Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
On Sep 15, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Rich Murray wrote: Horace, thanks for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_diffusivity It's useful to know that water has one of the lowest values -- so if some of the water flow is stopped in some parts of the Fat Ecat, for instance by being in some side chamber, bypassed by the main flow, then it would be slow to come to an equilibrium heat flow, so, for instance, doubling of the heat input from the electric heater resistor would send a clear-cut heat pulse slowly across the thickness of the immobile water, I don't think this is totally correct. It might apply to a gel, or ice, but not liquid water. Convection is always present and significant in effect even at low temperature differentials and temperatures. Liquid water transfers heat mainly by convection. Convection is effective even at low temperatures and very low water velocities. I wrote a post on a related issue, the Mpemba Effect, in 2001: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Mpemba.pdf OTOH, it also may be of interest that imposing heat pulses into laminar flows has been used to measure flow velocities at various cross section points of the flow - and this works largely because the short induced heat pulse diffuses at a slow rate. if it doesn't reach boiling temperature, which would increase turbulent convective heat transfer -- such a heat pulse could reach the thermister a certain time after the electric power cutoff -- the main point being: we can't assume much about this stunningly complex system when we have no details about the design or synchronized measures at many locations at once for hours of stable operation. Amen to that. You present calm, clear, extremely reasonable points to justify qualified skepticism -- I suspect Jed is likely to agree within a few days. within mutual service, Rich I would not be surprised that most people here, including Jed, feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The problem seems to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course would be. Not that I expect anyone would take any action based on comments from the peanut gallery. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What is steam quality?
Daniel, most likely Focardi don't even know about this Facebook page. I've heard that, as an old style school professor, is not very confortable with internet and stuff. When he needs to use emails he needs often someone's help. He still calls his desktop elaboratore (calculator). I believe that for him to be in front to an ultimate ultra hi technology PC or a VT100 terminal connected to a '70s mainframe is pretty the same thing. Thats also explain why for Rossi is a so easy job to, let's say, cheat him a little bit when he spreads some of his claims over the net. Just for fun it's worth to see again this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa_5oEtx1NY when asked who anfd why wanted the 14th Jan show. Understanding both Italian and English, lies, -ops- I meant to say inaccuracies, come up to the surface like tennis table ball released from under water. Krivit really did a good snake job :) 2011/9/16 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com That is not a joke, if you follow Focardi's page on facebook, you will see that he was very angry with that. Also from Levi's comments as far as I remember. If that test was a farce, everything is a farce.
[Vo]:Merely Copying Nature As-Is
I agree with the logic of your macro scale argument regarding the astronaut and would even add the hammers being thrown to the astronaut could be delivered from the future and the past - growing from point sources to full size hammers on either side of the astronaut similar to virtual particles winking into and out of existence. If he were to grab both hammers any inertia would cancel but he would gain disposable mass. The captured hammers could then provide reaction mass for any desired direction by throwing them in the opposite direction. Yes, and if he caught the hammers with a spring-loading device, then he doesn't even need to use his own energy to expel them again! At the quantum scale an HUP trap or Maxwell̵ 7;s demon must – to maintain your analogy- first capture the energy or mass AND then must likewise provide a mechanism to rectify the energy or “throw” the captured mass in a specific direction. This is difficult to mechanize at the nano scale and most ZPE schemes rely on some form of natural assembly or bulk chemical reactions to form the needed geometries which break the isotropy. Without breaking the isotropy a scheme like Nichols radiometer could not utilize virtual particles. Too literal and mechanical! I am not proposing anything that atoms have not already been doing for eons! The Quantum Vacuum is widely regarded as the mechanism that stimulates the Spontaneous Emission known as Black Body Radiation. In other words, atoms absorb certain wavelengths of the Quantum Flux all of the time. Black Body Radiation is always re-emitted according to the temperatures of the emitting surfaces; it has nothing to do with which surface absorbs the most or reflects the most; therefore, both sides absorb the same amount of imparted momentum as photons are absorbed on one side--but these absorbed photons are re-emitted from both sides so that their momenta are equal, opposite and irrelevant. However! The extra reflection from the more reflective side imparts a net force as the reflecting photons rebound. The rebounding photons of the reflected em are the requisite hammers to accelerate our device. The recoil of the atoms in the material stores and releases the energy that repels the photons, just as the impact-loaded spring relaunched the stranded astronaut's newly acquired hammers. At the end of the day, virtual photons are little ripples of distorting electric- and magnetic-fields. Except for the brevity of their tenure in our space-time, there is no reason to suspect that they are any different than any other photon. Like any other photon, their probability-wave function collapses into a discrete event as soon as they interact with matter. Why do you insist that the magnetic fields that compose virtual photons are any different than those that compose real photons? The flux is the same on both sides, but the materials react differently. On the one hand, the electric and magnetic transverse waves of a given range of wavelengths of the virtual photons will absorb into one set of atoms, on an average, according to the critical angle of that material. The electric and magnetic transverse waves will bounce off another set of atoms with different properties, at a greater or shallower critical angle, on an average. One side of a radiometer plate will not react any different to virtual particles than the other side because everything physical is permeated by a full spectrum of these VP which forms the medium of Space and without concentrating on a specific section of the spectrum where Casimir discovered strong physical linkage to nano geometry or accelerating to near C the medium remains isotropic with only slow gradients proportional to nearby mass. Actually, I have derived the radiation pressure of space acting on an open (unbounded) surface: F(λ) = 4 * (10^-28) / λ^4 Pa This must be evaluated over a specific range F(λ1) - F(λ 2) These are the wavelengths that will react with the selected materials in the desired way. This must be calculated for opposite sides of the device which has different materials. Incidentally, this varies from the Casimir Equation for two plates by a factor of merely 3.26. This factor arises because the space between the plates is bounded, whereas our surfaces are unbounded by any other nearby surface. Incidentally, the c term in Casimir's equation arises from converting radian frequency to wavelength. Bottom line, this radiation pressure, like all macroscopic forces is seated in Quantum Mechanical Happening, but averages out to classical, macroscopic forces. From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:25 PM To: Roarty, Francis X; Fran Roarty; vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Stranded Astronaut Newtonian Loophole Hi Fran, Thank you for your many well-thought out responses. Recently, however, I think you have been making the underlying faulty assumption
Re: [Vo]:What is steam quality?
Susan, I know that it is written by a fan, I checked that right after Jouni's answer and figured out by myself. BTW, while written Italian is a bit weird and I don't understand much of it, but given the way Rossi, Focardi and Levi speak, I can understand most of it. For example, while Rossi said that the reason why Focardi wanted the January demo was his old age, Focardi actually said the reason was that he wanted to make the researchers believe the phenomenon was real and did not give further explanation. Rossi did things like this all the time, but it looked like Focardi was well aware of what Rossi was saying. So, I don't see any reason to see any lie in that. And working with old computers would never be easier than new ones. They actually require much more sophisticated knowledge of computing to operate them than nowadays. The more hi-tech something is, the dumber it is.
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From: Colin Hercus * Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned. The scenario that best explains many (if not all) of the seemingly irreconcilable issues, including these: 1) the numerous design compromises (is there even a finalized unit?) 2) the perceived need for many units operating together instead of one rock-solid machine 3) the confusing and variable operating results over time, some extremely positive, some not so good (and a few glossed-over null results) 4) occasional unpowered cells producing huge amounts of heat 5) the premature shut-down of some experiments and short runs of other experiments 6) the strange and difficult personality of the inventor ...is no secret when viewed historically. All of these phenomena are consistent with what has been the one keynote issue in LENR and Ni-H for the past twenty+ years: which is that good results are possible, but inconsistent over time - and never on demand. The way Rossi intends to accommodate and overcome this unfortunate truth is that he proposes to effectively present to the public, in his MW unit, what can be described as the average results expected for a chosen number of E-Cats operating together ! This is with the underlying assumption that at any given point in time there will be a distribution of cells performing well, but with lots of them not performing well at all... IOW - he wants to demonstrate the average gain of many cells - and thus avoid the major (historical) impediment of output which is not on demand.. He may realize that on occasion, any cell can produce 20 KW for periods, but more often it will produce far less, and sometimes it can be lossy. So he has designed a compromise that will hide the individual irregularities (in the average results) and yet he must design any individual cell as if it will hit the best results periodically. However, he has never pulled this off this kind of averaging before, as far as we know, so getting positive results is this fashion is now his pipe dream for October. Logically, if all of the units performed at their best, then something like 4-5 MW (instead of 1 MW) would be possible (giving him full benefit of the doubt), but statistically this never happens - and the control unit must be programmed to actually avoid it. I suspect that any individual cell will provide far more than the expected average for prolonged periods. The effective duty cycle could be somewhere around 25%. In fact if you look at past results in LERN you would find something very similar in the performance of many experiments in terms of statistical probability. Again - this is giving Rossi full benefit of the doubt, and even then I am convinced that due to costing issues glossed over by the inventor, and longer-term operating degradation, that it will be considerably cheaper for any investor to buy the equivalent heat output from solar troughs - than from E-Cats. IOW, there nothing of lasting economic value as the E-Cat device in the form it is currently conceived; but it is still a breakthrough. The real breakthrough (if the Rossi strategy of energy averaging proves out) is being able to move from hundreds of watts on occasion (which has happened going back 20 years) to megawatts on demand and to have this result prominently exposed in the public mentality. This is far more important to the rest of us than you might be thinking, even if the device is an economic disaster. The fact that heat produced this way will cost approximately double the heat from solar troughs will be the issue facing the purchaser of the technology, not Rossi - and by the time this becomes clear: Ing. Rossi will be enjoying his retirement on Miami Beach. Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
From Mr. Murray You [Horace] present calm, clear, extremely reasonable points to justify qualified skepticism -- I suspect Jed is likely to agree within a few days. Horace often presents interesting points worth considering. However, for you to follow-up with your own prediction that Mr. Rothwell will soon capitulate to the other side is, to put it bluntly, naive of you. There is little mutual service in making predictions of the opinions of others on these matters. You strike me as being oblivious to the fact that what you are doing is a form of psychological manipulation, even though I suspect that from Jed's POV, he could care less what your opinion of his predicted opinions might be. Let me put it to you this way: Is it really any of your business, predicting the opinions of others? It's rude and offensive conjecture on your part. It serves no purpose other than to give yourself another shot-in-the-arm. It's nothing more than manufacturing a form of psychological self-assurance that your own opinion must be right, because you now predict that others will soon come around to the same opinion of yours as well. Really??? Who knows what opinions Jed may feel more comfortable broadcasting to the Vort Collective tomorrow. Shoot! I have no idea what my own opinions might turn out to be tomorrow either. It's a full-time job managing my own opinions. They change all the time! Rich, please PLEASE! ...just be responsible expressing your own opinions, and let others manage the responsibilities of their own. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is steam quality?
Hi, On 16-9-2011 14:55, Daniel Rocha wrote: And working with old computers would never be easier than new ones. They actually require much more sophisticated knowledge of computing to operate them than nowadays. The more hi-tech something is, the dumber it is. Hear, hear, someone who speaks from experience ;-) Although sometimes very rudimentary, old computers have one very big advantage over new PCs: they actually do what you tell them to do and don't do for you what they (ehum) think you mean want them to do. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
I wrote: I would not be surprised that most people here, including Jed, feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The problem seems to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course would be. Not that I expect anyone would take any action based on comments from the peanut gallery. Just to avoid miscommunication, I just realized that I should note that the above refers to vortex-l as a peanut gallery with respect to the Rossi extravaganza. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
From Horace I wrote: I would not be surprised that most people here, including Jed, feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The problem seems to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course would be. Not that I expect anyone would take any action based on comments from the peanut gallery. Just to avoid miscommunication, I just realized that I should note that the above refers to vortex-l as a peanut gallery with respect to the Rossi extravaganza. Being a staunch card carrying vortex-l member myself, it seemed pretty clear to me whom you were referring to. ;-) Make mine salted, please. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
On Sep 16, 2011, at 6:20 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: From Horace I wrote: I would not be surprised that most people here, including Jed, feel there are various points which justify skepticism. The problem seems to be agreeing on which ones and what a proper course would be. Not that I expect anyone would take any action based on comments from the peanut gallery. Just to avoid miscommunication, I just realized that I should note that the above refers to vortex-l as a peanut gallery with respect to the Rossi extravaganza. Being a staunch card carrying vortex-l member myself, it seemed pretty clear to me whom you were referring to. ;-) Make mine salted, please. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks I think two bags works best - one for eating and one for throwing! 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Wild Speculation..E-Cat Testing at Google
Greetings Vortex, A wild speculation on my part: E-Cat being tested at Google ? One of the many locations that would indicated the company. Respectfully, Ron Kita , Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Horace Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- capacitors. Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs and renewable energy projects. I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this. It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an associated product for LENR energy conversion. Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of semi-coherency in photonic emission. Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are avoided. Jones
RE: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
I'm allergic to peanuts... :-( -Mark -Original Message- From Horace: Just to avoid miscommunication, I just realized that I should note that the above refers to vortex-l as a peanut gallery with respect to the Rossi extravaganza. Being a staunch card carrying vortex-l member myself, it seemed pretty clear to me whom you were referring to. ;-) Make mine salted, please. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Jones, you're such a teez! :-) -M -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Horace Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- capacitors. Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs and renewable energy projects. I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this. It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an associated product for LENR energy conversion. Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of semi-coherency in photonic emission. Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are avoided. Jones
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On Sep 16, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: Jones, you're such a teez! :-) -M I'll second that! 8^) Tell us more Jones! -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Horace Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- capacitors. Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs and renewable energy projects. I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this. It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an associated product for LENR energy conversion. Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of semi-coherency in photonic emission. Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are avoided. Jones Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Nice to see you back in the sand box, Jones. I wuz beginning to get concerned that you may have been abducted by aliens... perhaps for consultation purposes concerning your legal expertise on human affairs. Rumor has it that the Pleiadians and Zeta Reticulians are sparing over the possession rights to modify the human genome. I heard that the Zeta Reticulians were planning on rolling out another upgrade sometime in 2012, whereas the Pleiadians claim the Reticulians had outright stolen the revised code from their own scientists. Shoot! I was getting ready to mainline Kosmic Consciousness via channeled messages from the Ashtar Command, simply by simply tuning in, but now I guess I'll have to wait another hundred years until this mess is sorted out. Litigation is a bitch. Meanwhile... back in the LENR field. Product placement is everything! ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:) The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as News these days. When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) it all starts to pick up a peculiar odor ... -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner Mark Iverson wrote: Jones, you're such a teez! :-) -M I'll second that! 8^) Tell us more Jones!
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
On 11-09-16 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:) The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as News these days. When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) Eh ... CIHT? Chromed Inside Diameter Honed Tube? The reactor consists of a bit more than just /that/, I would think! But then, maybe it's one of these: Certified Industrial Hygiene Technician? Central Institute of Hand Tools? Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation? A little hard to see how any of these relate to BLP, to be honest. Oh, wait, how about this one: Career Institute of Health and Technology That kind of covers Randy's company, doesn't it? After all, he's a doctor, which gets you the Health part, it's a high tech firm, which gets you the Technology part, and it's certainly become his career. In any case, it's nice to hear they're still on the verge of delivering something, even after all these years. (A lot like the hot fusion community, come to think of it.)
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Well, I am used to read computer news, so a little bit of Rossi-mania is good for a change. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net Date: 2011/9/16 Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:)
[Vo]:Cold Fusion Times-website down..extended period
Greetings All, I have trying to access Dr Mitchell Schwartz s Cold Fusion Times website for over 6hours..to no avail: http://www.world.std.com/~mica/cft.html This website has always been upa first time that I found it down. Updating Ron Kita, Chiralex
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
Oops - my mistake . Should have been Dear Daniele blog http://22passi.blogspot.com/ From: Daniel Rocha Well, I am used to read computer news, so a little bit of Rossi-mania is good for a change. Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:)
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? You mean a greek geek gossip column! -M
[Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | | | | Steam 130C == | | outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE | 130C |~| |~~~ overflow fluid 100C | | | *-* ~ *- | *=* | | ~ | ~ | Water | | ~ | Inlet | Boil 100C | Water Trap 100C *--* This 130C steam also exits through the hose, and may (but need not) condense. It does not have time to reach equilibrium with the 100C overflow fluid over the 10cm distance. The main reason I DON'T like this is that the outlet is so high on the eCat. Missing measurements: a) Pressure at the instrument port (to confirm it is 1 Bar) b) Temperature of the overflow fluid water -- should be 100C c) Temperature of the steam exiting the eCat -- if it was superheated at 1 Bar then it should still be at 130C I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 130C water would flash VERY rapidly. ps -- This is a first/ second draft of what I'm thinking. I'll change my mind again tomorrow!
RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
At 10:34 AM 9/16/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: From: Jones Beene [ mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? You mean a greek geek gossip column! For Defkalion, it's a piqued greek geek gossip column!
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
2011/9/16 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. If there is not enough room for steam, then steam makes the room, either it breaches boiler vessel or pushes some water away. As there is no percolator effect, there should be plenty of water still and bubbling will just spill some surface water away. How much water is spilled? This depends on the inner geometry, but anyway spilling should be in equilibrium. Note that as a kettle boiler, water can create 15 kW worth of more steam than inlet water can replenish the 25 kg water reservoir for an hour, before all water is boiled away. As E-Cat operates cyclically, I would say that it is highly probable that power production peak exceeds water inflow rate by plenty. But when it goes too much above that limit, Rossi just cuts the power. Here the limit was probably ca. 130°C although power production keep up rising up to 133.7°C. Therefore I think that peak power was well over 100%. This would also explain why there was no bump in the temperature graph when input power was cut off. Electric power was just less than 10% of the core heat production that was still increasing and as there is lots of thermal inertia, it could absorb 2.5 kW loss of heating power that we did not even notice it. Note also that only steam production rate does have an influence on pressure. The more steam, the more there is pressure. And if no steam production, then no pressure. I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. liquid water content was 50% when there was 118°C and 180 kPa pressure. b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. And in addition to that, as specific heat of superheated steam is low, there is no way to maintain stable temperature. Stable temperature is only possible, if there is liquid water present and temperature is at the boiling point. I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? No, it was 123°C and steam pressure is ca, 210 kPa. But as I have emptied autoclaves, it sure looked like an autoclave, although they opened pressure release valve much faster than they teach in school to do (but not much faster than students and others actually do open it =). Therefore I have zero doubt that there was 210 kPa pressure when valve was opened. This is also the reason, why I do not believe that two chambered inner structure. We do not have any evidence that would support the idea of superheated steam and also I do not see how it would make any sense in this case on engineering and power production perspective. Also superheated steam and liquid water cannot coexist in the same space as heat transfer is almost instant. But this you probably considered. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
2011/9/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com: Electric power was just less than 10% of the core heat production that was still increasing and as there is lots of thermal inertia, it could absorb 2.5 kW loss of heating power that we did not even notice it. Here was mistake, I of course meant that electric power was just less than 20% of core heat production. Still I find it baffling why there was no bump in the graph, when power was cut off? Do you Alan or anyone else have any ideas? http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
I think the problem is, that you look too much at unimportant information. First we must decide which of the information is imortant and which is unimportant. Also we must see if there is any important information missing. (This is the most difficult part) If nothing is missing, then we have all necessarry information. The important information is: There is no superheated steam because inside the ecat is everything almost at boiling temperature. For superheated steam you need an extra heater that heats the steam and there is none. Because the temperature inside the e-cat is above 100 degrees the boiling temperature inside must be above 100 degrees and therefore the pressure inside the ecat must be above 1 bar. However this all doesnt matter. Outside of the ecat the pressure is 1 bar (respective the overpressure is 0 bar) and equals air pressure and the boiling point is about 100 degrees. Because the e-cat and the hose has thermic isolation against the ambient it cannot loose thermic energy. So all thermic energy must come out of the end of the hose. Unfortunately the temperature at the end of the hose is not measured. But fortunately we know the boiling point at air pressure, this is 100 degrees and so we can assume the output temperature is 100 degrees because we have water and steam at the output. The volume of water at end of hose is measured and fortunately this equals the mass of water. So we know input water mass-flow and output water mass-flow at air pressure and we know, the system is isolated and cannot loose energy inbetween and we know all input and output temperatures and from (input flow - output flow) we know the amount of steam mass-flow at output and from this we can calculate the energy. You can ignore anything between input and output if the system inbetween has thermic isolation because energy cannot been created out of nothing and it cannot vanish into nirvana. This is the key for understanding and calculation (in my humble opinion) Best, Peter Am 16.09.2011 19:36, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | || | Steam130C == || outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE |130C |~| |~~~ overflow fluid 100C | |
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
At 11:24 AM 9/16/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Thanks for your comments I'm still looking at the whole picture. This is also the reason, why I do not believe that two chambered inner structure. We do not have any evidence that would support the idea of superheated steam and also I do not see how it would make any sense in this case on engineering and power production perspective. I found this google book on boiler design very useful: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck2Z3eRGLK8Clpg=PA504ots=KRYNGuK_41dq=steam%20bubble%20surface%20tensionpg=PP1#v=onepageq=steam%20bubble%20surface%20tensionf=true (It's written in India, and probably follows British more than US practices/nomenclature). It idealizes a boiler as three zones: a) Economiser -- heats the incoming water to near boiling point b) Transition zone -- (For a tube boiler, quality progresses from 0 to 1, with the transition from water to slugs to annular) c) Superheater (In a kettle boiler the Economiser and Transition zone are usually combined). Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then superheating is the only alternative. Also superheated steam and liquid water cannot coexist in the same space as heat transfer is almost instant. But this you probably considered. But the water normally requires nuclei to boil, and the steam requires nuclei to condense -- so they will be out of steam/water equilibrium. I'm still researching the conditions for flash steam -- eg http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flash-steam-generation-d_425.html We also need to note that this eCat was running well below capacity (limited by the speed at which the peristaltic pump can deliver water), with a COP of about 3 -- where Rossi guarantees 6.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Am 16.09.2011 21:10, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then superheating is the only alternative. Quite often Rossi has told us nonsense that cannot be true. He is very unreliable and I think he gives this misinformation by purpose. If the pressure is above 2 bar then -according to german standards and laws- the system will be subject to special security considerations and must be approved by TÜV (Technischer Überwachunsverein, that a german engineer association that supervises technical security). In US there will be similar regulations and laws. This might be the reason why he gives this misinformation, he wants to avoid technical supervision. At the end of the video, we can clearly see that the water comes out with remarkably pressure. From this we can see that the pressure inside the e-cat must be above 1 bar. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
At 11:57 AM 9/16/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: The important information is: There is no superheated steam because inside the ecat is everything almost at boiling temperature. For superheated steam you need an extra heater that heats the steam and there is none. Because the temperature inside the e-cat is above 100 degrees the boiling temperature inside must be above 100 degrees and therefore the pressure inside the ecat must be above 1 bar. I still think that the 2-chamber design explains more than the 1-chamber 3-bar design. The core could easily be engineered with a water-efficient heat exchanger in one chamber, and a steam-efficient heat exchanger in the other. See my recent reply to Jouni Valkonen. To maintain an internal pressure of 3 Bar (needed for 130C) you'd need a pretty small orifice : less than 1/32 inch ?. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html (Unfortunately, that's in engineering units .. I'll look for a metric version.) And then you have to condense 5L/hour (3g/sec) in a 10cm pipe. (Rossi says that all that 5L is from condensation, not overflow.) I think Colin Hercus is on the right track, using a Finite Element thermal model. I played with the Elmer system, but didn't get very far with it, as it doesn't model steam very well.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Am 16.09.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 16.09.2011 21:10, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then superheating is the only alternative. Quite often Rossi has told us nonsense that cannot be true. He is very unreliable and I think he gives this misinformation by purpose. If the pressure is above 2 bar then -according to german standards and laws- the system will be subject to special security considerations and must be approved by TÜV (Technischer Überwachunsverein, that a german engineer association that supervises technical security). In US there will be similar regulations and laws. This might be the reason why he gives this misinformation, he wants to avoid technical supervision. At the end of the video, we can clearly see that the water comes out with remarkably pressure. From this we can see that the pressure inside the e-cat must be above 1 bar. BTW, this might be a reason /not/ to be present at the 1 MW demonstration. You will have to underwite that you take all risks on your shoulder. If there is a steam explosion or steam accident nobody will care or pay, because he probably has no insurance contract for this system and for the demonstration. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
At 11:45 AM 9/16/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Still I find it baffling why there was no bump in the graph, when power was cut off? Do you Alan or anyone else have any ideas? There isn't a bump in the graph when it's heating up, either. Previously we've seen a distinct increase in the slope when the eCat ignites. This eCat is a different beast.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam : Pressure drop
At 12:26 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: To maintain an internal pressure of 3 Bar (needed for 130C) you'd need a pretty small orifice : less than 1/32 inch ?. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html (Unfortunately, that's in engineering units .. I'll look for a metric version.) I re-found the metric version for pressure drop in a tube: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html This is what I used to calculate the pressure drop through the March/April ecat. Suppose the internal pressure is 3 bar, and the eCat is a tube (as in March/April) of about 1 inch diameter Here the flow is 10 kg/hr (assuming all gas) -- so the pressure drop would be 1 kPa (1 Bar) per 100m -- or only 3/100 = 0.03 Bar for 3 meters. I'm still looking for the 'orifice' needed to create 3 Bar internal pressure.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
If the E-Cat is going to truly be analyzed as black box, we need all inputs and outputs. Obviously, a thermometer stuck inside the E-Cat, when we don't know the pressure, physical construction, etc., does nobody any good. (Hell, we don't even know if it's in water, or what type of thermal conductivity is between the thermometer and the core) This is still supposition and silliness. Every time Rossi let's the E-Cat out of the bag, the demonstrations get worse, and the power gains get smaller. Please let NASA evaluate this device, with no phase change, so we can have real answers in lieu of conjecture. Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 11:45 AM 9/16/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Still I find it baffling why there was no bump in the graph, when power was cut off? Do you Alan or anyone else have any ideas? There isn't a bump in the graph when it's heating up, either. Previously we've seen a distinct increase in the slope when the eCat ignites. This eCat is a different beast.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam : Pressure drop
Am 16.09.2011 22:13, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 12:26 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: To maintain an internal pressure of 3 Bar (needed for 130C) you'd need a pretty small orifice : less than 1/32 inch ?. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html (Unfortunately, that's in engineering units .. I'll look for a metric version.) I re-found the metric version for pressure drop in a tube: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-pressure-drop-calculator-d_1093.html This is what I used to calculate the pressure drop through the March/April ecat. Suppose the internal pressure is 3 bar, and the eCat is a tube (as in March/April) of about 1 inch diameter Here the flow is 10 kg/hr (assuming all gas) -- so the pressure drop would be 1 kPa (1 Bar) per 100m -- or only 3/100 = 0.03 Bar for 3 meters. I'm still looking for the 'orifice' needed to create 3 Bar internal pressure. The previous versions all had a pressure relief valve. It could be that he (ab)used the pressure relief valve for the demonstration to generate some overpressure, but he dont want to tell us. Possibly he will not create overpressure in the 1MW system. We dont know. Only Rossi knows. So if you have the guts and go into this big 1 MW box under full operation then your health and live is subject to god's grace and Rossis skills if something unexpected happens. I would not go inside after having seen the video Peter
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
On 2011-09-16 22:19, Robert Leguillon wrote: [...] This is still supposition and silliness. Every time Rossi let's the E-Cat out of the bag, the demonstrations get worse, and the power gains get smaller. Please let NASA evaluate this device, with no phase change, so we can have real answers in lieu of conjecture. By the way, regarding the tests supposedly to be performed by NASA, Daniele Passerini on his 22passi blog added this in one of his latest comments here: http://goo.gl/RdG2j Here follows a human translation of the most relevant part (in my opinion): [...] I'll add that the American customer CANNOT be scammed in any way. I'll add that the tests performed on early September with that customer, of which there has been much talk here, have actually been made in Bologna. I'll add that, according to what I've been said, the test was successful: the American customer is satisfied and does not doubt that the E-Cat represents a new energy source and not a hoax, and I stress that it's NOT a customer that can be scammed in any way. Mats Lewan made his videos after the tests with the American customer were concluded (I stress, positively). [...] Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Given that his new test will be a prototype of a nuclear reactor, look at the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boiling_water_reactor_english.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PressurizedWaterReactor.gif All of them have the characteristics of operation of the e-cats presented until now. I can think of this company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company
Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
I think CIHT is for Catalyst Induced Hydrino Transition. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-243402945.html Being slightly dislexic I'll have to watch out for exchanging the i and the h, since I pronounce it with a soft c. 8^) On Sep 16, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-09-16 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? (Dear Daniel:) The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as News these days. When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) Eh ... CIHT? Chromed Inside Diameter Honed Tube? The reactor consists of a bit more than just that, I would think! But then, maybe it's one of these: Certified Industrial Hygiene Technician? Central Institute of Hand Tools? Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation? A little hard to see how any of these relate to BLP, to be honest. Oh, wait, how about this one: Career Institute of Health and Technology That kind of covers Randy's company, doesn't it? After all, he's a doctor, which gets you the Health part, it's a high tech firm, which gets you the Technology part, and it's certainly become his career. In any case, it's nice to hear they're still on the verge of delivering something, even after all these years. (A lot like the hot fusion community, come to think of it.) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam : Pressure drop
At 01:13 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I'm still looking for the 'orifice' needed to create 3 Bar internal pressure. Napier's formula (accurate to about 3%) for steam going through an orifice in a flat plate, to atmospheric pressure. W = p * a / 70 Where W is flow lbs/sec p is pressure lbs/in^2 a is area inches^2 or in reverse a = W * 70 / p p = W * 70 / a To get a 3 Bar drop at 11 kg/hr I calculate the radius as 0.15 cm. If we say half of that is water, (steam flow 5.5 kg/hr) we get 0.1 cm What's the estimated radius of the short length of outlet hose ... 0.5 cm ? The pressure drop at 5.5kg/hr through 0.5 cm radius is only 0.13 bar
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
2011/9/16 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de: The volume of water at end of hose is measured and fortunately this equals the mass of water. Problem with that there is only one data point, and you have no way know whether the system was in equilibrium or not or if the power production was constant or not. And certainly power production could not be constant, because electric power was cut off in middle of the run. Also if system was not in the equilibrium, then high water flow could tell that there was bubbling of water more than usually when measurements were made, or that water level was below normal level so that there was less water than in equilibrium. Therefore more datapoints are needed for further conclusions, but we can only use this single liquid water content measurement for calculating enthalpy when steam temperature was 118°C. There is extremely long way from 118°C to 133.7°C if you are going to go there via increasing steam pressure. Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then superheating is the only alternative. I do not believe, because we have clear evidence of very high pressure at the end of the video. For me that steam plume looked something like 20 kW worth of steam as there was released 2.6 MJ (20°C) worth of thermal inertia just in few minutes. It was nothing like my 1.5 kW steam cleaner would output. But I think that there is misunderstanding. For me Lewan told that he asked about if there is pressure release valve in E-Cat? This would make very much sense, if E-Cat does operate in high pressures. This is something what Rossi denied, therefore Mats concluded that E-Cat does not operate in high pressures, but I think that water inlet valve acts like a pressure release valve, therefore there is no need for separate valve. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
2011/9/17 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: Given that his new test will be a prototype of a nuclear reactor, look at the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boiling_water_reactor_english.svg Finally someone realized that E-Cat is just typical miniature BWR! ^^ Therefore Rossi's reluctance to do sub-boiling demonstrations, because they do not make any sense, from engineering point of view. And if you understand how BWR operates, then the sub-boiling demonstrations would not make any sense from scientific perspective, because enthalpy calculations are more accurate when made from steam. Of course only if you know what you are doing, what Galantini et al. obviously did not know. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam : Pressure drop
Am 16.09.2011 23:25, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 01:13 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I'm still looking for the 'orifice' needed to create 3 Bar internal pressure. Napier's formula (accurate to about 3%) for steam going through an orifice in a flat plate, to atmospheric pressure. W = p * a / 70 Where W is flow lbs/sec p is pressure lbs/in^2 a is area inches^2 or in reverse a = W * 70 / p p = W * 70 / a To get a 3 Bar drop at 11 kg/hr I calculate the radius as 0.15 cm. If we say half of that is water, (steam flow 5.5 kg/hr) we get 0.1 cm What's the estimated radius of the short length of outlet hose ... 0.5 cm ? The pressure drop at 5.5kg/hr through 0.5 cm radius is only 0.13 bar You can here find industrial diagrams that avoid a lot of calculations: Loss of pressure in pipes: http://www.dampferzeuger.de/userFiles/de/Blatt-Druckverluste-270509.pdf Recommended or standadized pipe crossectional area for steam: http://www.dampferzeuger.de/userFiles/de/Blatt-Dampfleitung-270509.pdf Tables for data of saturated steam: http://www.dampferzeuger.de/userFiles/de/Blatt-Sattdampfdaten-280509.pdf Unfortunately it is in german, but if you look to the measuring units it should become understandable.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
About basic of operation of BWR and steam related to nuclear there is good reference and also theory of operation on CANDU http://goo.gl/6iXex look for thermodynamics and hydraulics. mic 2011/9/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com: 2011/9/17 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: Given that his new test will be a prototype of a nuclear reactor, look at the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boiling_water_reactor_english.svg Finally someone realized that E-Cat is just typical miniature BWR! ^^ Therefore Rossi's reluctance to do sub-boiling demonstrations, because they do not make any sense, from engineering point of view. And if you understand how BWR operates, then the sub-boiling demonstrations would not make any sense from scientific perspective, because enthalpy calculations are more accurate when made from steam. Of course only if you know what you are doing, what Galantini et al. obviously did not know. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
At 12:26 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: I still think that the 2-chamber design explains more than the 1-chamber 3-bar design. The core could easily be engineered with a water-efficient heat exchanger in one chamber, and a steam-efficient heat exchanger in the other. From Lewan's report : According to Andrea Rossi the increased dimension is due to a larger volume inside where the water is heated, approximately 30 liters, and a larger heat-exchanger with a greater surface which should result in a more effective heat transfer from the reactor to the circulating water and also in additional heating of the steam after vaporization. additional heating of the steam after vaporization That's super-heating. So to confirm Rossi's statements (130C, 1 Bar Pressure, No restrictor orifice, No direct fluid overflow) we would need to show that 130C (or maybe 120C) superheated steam (ie NO liquid water) at 11 kg/hr will condense to 50% fluid water in a 10cm long x 0.5cm radius rubber tube.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Am 16.09.2011 23:52, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: That's super-heating. So to confirm Rossi's statements (130C, 1 Bar Pressure, No restrictor orifice, No direct fluid overflow) we would need to show that 130C (or maybe 120C) superheated steam (ie NO liquid water) at 11 kg/hr will condense to 50% fluid water in a 10cm long x 0.5cm radius rubber tube. Not to forget that the hose has thermal isolation against the ambient. Superheated steam at air pressure would not condensate at all inside this hose. These statements are clearly wrong. I prefer to ignore them and to think myself.
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
At 01:22 PM 9/16/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Possibly he will not create overpressure in the 1MW system. We dont know. Only Rossi knows. So if you have the guts and go into this big 1 MW box under full operation then your health and live is subject to god's grace and Rossis skills if something unexpected happens. I would not go inside after having seen the video Simon Knight September 16th, 2011 at 9:27 AM Dear Andrea Rossi, Before the 1MW plant is taken into operation would it be necessary to have the system certified according to the ASME Pressure Vessel Code? Kind regards, Simon Dear Simon Knight: We are studying the issue. Warm Regards, A.R. [ Says several times that Bologna and Uppsala do NOT have eCats, and that the Bologna contract has NOT yet started. ] Alessandro Casali September 16th, 2011 at 8:09 AM the new test planned with Upsalla University is a great news, do you think it will be done by the end of September? I think it will be done in October. Warm Regards, A.R. [ and to an earlier question : ] 8- I ddid NOT say that we are already working, I said the first steps have been made: signed the contract and some other thing. The proper RD with the University of Bologna did not start yet. [ and ] Andrea Rossi September 16th, 2011 at 3:07 AM Dear Pietro F: Yes we have very big financial problems, because I have spent on this all the money I had, and sold all I had, also because the Customer we counted on could not maintain his financial engagements and this has left the ship in the middle of the ocean without oil for the engine. But we are going through, the 1 MW plant will be ready for the end of October for the test anyway, we are close. Yes, we will organize e new very important test in Uppsala, and this time we will make the calorimetric measurements in a new way, suggested by the Professors: the steam circuit will be a closed circuit with a condenser and will exchange heat with a flow of liquid water: basically, we will have a primary circuit of the E-Cat and a secondary circuit through a radiator, and the energy will be calculated not from the delta T of the input/output of the reactor, but from the delta T of the secondary, which will exchange the heat by means of a heat exchanger. Of course the calculation of the energy produced will be in our disadvantage, because the heat exchange system has not a 100% efficiency, but I can accept it, because our energy gain is very high. The operation will be made also with self sustaining mode. We are already making this test in our factory, and the results of the energy gain are very close to the measurements we made in past. I am very satisfied. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
I was just throwing some random thoughts. I am not sure where you were ironic, if you were anywhere at all... -- Forwarded message -- From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com Date: 2011/9/16 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 2011/9/17 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: Given that his new test will be a prototype of a nuclear reactor, look at the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boiling_water_reactor_english.svg Finally someone realized that E-Cat is just typical miniature BWR! ^^ Therefore Rossi's reluctance to do sub-boiling demonstrations, because they do not make any sense, from engineering point of view. And if you understand how BWR operates, then the sub-boiling demonstrations would not make any sense from scientific perspective, because enthalpy calculations are more accurate when made from steam. Of course only if you know what you are doing, what Galantini et al. obviously did not know. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Dear Andrea Rossi, Before the 1MW plant is taken into operation would it be necessary to have the system certified according to the ASME Pressure Vessel Code? Kind regards, Simon Dear Simon Knight: We are studying the issue. Warm Regards, A.R. Translation: Oh crap! We were not aware of the American Society of Mechanical Engingeers! I'll go buy the book tomorrow. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Dear Pietro F: . . . Professors: the steam circuit will be a closed circuit with a condenser and will exchange heat with a flow of liquid water: basically, we will have a primary circuit of the E-Cat and a secondary circuit through a radiator, and the energy will be calculated not from the delta T of the input/output of the reactor, but from the delta T of the secondary, which will exchange the heat by means of a heat exchanger. . . . A.R. Exactly the suggestion I made in March, duplicating Naudin's Moller's Atomic Hydrogen Generator (MAHG) setup: http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htm sigh T
[Vo]:What is a reasonable approach to meaningful E-cat data?
It seems nonsensical to hypothesize all kinds of things regarding the new E-cat when the detailed structure of the device itself is an unknown and at best second hand or indirect information. Lack of this knowledge, and the fact that normal operation of the device is dynamic, indicate the quickest, cheapest, most convincing thing to do to demonstrate the device is to treat the E-cat as a black box. The only reasonable way to determine if the black box is useful is to *measure* total energy in vs total energy out for a long test run. Measuring momentary powers and flows is not adequate because the powers and flows are dynamic. Neither adequate is assuming a constant duty cycle on the electrical input, nor assuming a constant flow rate on the water input. This implies the need for doing calorimetry on the output product. The internals of the black box should be ignored, including the thermometer located in a well that goes who knows where surrounded by who knows what - but certainly not high pressure steam or water unless the thermometer is pressure sealed into its well, unlike prior tests. If the thermometer well itself is sealed then the thermometer is not directly exposed to the water or steam, and thus subject to thermal wicking through the well itself from heat in the surrounding metal. For input energy measurement a kWh meter, separated from the device by adequate spike filters, or maybe an isolation transformer, should be adequate. For output energy measurement, the most basic and cheap approach involves diverting the output into a barrel of water so as to achieve medium term power integration. To achieve continuous operation two barrels could be used, using a valve to switch steam to a cold water barrel when the temperature becomes high enough. A barrel, when not selected, could be pumped dry, and the water then replaced with cold water from a hose. The barrels should be covered and insulated, and the water stirred while temperature measurements and times are frequently recorded. I suggested another more simple approach last April, which would work with some analysis, provided the water flow leaving the barrel and its temperature were continually recorded, and a good static thermal decline curve calorimetry constant determination were made: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44947.html A standard barrel is a 159 liters, or roughly 159 kg of water. The specific heat of water is 4.186 kJ/(kg °C). If the initial temperature of the water is 23°C, and maximum temperature used is 73° C, then delta T is 50°C, and the energy capacity of the barrel is (159 kg) * (4.186 kJ/(kg °C)) * (50°C) = 3.14x10^4 kJ. If the power output of an E-cat is 10 kW, then the barrels would have to be swapped every (3.14x10^4 kJ)/(10 kW) = 3140 seconds, or 52 minutes. This should be plenty of time to pump out and load the second barrel. At 20 kW thermal power the swapping time is 26 minutes, but this could be upped by driving the barrels to a higher temperature. Obtaining a good static temperature decline curve is essential for this method. A barrel would have to be weighed before pumping out, and after loading with water. This is high school science fair difficult. This is inexpensive, except maybe for the computer recording of the two barrel temperatures by time, and the input water flow. The cost involved is for an accurate recording water flow meter for the E-cat input water, two barrels with lids, two scales for the barrels, some insulation, some hose, a pump, a Y valve to quickly redirect the steam hose output, a kWh meter, and some form of pulse filter for the electric input. Much of the stuff could possibly be borrowed or rented, such as the barrel draining pump. An improvement might be to include a heat exchanger between the barrels and E-cat, so flow calorimetry could be used in addition to the isoperibolic data provided by the barrels. A dual method provides excellent confirming data, and is useful for evaluating control runs where only electric power is provided to the E-cat, and gives a faster response if the thermal pulse calibrating technique is used during live runs. However, this would require a heat exchanger, two more thermocouples, and a very accurate frequently computer sampled flow meter in order to accurately integrate power to obtain total energy. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
On Sep 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Andrea Rossi September 16th, 2011 at 3:07 AM Dear Pietro F: Yes we have very big financial problems, because I have spent on this all the money I had, and sold all I had, also because the Customer we counted on could not maintain his financial engagements and this has left the ship in the middle of the ocean without oil for the engine. But we are going through, the 1 MW plant will be ready for the end of October for the test anyway, we are close. Yes, we will organize e new very important test in Uppsala, and this time we will make the calorimetric measurements in a new way, suggested by the Professors: the steam circuit will be a closed circuit with a condenser and will exchange heat with a flow of liquid water: basically, we will have a primary circuit of the E- Cat and a secondary circuit through a radiator, and the energy will be calculated not from the delta T of the input/output of the reactor, but from the delta T of the secondary, which will exchange the heat by means of a heat exchanger. Of course the calculation of the energy produced will be in our disadvantage, because the heat exchange system has not a 100% efficiency, but I can accept it, because our energy gain is very high. The operation will be made also with self sustaining mode. We are already making this test in our factory, and the results of the energy gain are very close to the measurements we made in past. I am very satisfied. Warm Regards, A.R. Thanks for posting this interesting and exciting news! A heat exchange system can be very accurate. The advantage is it does not matter what happens to the cooling water beyond the bounds where the thermometers are located, provided it comes back cool enough and with enough flow to do the job. To obtain an accurate power integration takes an accurate flow meter in the cooling water stream with time stamped data taken frequently. There is a similar requirement to frequently measure the temperature and flow output of the E-cat water from the heat exchanger. Some good insulation is required for accurate data - but reliable data only accurate to 10% would hopefully be way more than enough to show the value of the device. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Hi Horace, Your 3rd scenario may be right. From mats Report According to Andrea Rossi the increased dimension is due to a larger volume inside where the water is heated, approximately 30 liters, and a larger heat-exchanger with a greater surface which should result in a more effective heat transfer from the reactor to the circulating water and *also in additional heating of the steam after vaporization. *Just strange how this works at the outlet and it also means the pressure may be 1bar as suggested by Mats. This will change a lot of the energy calculations. Colin On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | || | Steam130C == || outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE |130C |~| |~~~ overflow fluid 100C | | | *-* ~ *- | *=* | | ~ | ~ | Water | | ~ | Inlet | Boil 100C |Water Trap 100C *--* This 130C steam also exits through the hose, and may (but need not) condense. It does not have time to reach equilibrium with the 100C overflow fluid over the 10cm distance. The main reason I DON'T like this is that the outlet is so high on the eCat. Missing measurements: a) Pressure at the instrument port (to confirm it is 1 Bar) b) Temperature of the overflow fluid water -- should be 100C c) Temperature of the steam exiting the eCat -- if it was superheated at 1 Bar then it should still be at 130C I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 130C water would flash VERY rapidly. ps -- This is a first/ second draft of what I'm thinking. I'll change my mind again tomorrow!
RE: [Vo]:Wild Speculation..E-Cat Testing at Google
From: Ron Kita A wild speculation on my part: E-Cat being tested at Google ? One of the many locations that would indicated the company. Not long ago Google had been speculated as a possible Rossi USA partner within the Vort Collective. Along similar lines, and FWIW, the following was published by The Kiplinger Letter, Sept. 16, 2011. * * * * * * * TECH: Google's recent disclosure of its annual electricity use marks a key trend: Energy needs at data centers will keep mounting as more storage is needed for the barrage of data created by growing Internet traffic and new computing tools. Google used 2.3 megawatt-hours of juice in 2010...enough to power Salt Lake City. Bills will rise, too, along with bad PR for environmentally conscious firms, even as companies with big storage demands talk up renewable energy sources. Green energy can meet only a small slice of data centers' power requirements. Improved efficiency is a good bet for bringing down the energy bills of big data farms, while improved heat regulation and better servers will help small centers reduce costs. * * * * It's a great fantasy believing in a scenario where Rossi has approached Google concerning their energy and cooling needs. Probably not the case... but it would be nice if Rossi had approached them. Perhaps someone over at Rossi's blog should whisper GOOGLE! real loud in Rossi's ear! ;-) Mr. Fletcher. Is that something you could do??? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
2011/9/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: A heat exchange system can be very accurate. The advantage is it does not matter what happens to the cooling water beyond the bounds where the thermometers are located, provided it comes back cool enough and with enough flow to do the job. To obtain an accurate power integration takes an accurate flow meter in the cooling water stream with time stamped data taken frequently. There is a similar requirement to frequently measure the temperature and flow output of the E-cat water from the heat exchanger. Some good insulation is required for accurate data - but reliable data only accurate to 10% would hopefully be way more than enough to show the value Too bad, Rossi's method was way better, because it can give, especially with this new version, much higher accuracy with much less efforts. Calibration of this system alone will take days! Only thing, what was required, was that people understand the concept of steam pressure. Since people do not usually have experience from autoclaves, espresso machines and Fukushima's water boilers, they might have hard time to understand how it is possible that steam cleaner produces 110°C steam. I wonder if there is a heat exchanger that superheats the steam?! Anyway there was nothing wrong with the method, but independent scientists just could not come up with the idea that it is possible to do steam sparging calorimetry and measure the liquid water content of outlet with simple water trap. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:What is a reasonable approach to meaningful E-cat data?
2011/9/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Measuring momentary powers and flows is not adequate because the powers and flows are dynamic. We need to measure the pressure, because only steam contributes for the pressure and of course steam production rate is directly proportional to total enthalpy produced. If water inflow rate is constant. With short tests (steam sparging and water trap) we can establish this correlation quite accurately without too much efforts. Then when the correlation is established, we can just let device to run overnight and see the data in the morning. Primary advantage for measuring pressure is that we can do it continuously without any efforts. For output energy measurement, the most basic and cheap approach involves diverting the output into a barrel of water so as to achieve medium term power integration. If we cannot measure the pressure, then next simplest method is to take a barrel filled with water, to put outlet hose into barrel and take inlet water from the same barrel. Then we need to measure the ΔT. If we have ice storage at known temperature, e.g. -18°C, then we can also put ice there and then measure how much E-Cat does melt ice. We do not need to insulate barrel, because we can measure heat dissipation rate and take this into consideration in calculations. 27 kW outlet steam will stir water enough. However, as you suggested, barrel switching may be more easy to do than using ice as a coolant. But main problem with this is that 27 kW is lots of power and will heat the barrel fast. Therefore steam calorimetry from pressure is always preferrable to sub-boiling water calorimetry. With megawatt power plant we can use swimming pool, but naturally this does not establish accurate calorimetry, but is just for the show. Other methods are just too complicated or prone for errors. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Hi Colin, Alan Fletcher gets the credit for that scenario. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: Hi Horace, Your 3rd scenario may be right. From mats Report According to Andrea Rossi the increased dimension is due to a larger volume inside where the water is heated, approximately 30 liters, and a larger heat-exchanger with a greater surface which should result in a more effective heat transfer from the reactor to the circulating water and also in additional heating of the steam after vaporization. Just strange how this works at the outlet and it also means the pressure may be 1bar as suggested by Mats. This will change a lot of the energy calculations. Colin On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/ rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature- enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back- pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | || | Steam130C == || outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE |130C |~| | ~~~ overflow fluid 100C | | | *-* ~ *- | *=* | | ~ | ~ | Water | | ~ | Inlet | Boil 100C |Water Trap 100C *--* This 130C steam also exits through the hose, and may (but need not) condense. It does not have time to reach equilibrium with the 100C overflow fluid over the 10cm distance. The main reason I DON'T like this is that the outlet is so high on the eCat. Missing measurements: a) Pressure at the instrument port (to confirm it is 1 Bar) b) Temperature of the overflow fluid water -- should be 100C c) Temperature of the steam exiting the eCat -- if it was superheated at 1 Bar then it should still be at 130C I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. The general argument is the same as for the hose outlet -- 130C water would flash VERY rapidly. ps -- This is a first/
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: A heat exchange system can be very accurate. The advantage is it does not matter what happens to the cooling water beyond the bounds where the thermometers are located, provided it comes back cool enough and with enough flow to do the job. To obtain an accurate power integration takes an accurate flow meter in the cooling water stream with time stamped data taken frequently. There is a similar requirement to frequently measure the temperature and flow output of the E-cat water from the heat exchanger. Some good insulation is required for accurate data - but reliable data only accurate to 10% would hopefully be way more than enough to show the value Too bad, Rossi's method was way better, because it can give, especially with this new version, much higher accuracy with much less efforts. Calibration of this system alone will take days! Hundreds of man days have been wasted. If the job were done right the first time a lot of labor and money could have been saved, not only for Rossi and his associates, but for Rossi himself. Not only that, very high quality and credible black box calorimetry might have been obtained absolutely free from companies like EarthTech International: http://www.earthtech.org/ What a waste! There is no common sense in what has happened. There is no good business sense in what happened. What has happened makes no scientific sense either. Rossi could have had millions or billions of development dollars at his disposal with a single high quality public demonstration. If he really is on to something commercially viable then the whole world is suffering because of the delays. This kind of thinking that a few days or even months of calibration is not hugely worthwhile is nonsense. It is perhaps penny wise, but trillion dollar foolish, unless of course, someone knows there is nothing to the claims. Only thing, what was required, was that people understand the concept of steam pressure. Since people do not usually have experience from autoclaves, espresso machines and Fukushima's water boilers, they might have hard time to understand how it is possible that steam cleaner produces 110°C steam. I wonder if there is a heat exchanger that superheats the steam?! Anyway there was nothing wrong with the method, but independent scientists just could not come up with the idea that it is possible to do steam sparging calorimetry and measure the liquid water content of outlet with simple water trap. –Jouni Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:What is a reasonable approach to meaningful E-cat data?
Sigh. On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:33 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Measuring momentary powers and flows is not adequate because the powers and flows are dynamic. We need to measure the pressure, because only steam contributes for the pressure and of course steam production rate is directly proportional to total enthalpy produced. If water inflow rate is constant. With short tests (steam sparging and water trap) we can establish this correlation quite accurately without too much efforts. Then when the correlation is established, we can just let device to run overnight and see the data in the morning. Primary advantage for measuring pressure is that we can do it continuously without any efforts. For output energy measurement, the most basic and cheap approach involves diverting the output into a barrel of water so as to achieve medium term power integration. If we cannot measure the pressure, then next simplest method is to take a barrel filled with water, to put outlet hose into barrel and take inlet water from the same barrel. Then we need to measure the ΔT. If we have ice storage at known temperature, e.g. -18°C, then we can also put ice there and then measure how much E-Cat does melt ice. We do not need to insulate barrel, because we can measure heat dissipation rate and take this into consideration in calculations. 27 kW outlet steam will stir water enough. However, as you suggested, barrel switching may be more easy to do than using ice as a coolant. But main problem with this is that 27 kW is lots of power and will heat the barrel fast. Therefore steam calorimetry from pressure is always preferrable to sub-boiling water calorimetry. With megawatt power plant we can use swimming pool, but naturally this does not establish accurate calorimetry, but is just for the show. Other methods are just too complicated or prone for errors. –Jouni Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Wild Speculation..E-Cat Testing at Google
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:52:38 -0500: Hi, [snip] Google used 2.3 megawatt-hours of juice in 2010...enough to power Salt Lake City. This works out to an average power of 262 W. Somehow I doubt the figure is accurate. ;) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
2011/9/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Hundreds of man days have been wasted. If the job were done right the first time a lot of labor and money could have been saved, not only for Rossi and his associates, but for Rossi himself. Not only that, very high quality and credible black box calorimetry might have been obtained absolutely free from companies like EarthTech International: I wonder how many times I need to say this to you that Rossi invited independent and semi-independent scientist to the demonstrations to do all the measurements they thought to be relevant. He did not participate himself in anyway what all those university professors were doing when they measured the enthalpy with humidity sensor. Indeed DeltaOhm can measure the enthalpy from steam quality as is mentioned in manual, but problem is that steam quality is irrelevant concept, because DeltaOhm does not measure the liquid water content, but it only measures suspended water content of steam (i.e. steam quality that was 98.8%). Rossi only presented June demonstration himself, and he did it exactly as those professors such as Kullander told him to do enthalpy measurements. Indeed, Rossi does not like scientists, and this should be obvious to anyone that Rossi wanted to show with June E-Cat that this method cannot measure enthalpy at all, because it is outright silly to any steam engineer, although method was approved by many scientists and university professors. There were nothing wrong with the setup, but there was just incompetent scientist who were unable to do proper enthalpy measurements. Scientist such as Mats Lewan could have done 20 steam sparging and water trap test in September, but he chose to do only one water trap test. Only one! This tells lots about the level of Rossi's scientist, because Mats was the brightest and the most rigorous scientific star in Bologna. –Jouni Ps. Rossi had scheduled to publish his cold fusion work not before October. Therefore he has not done demonstrations that are not long enough to exclude chemical power sources. If Krivit writes 200 page report about Rossi's sense of humor, it is his problem if he is wasting his time! Same goes for you, Horace!
Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
Well, I did get an MA in psychology in 1967 -- decades ago, I read about a Neuro Linguistic Programming gambit, to wit: Jed, please, above all else, do not just jump swiftly to a completely skeptical appraisal of Rossi's demos... the strategy being to use supporting the partner in doing the opposite of what one thinks is best, in order to plant in the same sentence the suggestion that mentions what one thinks is best -- e, it works, too... from my point of view, it can be helpful to offer a sibling some mild, accepting, nonpushy outlines that highlight a possible breakthrough -- I've done this for Rossi several times for months, outlining the possible benefits of publicly acknowledging his own path of folly -- in 1988, when I was losing my friends' investments as an amateur day trader, a nice stranger took me for lunch, mildly inquired about what I was doing, and after a while, he muttered something about the danger of getting caught up in a Ponzi scheme, without requiring me to have to respond -- it wasn't until 1994 that I was able to sell my house at a 50% gain, and willingly pay back my many friends $ 70 K -- so I know how it feels to evolve with the best of intentions step by step into a hazardous blind alley in the maze of life -- this self-disclosure, also, is a well-known mode for sharing healing ideas -- we are all one another's keepers -- I am pleased to see these complex, confused, polarized discussions going on for weeks and months with warmth and humor and mild exasperation -- he who talks his walk has foot in the mouth disease? -- perhaps you have some more reservations re my sharings -- indeed, I'm all ears! -- within mutual service highlights the awesome actual intimacy within which apparently highly individualized evolving aspects of single entire unified creative hyperinfinity collaborate... richly, Rich On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:20 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: From Mr. Murray You [Horace] present calm, clear, extremely reasonable points to justify qualified skepticism -- I suspect Jed is likely to agree within a few days. Horace often presents interesting points worth considering. However, for you to follow-up with your own prediction that Mr. Rothwell will soon capitulate to the other side is, to put it bluntly, naive of you. There is little mutual service in making predictions of the opinions of others on these matters. You strike me as being oblivious to the fact that what you are doing is a form of psychological manipulation, even though I suspect that from Jed's POV, he could care less what your opinion of his predicted opinions might be. Let me put it to you this way: Is it really any of your business, predicting the opinions of others? It's rude and offensive conjecture on your part. It serves no purpose other than to give yourself another shot-in-the-arm. It's nothing more than manufacturing a form of psychological self-assurance that your own opinion must be right, because you now predict that others will soon come around to the same opinion of yours as well. Really??? Who knows what opinions Jed may feel more comfortable broadcasting to the Vort Collective tomorrow. Shoot! I have no idea what my own opinions might turn out to be tomorrow either. It's a full-time job managing my own opinions. They change all the time! Rich, please PLEASE! ...just be responsible expressing your own opinions, and let others manage the responsibilities of their own. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Lewan uploads temperature data for Sept. 7 run
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I did get an MA in psychology in 1967 -- decades ago, I read about a Neuro Linguistic Programming gambit, to wit: Jed, please, above all else, do not just jump swiftly to a completely skeptical appraisal of Rossi's demos... the strategy being to use supporting the partner in doing the opposite of what one thinks is best, in order to plant in the same sentence the suggestion that mentions what one thinks is best -- e, it works, too... Not on all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgYdVNHNz4Y T
Re: [Vo]:130C steam : Lotsa Rossi Updates, Running out of Cash?
On Sep 16, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/17 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Hundreds of man days have been wasted. If the job were done right the first time a lot of labor and money could have been saved, not only for Rossi and his associates, but for Rossi himself. Not only that, very high quality and credible black box calorimetry might have been obtained absolutely free from companies like EarthTech International: Nothing written below changes the truth of what I wrote. There is no common sense in what has happened. There is no good business sense in what happened. What has happened makes no scientific sense either. Rossi could have had millions or billions of development dollars at his disposal with a single high quality public demonstration. If he really is on to something commercially viable then the whole world is suffering because of the delays. This kind of thinking that a few days or even months of calibration is not hugely worthwhile is nonsense. It is perhaps penny wise, but trillion dollar foolish, unless of course, someone knows there is nothing to the claims. What follows looks like a highly defensive string of excuses on Rossi's behalf. Are you sure you are not Rossi? 8^) I wonder how many times I need to say this to you that Rossi invited independent and semi-independent scientist to the demonstrations to do all the measurements they thought to be relevant. He did not participate himself in anyway what all those university professors were doing when they measured the enthalpy with humidity sensor. Indeed DeltaOhm can measure the enthalpy from steam quality as is mentioned in manual, but problem is that steam quality is irrelevant concept, because DeltaOhm does not measure the liquid water content, but it only measures suspended water content of steam (i.e. steam quality that was 98.8%). Rossi only presented June demonstration himself, and he did it exactly as those professors such as Kullander told him to do enthalpy measurements. Indeed, Rossi does not like scientists, and this should be obvious to anyone that Rossi wanted to show with June E-Cat that this method cannot measure enthalpy at all, because it is outright silly to any steam engineer, although method was approved by many scientists and university professors. There were nothing wrong with the setup, but there was just incompetent scientist who were unable to do proper enthalpy measurements. Scientist such as Mats Lewan could have done 20 steam sparging and water trap test in September, but he chose to do only one water trap test. Only one! This tells lots about the level of Rossi's scientist, because Mats was the brightest and the most rigorous scientific star in Bologna. –Jouni Ps. Rossi had scheduled to publish his cold fusion work not before October. Therefore he has not done demonstrations that are not long enough to exclude chemical power sources. If Krivit writes 200 page report about Rossi's sense of humor, it is his problem if he is wasting his time! Same goes for you, Horace! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
