied into the drain, when Rossi lifted it before detaching it and raising it up for display, only a slight mist appeared for a few seconds -- evidence for a small amount of very warm saturated air encountering the cooler air outside the tube. Storms and many others have misread the slight mist shown for a few seconds in the video.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . . You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? not when I look at all the circumstantial evidence Do you trust that Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked, and he would have reported a problem. He goes out of his way to find problems, finding mainly imaginary ones. or whether or not it was turned to vapor or just spurted out as liquid slugs of water into the drain. You saw in the video that it was steam! And in the video made by Lewan. You don't believe your own eyes? Levi has a lot to gain monetarily . . . From who? How? Where did you get this information? Levi's university will reportedly get a grant from Rossi, but grant money does not go the professor personally. If you suspect that results are tainted by grant money, you will not believe 99% of research. 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. 3. Rossi is not trained as a scientist (diploma mill college degree - is that true?) and virtually comes out of nowhere with huge claims. This is a bit like saying that Newton and Darwin were not trained as scientists. Newton invented most of what we now call science, and before Darwin biology did not exist, so there was no one to train them. Rossi is one the most brilliant and original inventors in history. 4. Past legal convictions related to a waste disposal company. That has nothing to do with the claims, any more than Robert Stroud's murder convictions cast doubt on this expertise in bird disease. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. Greeks have their backs up against a wall financially speaking and desperate people will do desperate things. 5. His fiasco with the thermoelectric device contract. That was ordinary RD, not a fiasco. It may yet be revived and made successful. 6. Lack of quality scientific reports showing measurements and methods used to measure. He is not a scientist. He himself has said this many times. It is obvious he is not! This is like accusing me of not being a musician. Does anyone have comments they can make for or against Defkalion regarding their legitimacy? Their devices have been tested by Greek regulators; they have $280 million; their board of directors that would be suitable for any Fortune 500 company. Do you really, seriously think they are bamboozling the regulators, or faking any of this? As I said, that is akin to the notion that the moon landings were faked, or the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the U.S. Government. There is no doubt Defkalion's claims are real. That proves that Rossi's claims must have been real all along. Do you suppose he is faking and yet by a fantastic coincidence Defkalion tried the same material and it actually worked? Various skeptical doubts about Rossi's tests have been posted here and elsewhere, such as claims that wet steam can reduce enthalpy by a factor of 20, or the flow rate and other factors might have made his output heat 1000 times less than it really was, or that the meter does not work as claimed in the brochure and by various experts. All of these doubts -- without exception -- are without merit. Rossi's crude estimate of enthalpy made during Krivit's visit is correct. The temperature would not be 101 deg C if there was not mostly dry steam. We don't know the atmospheric pressure or the back pressure in the tubing. Water boiling temperature increases by 1 degree C with a change of 0.6 psi. See here http://www.broadleyjames.com/FAQ-text/102-faq.html Also, we don't know the calibration of the instrument. We can't rely on +/- .1 degree C accuracy to verify huge claims. They may have intentionally miscalibrated the instrument by 0.5 degrees C. It's much better to heat 30 gallons of water from room temp to 50 C in front of 20 independent people who all have their own temperature measuring device. Anyone can confirm this, and it has been confirmed millions of times in the last 200 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow for days. Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy. The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away. You're joking. This is ridiculous. There would be no steam at all if the thing was not producing excess energy. I've asked Check to check my output velocity based on the assumption of 7 kg/hr input and 100% vapor output. I did post it, didn't I? Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what you get?
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote: Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what you get? No, it isn't a good sanity check at the end of a 3 m hose. It would be good with a short hose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Rossi's claims have been independently confirmed by Defkalion, so there is no doubt they are real. Greeks have their backs up against a wall financially speaking and desperate people will do desperate things. That's preposterous. The Greek government is in trouble. Most Greek people are fine. Most of the investors in Defkalion are not Greek, and they have no reason to do anything desperate. The regulators are not going to cooperate in a scam no matter how desperate they may be, because it cannot earn any actual money. If that is your best argument, you should hang it up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. The capacitance changes as the partial vapor pressure of the water changes. But in saturated steam, the partial pressure of the vapor is constant at 14.7 psi for all steam qualities between 0 and 100%. This is the key thing. So the capacitance won't change as the steam quality changes. Also, the capacitance probe would get clogged up with water droplets, which would block the vapor from reaching the plastic capacitance sensor. It takes an expensive, complex meter to measure steam quality. The meter can not measure steam quality no matter what type of method (including non-standard) they use. Here is what I wrote on the Relative Humidity probe last week: = Here are details on how a relative humidity sensor works (as others have also mentioned). It uses an extremely thin plastic (one manufacturer uses a one micron thick polymer) between two metal plates which creates a capacitor. I assume there are holes in the face of the metal plates so that the water can migrate into and out of the plastic faster. This is because the water couldn't migrate through the bulk fast enough if it just went through the microns thick plastic exposed at the edge. The capacitance changes as the water is absorbed. The manufacturer correlates capacitance with humidity and temperature in air at 1 atmosphere (if they wanted to go to higher pressures then then would have to add a device to measure pressure and add that as a correlation - but few customers would really need the capability for higher pressures) here are details on the construction of Relative Humidity meters: http://www.stevenswater.com/catalog/stevensProduct.aspx?SKU='51122' http://sensing.honeywell.com/index.cfm/ci_id/140576/la_id/1/document/1/re_id/0 http://www.ddc-online.org/Input-Output-Tutorial/Humidity.html http://www.jifbrunei.com/files/083DHumidity.pdf The amount of water absorbed by the plastic depends on how many water molecules hit the plastic per unit time which is directly related to the partial pressure of the water vapor. The sum of the pressure due to the water vapor molecules plus the pressure due to the air molecules equals 14.7 psia. The plastic absorbs more water when the partial pressure of the water is 3 psi than if it is 1 psi, for example. So, for example the vapor pressure of water at 90 C is 10.1 psia and therefore the air has a partial pressure of 4.6 psia (because 14.7 - 10.1 = 4.6). The plastic probably does not even know the air is there - i.e. the capacitance may not change much if the air was taken away while keeping the water at 10.1 psia. At 100 C (boiling), the vapor pressure of water is 14.7 psia and the capacitance is some value. Here is the key point: At 100 C, how much water would the plastic absorb if the steam was 100% quality (i.e. dry) compared to 0% quality (i.e. wet or also known as fog). The answer is the capacitance would be virtually the *same*. The reason is because the partial pressure of the water vapor is the *same*. The amount of water molecules hitting the plastic stays the same as the steam quality increases from 0 to 100%. So therefore, a Relative Humidity meter can not be used in any way to determine the quality (also known as dryness) of the steam and the supposed expert Galantini made a huge mistake. here are some graphs of water vapor pressure for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Water_vapor_pressure_graph.jpg http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-air-d_689.html Here are the specs on one of the probes Rossi used: HP474AC Relative Humidity Probe specifications: 5% to 98% RH -40C to 150 C +/- 2.5% (5%...95%RH) +/-3.5%(95%...99%RH) Temp +/-0.3C Note that it works at 150 C. The probe probably senses a capacitance change as the temperature is increased from 100 C to 150 C but the water pressure would also have to increase so that more water was driven into the plastic of the capacitor. The capacitance changes as a function of water vapor pressure. It does not change as a function of steam quality. here is the Testo 650 relative humidity instrument that also Rossi used: http://www.ipi-online.com.au/test-and-measurement/data-loggers/testo/176-h2-data-logger Galantini wrote the following: ...The instrument used during the tests performed in the presence of Swedish teachers was as follows: 176 Text Code 0572 H2 1766 . from the
RE: [Vo]:Lots of good information in Defkalion forum, mixed in with lots of nonsense
From Jed: I do not know what Rossi prefers regarding safety. I have some concerns about his devices, because Celani detected a burst of radioactivity and because during the 18-hour test it seemed to produce a great deal of heat for a while. Everything I have seen points to Defkalion being far ahead of Rossi. He invented the core technology, and Defkalion is paying him a great deal of money for the license. As they should! But they licensed the technology some years ago and they have pulled far ahead of him in practical applications. The built-in calorimetry in their computerized prototypes (described above) and the test equipment at the Greek regulatory agencies is far better than anything Rossi uses. This sort of thing has often happened in the history of technology. For example, Shockley was soon left behind in semiconductor research, and never made an important contribution after the first one. Sunday's Sermon A concern I suspect many share is that whatever Defkalion rolls out with by October, (assuming they meet their self-enforced deadline) the products will be safe. I have to assume they know the responsibilities before them. I certainly don't disagree with Jed's assessment that in historical context inventors making the initial discovery can soon be left wanting in the dust as larger better funded corporations exploit their blood, sweat, and sometimes tears. Will the same scenario happen to Rossi? Quite possibly. We must wait for history to write the book on this fascinating period of time. A personal take (perhaps I should say: interpretation) of my unscientifically posted Doctor transcripts are that what Defkalion is currently assembling is akin to cavemen throwing sticks and branches on top of a camp fire in the hope that they can keep it burning through the night. They are feeding a fire for which they don't understand the most fundamental principles of what causes the heat that keeps them warm in the middle of the night, or what cooks their raw meat, or what keeps hungry saber tooth tigers vying for a midnight snack at bay. I don't mean to imply that Defkalion is run by a bunch of opportunistic Neanderthals. We could say the same thing about our current understanding and exploitation of super conductivity. MRI machines are a marvel, even if what happens inside is partially due to magic, as ACC suggested. When learning how to use magic a sensible approach is to accumulate a reasonable amount of confidence in the incantations that have to be uttered and in what order the phrases need to be uttered in. Typically incantations of this sort are collected through a trial and error process, just as Rossi appears to have done. As long as Defkalion's products operate within the prescribed engineered boundaries set forth in the sales brochure they will probably be reasonably safe to operate by trained professionals. I interpret another implication based on the Doctor's assessment. The implication is that the so-called Rossi Effect is a slumbering genie waiting to be unleashed from its lamp. When the genie is better understood and the magic is finally transformed into scientific theory filled with complex equations, predictions can then be made as to how to utilize the Rossi Effect in a more straight forward manner. The implication is that this genie may eventually grant us access to energy on a scale several magnitudes greater than what Rossi's current e-cats dimly hint at today. The ultimate implication is that the ignorant mismanagement of such an awakened genie could very likely be catastrophic on a global scale. Hopefully we will be prepared. /Sunday's Sermon Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com zazzle.com/orionworks.com
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 10:06 AM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually, this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification inserted into item 2. - Jed Thanks for forwarding this, Jed, and thanks to Dr. Storms for writing it. I think he has missed something. Before looking at that, I want to emphasize that from the public evidence, I cannot determine how much power the E-Cat is generating. This is not the same as a claim that it does not generate power. It might, it might not. Or, because one of the errors here is an excluded middle, I'll point out that it might be generating power at a different level than claimed. It might even be more! (Rossi may have overestimated input power, because he included the power dissipated in the electronics.) We don't have the data we'd need. A variety of ways the Rossi claims might be wrong have been suggested. Let's examine each. The following values are used: Cp (H2O at 65°) = 4.18 J/g-deg , enthalpy of vaporization @ 100°C = 2.27 kJ/g. 1. Not all of the water is turned to steam. Dr. Storms has missed something. It is a practical certainty, backed by the Essen and Kullander measurements (if they were accurate, which they almost certainly are not), that there is some water not being vaporized. Thus we can be sure that the statement above is true. The question is not that, but *how much*? If applied power is making all of steam, the following would be observed. Applied power = 745 watt Actually, that overstates applied power. While total input power is of interest, it is of interest only for ruling out fraud, because the real figure for calorimetry analysis would be heater power. The applied power includes power dissipated in the electronics. In a convincing and accurate demonstration, heater power would be reported. Rossi almost certainly has the data, but it would reveal how his heat is being adjusted to maintain energy generation. Is input power constant? Is applied power constant? We have only isolated, static figures, in some cases. (Seems to me I've seen a plot of input power somewhere?) Flow rate = 7 liter/hr = 1.94 g/sec Power to heat water to 100° = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt Power to make steam = 745 - 592 = 153 watt Amount of steam produced = 153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. Dr. Storms is assuming that all input power is used to heat the water. It would be less because of power consumed by the electronics. Rossi could have made a very convincing demonstration with a blank E-Cat, one with no fuel in the chamber, say no hydrogen. He was asked to do that, he declined, saying that it wasn't necessary, since everyone knows what is produced. I.e., no excess energy. But this was a clearly deceptive argument, or at least wrong. I certainly don't know how much steam will be produced by an empty E-Cat with the same heating and same flow rate! In the other direction, the input power figure of 745 watts comes from, as I recall, Rossi's calculation, which was based on a figure of 220V for the mains. The actual figure is 230 V., so the actual input power is about 5% higher. Which would have a large effect on the marginal power, the power used to make steam. But Storms' figure is of interest. From this, I conclude that most of the input water would be flowing through the E-Cat, that it might be at 100 C., and that there might be some steam. However, I do not know that the water is actually at 100 C, it would depend on where the thermometer is placed, whether it was in the water or not, and that might depend on internal design, as well as the possibility of live steam above colder water would depend on internal design. Absent a deliberately manipulated internal design, the water and water vapor would be in equilibrium at 100 C, unless there were not enough applied power to boil any of the water. As another problem, I don't know for a fact what the input flow is. Below, Dr. Storms points out that some have thought the input flow was overstated by a factor of two. This would drastically affect the calculation above. Assumptions have been made from what seemed to be a constant rate of clicking of the pump. That input flow rate would only be correct if there is no significant resistance to flow. If the E-Cat incorporates a flow control valve, there goes that figure! Does the pump continue to click at the controlled rate even if flow is blocked? I don't know. What I do see are assumptions being made but not explicitly stated as what they are. A whole series of tough problems would disappear if the water was fed by gravity, so that if there is no boiling, there is no flow. Instead of this, Rossi uses a more complex and actually less reliable method, a pump. With gravity feed, and the source maintained at the right level (which could vary some, but be restored by adding
[Vo]:cough, cough
from the end of this post http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/improvvisarsi-scienziati-nellera-di.html google translation: Still on the steam, further alleged weakness of the measurements by Rossi would be the speed of the steam outlet pipe. According to many critics, that speed would be too low for steam power rating. One might ask if this rate has never been measured by anyone. The answer is no, the only evidence available are videos on the Internet. This is an interesting point, because it is assumed to estimate from video, you do not know at what stage of the experiment relate, among other highly compressed, the speed of something that should be invisible, and say that this is insufficient. After abstruse calculations, which strictly does not take into account, as well as the uncertainties on the data available, including thermal losses, changes in the volume, pressure drop, slow, turbulence and condensation of steam at the exit of the tube has reached a value was approximately 10 m / s. This value seems excessive for the puff that you see in the video. To give an idea of the speed in question, you can compare it with something more familiar, like the flow of air produced by a sneeze or a cough: they reach speeds between 250 and more than 450 m / s. If you really need to draw qualitative conclusions, we could say that a sneeze or a cough does not seem so much faster than the flow of steam, which is likely the flow may be of the order of 10 m / s ... What can we conclude then? That in the absence of data it is wiser to abstain from the proceedings rather than generating and spreading misinformation. That the information is correct and final testing and will come from official reports or direct experience. And the wait even longer is part of the scientific career: as it is normal to have to wait years to see published a work on a peer-reviewed, and normal have to wait several months to have official measures and well done on something is likely to profoundly change many of our beliefs and habits. Harry
[Vo]:video 7kg/hr water -- steam ?
found this in the comment section of http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/improvvisarsi-scienziati-nellera-di.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_m3_uO7VhI 7kg of water per hour turned to steam? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
At 06:12 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what you get? No, it isn't a good sanity check at the end of a 3 m hose. It would be good with a short hose. It is a kind of sanity check, because if the steam velocity is high, the steam would have little opportunity to cool in the hose. I.e., with high steam volume, 3 meters is relatively short. This is not a comment on anyone's steam velocity calculation.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
At 06:17 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jeff Driscoll mailto:hcarb...@gmail.comhcarb...@gmail.com wrote: 2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a Relative Humidity meter (it can't). Yes, it can. No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't, maybe I should repost it. Experts in those meters such as Galantini say you are wrong. The manufacturer's brochure says you are wrong. I suppose they are right, and you are wrong. In any case, as Storms pointed out, the steam cannot be so wet as to materially affect the conclusions. Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. He has certainly not said that Jeff Driscoll is wrong. Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment, nor does it mention Mr. Driscoll. Jed you are confusing presumed authorities and what you presume what they say *means* with your own opinions. I'm not going to touch the Greek catfight, beyond saying that this is circumstantial evidence, along the lines of I must be right because there are some people I think must be smart who are taking actions which I intepret as indicating they trust the device. In reality, we don't know what they have done, for the most part, and companies, legitimate companies, often hype what they are doing. It's perfectly legal, until and unless they defraud an investor or customer.
Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't
Joshua suggested off list the hose might be as long as 4.5m. (Think about all the bends etc.) If Rossi said it was 3m that was probably Rossi speak for a length of hose which I haven't bothered to measure accurately but which is long enough to run down from the e-cat, along the floor into the adjoining room and up into a drain Harry - Original Message - From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 10:47:14 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Krivit accuses Rossi of not being a scientist, which Rossi isn't At 06:12 PM 7/3/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Damon Craig mailto:decra...@gmail.comdecra...@gmail.com wrote: Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what you get? No, it isn't a good sanity check at the end of a 3 m hose. It would be good with a short hose. It is a kind of sanity check, because if the steam velocity is high, the steam would have little opportunity to cool in the hose. I.e., with high steam volume, 3 meters is relatively short. This is not a comment on anyone's steam velocity calculation.
Re: [Vo]:Analysis of e-Cat test by E. Storms
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen. Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry. That's the whole source of the dispute. Where have you been? Nor does the manufacturer's brochure assert that steam quality can be measured with their equipment . . . It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you know the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by mass, not volume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:video 7kg/hr water -- steam ?
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 9:45:06 PM Subject: [Vo]:video 7kg/hr water -- steam ? found this in the comment section of http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/07/improvvisarsi-scienziati-nellera-di.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_m3_uO7VhI 7kg of water per hour turned to steam? Harry A google translation of the video description 7 kg / h of dry saturated steam from a pipe inside diameter of 15mm. I assume the 15mm inside dia. refers to the blue hose on the floor. However the inside diameter of the black hose attached to the e-cat is more than that. I would estimate it is 25mm. Harry
