Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Sep 1, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results were close to the expected amount from that heater. If that was a Griggs device I wonder if your memory might be failing you, like mine has been failing me. Didn't Griggs use around 7 hp motors and achieve much less than a COP of 2, more like 1.2? He had small ones but I tested huge ones. They could be set to produce no excess, in which case this method recovered about 90% of the input energy, as I recall. It was tricky to make them produce excess. You could tell the thing was in the excess mode by the sound. You can see a photo a huge one here: http://hydrodynamics.com/products/large-flow-reactors/ - Jed I am happy to see such a neat application was found for Grigg's technology. I hope he has benefited from it. I do see the application appears to be mixing, not steam production. Harnessing the power of cavitation, the ShockWave PowerTM Reactor drives the transesterification reaction further to completion than conventional mixing systems. http://hydrodynamics.com/app/download/4743775404/General+Biodiesel +Press+Release+Final.pdf The use of cavitation prior to liquefaction has been demonstrated to liberate additional starches, significantly increasing yield. http://hydrodynamics.com/app/download/4756843604/International+Fuel +Ethanol+Workshop+2011.pdf I didn't see any mention of the power used. The motors definitely look to be in or over the 100 HP (75 kW), range though! I am still curious about the inner diameter of the steam hose you used. I find it difficult to believe 75 kW of steam can be stuck into a bucket by hand for calorimetry. I think 75 kW would vaporize about 30 ml cold water/sec, and produce about 47 liters/sec of steam. A 1 cm radius hose like Rossi's would produce a steam velocity of 75 m/s, or 270 kph. I can't imagine immersing that kind of steam jet into a bucket being either safe, or the bucket reliably absorbing all the steam. I think 10 kW would produce about 36 kph output from a 1 cm ID hose, still pretty fast, about 10 m/s. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Hallo! I made simple steam sparging experiment by measuring the steam quality and enthalpy of my Espresso machine's steam wand (for making capuchino). – 200ml cool water (11°C) was measured into tea cup. – Steam was sparged into mug for 32 seconds and there was not observed splattering or escaping steam – After sparging temperature was measured at 38°C, thus ΔT was 27K – the total enthalpy was calculated 4160J×27×0.20 = 22.5 kJ and power 0.70 kW. – Water level rose approximate 15ml ± 5ml. As my instruments were too crude, I could not calculate steam quality in any reasonable accuracy. If it is assumed 100% quality steam, then total enthalpy should be 22.7–45.4 kJ therefore steam quality was something between 99.1% and 49.6%. Therefore I failed with steam quality measurements. However for calculating enthalpy, steam quality is irrelevant. And also I did not observe any reasons why there should not be two or even three significant digits, if measurements were done carefully. Horace has said that there are numerous potential errors, but I did not observe any of his objections: Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques.» There was not significant steam escaping. Temperature decline was irrelevant, because experiment lasted only 32 seconds. And stirring is irrelevant, because sub-boiling water needs to be stirred only before final temperature is measured. Steam sparging is very accurate, fast and simple to do method for calorimetry, therefore Horace's objections are out of proportions. –Jouni PS. I also calibrated my thermometer and I noticed that it was very poor. 0°C water was -6°C. I have also some doubts if the scale is accurate, because 11°C was somewhat reasonable temperature for cold tap water. However 38°C was too small value, because water was somewhat hotter than hand, although it was not burning hot. Anyways, I guess that this thermometer is good for measuring temperature at Incineration plant.
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques.» As noted these objections are invalid: There is no problem measuring the temperature as long as you stir the water before and after you sparge the steam. There is actually no need to measure the decline curve, although it does improve accuracy somewhat. you do not need to measure it because you do this quickly so that there is no significant heat loss during the process. It is hard to imagine what an imperfect stirring technique would be. Just stir it a lot make sure the temperature is the same in different locations. Use several thermometers. There was not significant steam escaping. Temperature decline was irrelevant, because experiment lasted only 32 seconds. Exactly. You should not do this for more than 5 min., and you should not let the temperature rise more than 10° above ambient. And stirring is irrelevant, because sub-boiling water needs to be stirred only before final temperature is measured. Stir before, too. As I said, use multiple thermometers or move the one you have to different locations. Steam sparging is very accurate, fast and simple to do method for calorimetry . . . Yes, it is but it has limitations. It can only be used for brief samples. It is a lot of work and can only be done five times an hour. You should use a tall container for this, with a lot of water in it. Choose a well insulated one if there is one available, such as large Dewar. That eliminates heat loss. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Am 01.09.2011 20:12, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques.» Yes it is easy to do errors in the magnitude of procent. In this case, with this large power gain, an error of 30% is completely acceptable, and if there is a tradeoff between precision and reliability and evidency then the 30% error method should be used. Then the measurement is trivial and highly evident if made by trained scientists and documented and witnessed. It is not necessarry in this stage of development to measure exactly the amout of energy. It is necessary to show with scientific evidency that more energy is produced than consumed. If we have this proof, then everything else can follow as the waggons follow a locomotive. Not an equation must be proven, its an un-equation A B that mut be proven (this is trivial) and it must be shown that no tricks are used (this is non-trivial)
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Sep 1, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Hallo! I made simple steam sparging experiment by measuring the steam quality and enthalpy of my Espresso machine's steam wand (for making capuchino). – 200ml cool water (11°C) was measured into tea cup. – Steam was sparged into mug for 32 seconds and there was not observed splattering or escaping steam – After sparging temperature was measured at 38°C, thus ΔT was 27K – the total enthalpy was calculated 4160J×27×0.20 = 22.5 kJ and power 0.70 kW. – Water level rose approximate 15ml ± 5ml. As my instruments were too crude, I could not calculate steam quality in any reasonable accuracy. If it is assumed 100% quality steam, then total enthalpy should be 22.7–45.4 kJ therefore steam quality was something between 99.1% and 49.6%. Therefore I failed with steam quality measurements. However for calculating enthalpy, steam quality is irrelevant. And also I did not observe any reasons why there should not be two or even three significant digits, if measurements were done carefully. Horace has said that there are numerous potential errors, but I did not observe any of his objections: Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques.» There was not significant steam escaping. Temperature decline was irrelevant, because experiment lasted only 32 seconds. And stirring is irrelevant, because sub-boiling water needs to be stirred only before final temperature is measured. Steam sparging is very accurate, fast and simple to do method for calorimetry, therefore Horace's objections are out of proportions. –Jouni PS. I also calibrated my thermometer and I noticed that it was very poor. 0°C water was -6°C. I have also some doubts if the scale is accurate, because 11°C was somewhat reasonable temperature for cold tap water. However 38°C was too small value, because water was somewhat hotter than hand, although it was not burning hot. Anyways, I guess that this thermometer is good for measuring temperature at Incineration plant. This test shows your true colors. It indicates that you actually expect the steam power to be on the order of 100 watts, not 10,000 watts or even 1,000 watts. If you put a wand issuing 10,000 watts steam power into the bucket you will get a notion of what I mean. Beyond that, this bucket method works only for a brief snapshot of power. It does nothing to accomplish an overall energy balance for a test. It also is not useful for providing traces for computerized data acquisition. It *is* admittedly a far better check than what was done in the public tests. This specific test of course is of no use as a control test, because the amount of steam energy introduced into the bucket is unknown, unless you measured the watts input when it reached steady state. I assume it can reach a steady state. The problems I discussed were real problems I encountered and fixed in a real calorimetry run. I know for a fact they are real problems for extended time calorimetry. A much better test would involve a much larger reservoir. A somewhat amateurish, but still effective long term test of a Rossi device might be condensing the steam in a condenser, and collecting the condensed liquid output separately. Flow calorimetry can then be done on the condenser cooling water. The condenser cooling water can then be recycled through an ice barrel to reset its temperature. The ice melt water flow can then be measured to proved confirming calorimetry data by an independent method, which is useful for error magnitude determination. There are then two thermal flows to measure and add, the device water thermal flow and the condenser cooler water thermal flow. This kind of test (less computerized data acquisition) is fairly easily accomplished by amateurs. The main problem might be getting a sufficient quantity of ice delivered and/ or stored, provided the Rossi device is actually outputting on the order of 10,000 watts. If it is outputting on the order of the input power, it should not take a very long run to determine this. One thing nice about the above method is it can handle thermal dynamics, and thus permits use of a calibration pulse during a test, and can take meaningful data if a momentary heat excursion takes place. I take it this kind of discussion is all academic now NASA is involved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I take it this kind of discussion is all academic now NASA is involved. Assuming they *are* involved. I have a friend in Huntsville who is checking this out. She is quite connected. T
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: This test shows your true colors. It indicates that you actually expect the steam power to be on the order of 100 watts, not 10,000 watts or even 1,000 watts. If you put a wand issuing 10,000 watts steam power into the bucket you will get a notion of what I mean. I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results were close to the expected amount from that heater. Beyond that, this bucket method works only for a brief snapshot of power. It does nothing to accomplish an overall energy balance for a test. It proves that the steam is dry. For the rest of the test, you can depend on temperatures. It does not get wet one minute and dry the next. If you think it percolates just hold the hose out for 10 minutes. A much better test would involve a much larger reservoir. Not too big, or the change in temperature will be small. You can't prolong it because the heat will radiate from the container. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results were close to the expected amount from that heater. If that was a Griggs device I wonder if your memory might be failing you, like mine has been failing me. Didn't Griggs use around 7 hp motors and achieve much less than a COP of 2, more like 1.2? That would be on the order of 7.5 kW out, not 75 kW out. That must have been an unusual test. Could have used a car motor to drive it I suppose. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results were close to the expected amount from that heater. If that was a Griggs device I wonder if your memory might be failing you, like mine has been failing me. Didn't Griggs use around 7 hp motors and achieve much less than a COP of 2, more like 1.2? He had small ones but I tested huge ones. They could be set to produce no excess, in which case this method recovered about 90% of the input energy, as I recall. It was tricky to make them produce excess. You could tell the thing was in the excess mode by the sound. You can see a photo a huge one here: http://hydrodynamics.com/products/large-flow-reactors/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
2011/9/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: This test shows your true colors. It indicates that you actually expect the steam power to be on the order of 100 watts, not 10,000 watts or even 1,000 watts. If you put a wand issuing 10,000 watts steam power into the bucket you will get a notion of what I mean. I don't see your point. I used to do this test with a hose producing 75 kW at Hydrodynamics Inc. It worked fine. The results were close to the expected amount from that heater. Also the nozzle of steam wand was very small, thus pressure of steam was high. And also there was only 200 ml water in the mug, but it could easily handle 1kW range high pressure steam, I have no doubts that a bucket can handle kW range power output and a barrel can absorb 10 kW range steam power. Also instead of water, bucket can also contain water + melting ice to increase its potential to absorb enthalpy and enhance the condensation of sparged steam. Beyond that, this bucket method works only for a brief snapshot of power. It does nothing to accomplish an overall energy balance for a test. It proves that the steam is dry. For the rest of the test, you can depend on temperatures. It does not get wet one minute and dry the next. If you think it percolates just hold the hose out for 10 minutes. Right, although It does not prove that steam is dry, because measuring dryness requires extremely accurate measurements. Bucket is nowhere near accurate enough. It can measure total momentary enthalpy, but this method cannot separate wet steam from liquid hot water, what is required for measuring the dryness of steam. (oh, sorry, I here used steam dryness in its proper meaning, I know what you really meant^^) As steam temperature of E-Cat depends on steam pressure, this can give a momentary power output. Then we easily can get the proper relationship of temperature and enthalpy, and then we can run steaming test indefinitely and know the total enthalpy of E-Cat within two significant digits. If there are variations in enthalpy/temperature between the sparging tests, then it is required gather more datapoints, so that we can fit proper trend line for boiling point temperature (i.e.pressure) and enthalpy. Horace, what you were proposing for calorimetry is far too complex and prone for errors. With simple steam sparging test it is possible to attain two significant digits accuracy for indefinitely lasting experiment. Your method requires lots of work, but this does not increase accuracy of test. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Originally posted by Angela Kemmler: The Licence and Technology Transfer Agreement (The LTTA) contains a mile stone payment arrangement. According to said arrangement, DGT's release of the first payment to EFA is pending on that EFA meet several technical requirements. As anticipated in the LTTA for the purpose of determining if EFA has met said requirements . . . I recall seeing this, but I thought Defkalion denied it was from them and they denied this is what is happening. Maybe it was a non-denial denial. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Aug 20, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is you who does not get it. Investing in a free energy scheme which supposedly produces excess or free heat is not sensible without expert independent calorimetry being applied which determines a total energy balance for critical demonstration tests. It is whoever is responsible for due diligence that should be held accountable for failing to take proper and sufficient actions to protect investor's capital - assuming there are investors. Are you suggesting that the public demonstrations done by Rossi, Levi et al. are the only checks that have been made of these systems? That investors have not done more extensive tests? That's silly. Why wouldn't they? What would stop them? Defkalion has said repeatedly that they have, and that they have submitted machines for testing to the Greek government. No sane person would invest in this technology without far more extensive testing than has been revealed. There are many good reasons why people would not want to reveal what they have done. It is regrettable, but this is business, not academic science. In business, people keep things secret. Back in the 1960s and 70s when IBM ruled the computer business, they would develop and begin manufacturing entire computers lines without anyone outside the company finding out anything until the day of the press conference introducing the products already in production. - Jed If the results indeed were obtained and were positive and useful it is strange that Defkalion did not pay up according to its contract. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
RE: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Someone (Jed or Horace?) wrote: * If the results indeed were obtained and were positive and useful it is strange that Defkalion did not pay up according to its contract. It would not surprise me that positive results could be exactly *why* they did not pay up ! DGT is facing the prospect of turning over an extremely large sum of money, and there are a number of possibilities that explain why they have decided to change course and avoid that huge payment. or even this intermediate payment which was rumored to be only 15 million. Of course, the best scenario is that they know by now that it is impossible for them to arrange such a large sum by October (reportedly over 100,000,000 Euros). Since Rossi may not have lived up to particular milestones in the agreement (they claim) then they are cutting their loses now, and would be protected if it got to Court by claiming that Rossi is the party in technical default. Of course, it is wise to keep up appearances and pretend that there is no big problem. . but the next best fit (to the conflicting details which are in the public record) is that Defkalion has independently come up with good results on their own - through the information in the public record combined with some degree of reverse engineering; and that they are using their semi-independent results as a bargaining chip . to either stretch out the payments (if the E-Cat is superior to the Hyperion) or to actually go into competition with Rossi (if the Hyperion is viable in its own right). I do not find this situation strange at all, given the expatriate Russian connections of DGT, which they have tried to characterize as expatriate Canadian . LOL. Being able to come up with an adequate replacement for the E-Cat would have been a foreseeable expectation anyway, or even relatively easy for anyone with a few million Euros (far less than what is needed to go through with the complete contract) - given the twenty year history of Ni-H positive results. This information is in the public record, going back to Mills, Thermacore, Piantelli and Focardi - and many others - so why should we be surprised that any group of dedicated scientists could scale it up? Perhaps all that DGT needed to do, in addition to putting a handful of scientists onto the project (which they have stated they have on the payroll since before the beginning of this year) . is little less ethical. But when you are talking about this kind of money - ethics can take a back seat to capitalism, as we know. Therefore in addition to hiring good scientists, DGT could have employed either industrial espionage . or (easier) payoffs to Rossi insiders, to find other relevant details. I am reminded of the 'cold war story' of Russian politicians visiting a Boeing plant, where one of them was wearing especially 'gummy' shoes. They were able to discover a secret alloy by walking over areas where metal shavings were present. That is probably the tip of an iceberg in terms of techniques which can be used. When you think like a spy, Rossi and his secret would likely be an *easy* target. This explains why AR is paranoid. He probably is aware that attempts have been made to steal a device, or to compromise his secrets, but he apparently he is convinced that those efforts have failed. I doubt that they did fail - and DGT's new tactic is proof of that. Or maybe they have failed and DGT is playing the Casino Royale bluff, since they have little other choice (if they have failed to get that much cash together). At any rate, nothing in this picture is the least bit unexpected when you take a close look at the cast of characters. Jones
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If the results indeed were obtained and were positive and useful it is strange that Defkalion did not pay up according to its contract. Rossi said repeatedly that he will only be paid after he delivers the 1 MW reactor. He has not delivered it, so Defkalion does not have to pay him yet. I do not know what the dispute is but no one has said they did not pay according to the contract. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ethics can take a back seat to capitalism Capitalism always trumps ethics. Ask the Donald. T
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:46 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If the results indeed were obtained and were positive and useful it is strange that Defkalion did not pay up according to its contract. Rossi said repeatedly that he will only be paid after he delivers the 1 MW reactor. He has not delivered it, so Defkalion does not have to pay him yet. I do not know what the dispute is but no one has said they did not pay according to the contract. - Jed OK, maybe you are right about the precise phrase did not pay, though I feel I have read that phrase in this regard somewhere. I can not find the reference at the moment. It could just be my bad memory. I can't trust my memory any more. Also, it may have been an inference by someone posting, not from Rossi himself. The problem causing the contract cancellation was stated by Rossi in August to be just financial, ... not personal, nor technological, nor scientific. His delivery was slated for October, so it would seem that he has not violated that provision. See the following: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=10#comment-59964 The following is a quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi August 7th, 2011 at 2:22 PM Dear Georgehants: Prof. Stremmenos has tested our E-Cats many times in Bologna and has made a very good work; I do not know what has been done in Greece from Deflalion with the documents made by Prof. Stremmenos; also other officers of defkalion made tests in Bologna, for this purpose. The work has been good, as well as has been good the work that Defkalion made to get authorizations, I suppose, even if it has never been my business; the problems which caused the cancellation of the contract are just financial. By the way, the report of the last test made by the Greek Scientist Christos Stremmenos has been published, the work has been very good, and my personal relationship with Prof. Stremmenos is good. We hope in future to make again a good work in Greece. When a verdict will be issued regarding the suit in course between Defkalion and us will be published all will be clear. Now I prefer not to enter in particulars, but, again, the issue is just financial, not personal, nor technological, nor scientific. Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - end quote Perhaps the August financial problem was in regards to a milestone payment, and the result of events in July, 2011. See the following post by Angela Kemmler: On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Angela Kemmler wrote: Was offline a couple of days. Mayme, its not new to you. Just saw this citation on a swedish website, it may help to explain why Defkalion did not pay EFA srl (Rossis wife), and Rossi was upset. citation: The Licence and Technology Transfer Agreement (The LTTA) contains a mile stone payment arrangement. According to said arrangement, DGT's release of the first payment to EFA is pending on that EFA meet several technical requirements. As anticipated in the LTTA for the purpose of determining if EFA has met said requirements, a test was performed in late July 2011. While the test conclusively showed that most of these requirements indeed were reached, some were not; the most important one being full working stability of the reactor. As provided in the LTTA, DGT therefore requested a second test. However, EFA has refused to participate in such a test despite the fact that such non-participation clearly constitutes a material breach of contract. Such a test is and has always been a prerequisite for DGT confidently going forward with the collaboration with EFA. -- Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: OK, maybe you are right about the precise phrase did not pay, though I feel I have read that phrase in this regard somewhere. I think the issue stems from this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50332.html I think there is a safety stability issue and there is a dispute over the term 'stability'. You know, like It depends on what 'is' is. T
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
and if financial means some other guys have promised me to pay more than you ? On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: OK, maybe you are right about the precise phrase did not pay, though I feel I have read that phrase in this regard somewhere. I think the issue stems from this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50332.html I think there is a safety stability issue and there is a dispute over the term 'stability'. You know, like It depends on what 'is' is. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Aug 21, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Terry Blanton wrote: On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: OK, maybe you are right about the precise phrase did not pay, though I feel I have read that phrase in this regard somewhere. I think the issue stems from this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50332.html I think there is a safety stability issue and there is a dispute over the term 'stability'. You know, like It depends on what 'is' is. T Say, that appears to be the Aug 10, 2011, Angela Kemmler reference I just quoted. Not only that, I overlooked the phrase did not pay in the sentence: Just saw this citation on a swedish website, it may help to explain why Defkalion did not pay EFA srl (Rossis wife), and Rossi was upset, which Angela Kemmler wrote. So, it is not merely my memory that is going with age ... it is my competence as well. A failure to demonstrate the ... full working stability of the reactor strikes me as clearly a technological issue. However, this is in direct conflict with Rossi's statement that ... the issue is just financial, not personal, nor technological, nor scientific. I see that according to the following reference Defkalion denies this text originated from them, but they do not specifically deny its contents.: http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2t=217start=110 http://tinyurl.com/3wqcpgb I also see there was more speculative information, as well as direct quotes of Rossi, referenced by Akira Shirakawa: http://pesn.com/ 2011/08/09/9501890_Rossi_Gives_Reason_for_Split_from_Defkalion/ http://tinyurl.com/3hb225l Therein is a quote of Rossi: The problem emerged when, after we waited until the maximum possible term, we demanded that the financial duties be respected. At that point it emerged that the financial resources were not enough to go on. This is the sole real problem. The original Rossi text for that can be found at: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=10#comment-60231 http://tinyurl.com/3d3ea5d It is not clear what financial duties means. It is reasonable to infer that it has to do with a payment, but it could also mean failure to create an escrow or to provide a suitable financial report, etc. The statement Defkalion did not pay EFA srl (Rossis wife)..., noted above, seems to be based on more specific information than Rossi himself provides in the above references. I guess I am merely reviewing information with which others are most familiar. I have been unable to read posts for a number of weeks, so am catching up here. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I guess I am merely reviewing information with which others are most familiar. I have been unable to read posts for a number of weeks, so am catching up here. Nothing wrong with your mental processes, Horace. Still sharp as an obsidian knife! (And twice as deadly :) T
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: It is you who does not get it. Investing in a free energy scheme which supposedly produces excess or free heat is not sensible without expert independent calorimetry being applied which determines a total energy balance for critical demonstration tests. It is whoever is responsible for due diligence that should be held accountable for failing to take proper and sufficient actions to protect investor's capital - assuming there are investors. Are you suggesting that the public demonstrations done by Rossi, Levi et al. are the only checks that have been made of these systems? That investors have not done more extensive tests? That's silly. Why wouldn't they? What would stop them? Defkalion has said repeatedly that they have, and that they have submitted machines for testing to the Greek government. No sane person would invest in this technology without far more extensive testing than has been revealed. There are many good reasons why people would not want to reveal what they have done. It is regrettable, but this is business, not academic science. In business, people keep things secret. Back in the 1960s and 70s when IBM ruled the computer business, they would develop and begin manufacturing entire computers lines without anyone outside the company finding out *anything* until the day of the press conference introducing the products already in production. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is simple and all measurements are accurate: – Just weight 5 kg water into bucket. – Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the same as inlet water temperature) – Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes. Where did you find this? What is the URL? I believe I might have written it. - Jed
[Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Hallo, I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is simple and all measurements are accurate: – Just weight 5 kg water into bucket. – Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the same as inlet water temperature) – Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes. – After the experiment, weight the water in the bucket and measure the temperature change. – To refine accuracy, after the experiment, observe for 5 min how fast 70°C water is cooling. This gives accurately the amount of heat outlet hose is carrying with steam and hot water. It is sad that Mats Lewan did not realize this simple to do calorimetric method. If he had realized this, he would have observed ΔT to be around 30-40°C and this would have spared us all from lots of excess heat generated in discussion forums. This is also strong argument that sloppy science in E-Cat demonstrations was not Rossi's fault, but those independent observers, such as Galantini, Levi, Lewan, Kullander Essén, could have just pointed out this simple and accurate calorimetric method, if they had been smart enough. But instead Galantini, Kullander, etc. performed irrelevant measurements when they tried to measure wetness of steam, although it is well known fact that all water boilers on Earth produce ca. 98% quality steam (±0.015), in normal pressure. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Can you try to pass along this info to Dr. Rossi and/or one of the V.V.H.L. (very very high level) scientist that are going to test the One Megawatt Huge Cat ? 2011/8/19 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com Hallo, I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is simple and all measurements are accurate: – Just weight 5 kg water into bucket. – Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the same as inlet water temperature) – Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes. – After the experiment, weight the water in the bucket and measure the temperature change. – To refine accuracy, after the experiment, observe for 5 min how fast 70°C water is cooling. This gives accurately the amount of heat outlet hose is carrying with steam and hot water. It is sad that Mats Lewan did not realize this simple to do calorimetric method. If he had realized this, he would have observed ΔT to be around 30-40°C and this would have spared us all from lots of excess heat generated in discussion forums. This is also strong argument that sloppy science in E-Cat demonstrations was not Rossi's fault, but those independent observers, such as Galantini, Levi, Lewan, Kullander Essén, could have just pointed out this simple and accurate calorimetric method, if they had been smart enough. But instead Galantini, Kullander, etc. performed irrelevant measurements when they tried to measure wetness of steam, although it is well known fact that all water boilers on Earth produce ca. 98% quality steam (±0.015), in normal pressure. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
DearJouni, Your method was already suggested by Jed and other colleagues- it is the batch method. I have suggested a continuous one:see please http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/05/call-for-perfect-e-cat-experiment.html I have sent it both to Rossi and Levi who have ignored it-they don't want to measure enthalpy, they know why But this is the unique relevant parameter - quality and quantity of steam are of no use. Peter On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Hallo, I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is simple and all measurements are accurate: – Just weight 5 kg water into bucket. – Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the same as inlet water temperature) – Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes. – After the experiment, weight the water in the bucket and measure the temperature change. – To refine accuracy, after the experiment, observe for 5 min how fast 70°C water is cooling. This gives accurately the amount of heat outlet hose is carrying with steam and hot water. It is sad that Mats Lewan did not realize this simple to do calorimetric method. If he had realized this, he would have observed ΔT to be around 30-40°C and this would have spared us all from lots of excess heat generated in discussion forums. This is also strong argument that sloppy science in E-Cat demonstrations was not Rossi's fault, but those independent observers, such as Galantini, Levi, Lewan, Kullander Essén, could have just pointed out this simple and accurate calorimetric method, if they had been smart enough. But instead Galantini, Kullander, etc. performed irrelevant measurements when they tried to measure wetness of steam, although it is well known fact that all water boilers on Earth produce ca. 98% quality steam (±0.015), in normal pressure. –Jouni -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
I still think ice calorimetry I suggested last January is a better idea, because it is based on first principles, is very accurate, and can be used throughout an experiment to achieve the very essential *total energy balance*, vs just a snapshot power measurement, which can be very deceiving. The only difficulty is providing enough ice for the duration of the experiment. Still, ice calorimetry is very affordable and feasible. Despite this, I suggested last April similar steam codensation methods combined with isoperibolic calorimetry. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44947.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44953.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48555.html I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques. See my reference in one of the above posts for an actual application where I applied thermal decline curve measurement and estimated a complete energy balance. Ultimately, the best method involves simultaneous dual calorimetry techniques which establish *total energy balances*, like that used by Earthech International: http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf and which in the past has been provided free of charge. Earthtech also has excellent equipment for measuring total electrical energy in. The Rossi devices can be treated like black boxes, with no knowledge of any trade secrets or internals required. The above things are no secret! This stuff has been discussed on this list and other lists in which one or more of the involved scientists are members. Krivit's recent article that discusses the calorimetry issues I think is right on point, or on seven points if you will. Further, if there were any real interest in applying serious science this would have been accomplished 6 months ago. It is still, after more than 6 months of apparently meaningless discussion on many lists, incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. Has no one heard of due diligence? Perhaps we will see serious practical results in October or November as promised. If not, this affair could set the prospects for serious LENR research back another 20 years. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Hallo, I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is simple and all measurements are accurate: – Just weight 5 kg water into bucket. – Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the same as inlet water temperature) – Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes. – After the experiment, weight the water in the bucket and measure the temperature change. – To refine accuracy, after the experiment, observe for 5 min how fast 70°C water is cooling. This gives accurately the amount of heat outlet hose is carrying with steam and hot water. It is sad that Mats Lewan did not realize this simple to do calorimetric method. If he had realized this, he would have observed ΔT to be around 30-40°C and this would have spared us all from lots of excess heat generated in discussion forums. This is also strong argument that sloppy science in E-Cat demonstrations was not Rossi's fault, but those independent observers, such as Galantini, Levi, Lewan, Kullander Essén, could have just pointed out this simple and accurate calorimetric method, if they had been smart enough. But instead Galantini, Kullander, etc. performed irrelevant measurements when they tried to measure wetness of steam, although it is well known fact that all water boilers on Earth produce ca. 98% quality steam (±0.015), in normal pressure. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
*Serious LENR research* is that made by Piantelli and this stays irrespective from Rossi's results. Rossi's idea to make a perfect experiment with 330 combined E cats instead of 3, 33, 330 perfect experiments with individual E-cats is kind of techno-fiction (to use an euphemism) Peter On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: I still think ice calorimetry I suggested last January is a better idea, because it is based on first principles, is very accurate, and can be used throughout an experiment to achieve the very essential *total energy balance*, vs just a snapshot power measurement, which can be very deceiving. The only difficulty is providing enough ice for the duration of the experiment. Still, ice calorimetry is very affordable and feasible. Despite this, I suggested last April similar steam codensation methods combined with isoperibolic calorimetry. http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44947.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44947.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44953.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44953.html http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48555.**htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48555.html I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques. See my reference in one of the above posts for an actual application where I applied thermal decline curve measurement and estimated a complete energy balance. Ultimately, the best method involves simultaneous dual calorimetry techniques which establish *total energy balances*, like that used by Earthech International: http://www.earthtech.org/**experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdfhttp://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf and which in the past has been provided free of charge. Earthtech also has excellent equipment for measuring total electrical energy in. The Rossi devices can be treated like black boxes, with no knowledge of any trade secrets or internals required. The above things are no secret! This stuff has been discussed on this list and other lists in which one or more of the involved scientists are members. Krivit's recent article that discusses the calorimetry issues I think is right on point, or on seven points if you will. Further, if there were any real interest in applying serious science this would have been accomplished 6 months ago. It is still, after more than 6 months of apparently meaningless discussion on many lists, incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic and inexpensive science being applied. Has no one heard of due diligence? Perhaps we will see serious practical results in October or November as promised. If not, this affair could set the prospects for serious LENR research back another 20 years. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: Hallo, I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is simple and all measurements are accurate: – Just weight 5 kg water into bucket. – Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the same as inlet water temperature) – Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes. – After the experiment, weight the water in the bucket and measure the temperature change. – To refine accuracy, after the experiment, observe for 5 min how fast 70°C water is cooling. This gives accurately the amount of heat outlet hose is carrying with steam and hot water. It is sad that Mats Lewan did not realize this simple to do calorimetric method. If he had realized this, he would have observed ΔT to be around 30-40°C and this would have spared us all from lots of excess heat generated in discussion forums. This is also strong argument that sloppy science in E-Cat demonstrations was not Rossi's fault, but those independent observers, such as Galantini, Levi, Lewan, Kullander Essén, could have just pointed out this simple and accurate calorimetric method, if they had been smart enough. But instead Galantini, Kullander, etc. performed irrelevant measurements when they tried to measure wetness of steam, although it is well known fact that all water boilers on Earth produce ca. 98% quality steam (±0.015), in normal pressure. –Jouni -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Susan, I am sure that Jed Rothwell is one of the VVHL-scientist, who will be present at 1MW demonstration. Rossi also promised that single self-sustaining E-Cat module is tested, for accurate calorimetric analysis. –Jouni 2011/8/19 Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com: Can you try to pass along this info to Dr. Rossi and/or one of the V.V.H.L. (very very high level) scientist that are going to test the One Megawatt Huge Cat ?
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Susan, I am sure that Jed Rothwell is one of the VVHL-scientist, who will be present at 1MW demonstration. I don't think Jed even owns a white lab coat. T
RE: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
He may not have a white lab coat, but he probably has a straight jacket or two lying around! :-) -M -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:32 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Susan, I am sure that Jed Rothwell is one of the VVHL-scientist, who will be present at 1MW demonstration. I don't think Jed even owns a white lab coat. T
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: He may not have a white lab coat, but he probably has a straight jacket or two lying around! :-) For formal wear. T
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
Ad hominem, personal attack, is a logical fallacy, and a sure sign of a lost argument, essentially a capitulation. It is even worse than an appeal to authority in lieu of argument based on facts when such is available. On Aug 19, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/8/19 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Krivit's recent article that discusses the calorimetry issues I think is right on point, or on seven points if you will. Krivit is a crackpotter with his seven points. If Krivit is so stupid that he cannot calculate the enthalpy but only to nearest order of magnitude, it is krivit's problem. But all that is necessary to know from Krivit that he believes into fairytales like a water boiler that produces 'very wet steam'. That is silly device that exists only at Abd ul-Rahman's imagination. All water boilers on Earth produce ca. 98% quality steam. This is the well known fact where all steam technology is based on. Whatever the actual quality of the steam the fact remains using a relative humidity sensor to establish such a quality is a gross error. Further, as you should remember from prior discussion here, steam quality is almost an insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure water, See http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html Have you done the tea kettle simulation of Rossi's experiment I suggested yet, to prove you are right? I assume not, because you already know what the results will be. Krivit's seven points are clearly correct. There is not enough data provided to calculate net enthalpy or even power to within an order of magnitude. This has nothing to do with any individual's ability to compute. It has only to do with the lack of data sufficient to do a reliable computation, a lack of data sufficient to guarantee any excess heat was produced at all. Further, if there were any real interest in applying serious science this would have been accomplished 6 months ago. You did not get it. Kullander, Lewan, galantini, and even perhaps Krivit had all the resources to request this simple measurement, but they all failed to do so, because they did not know how the enthalpy should be measured. It was not Rossi's fault, but only those incompetent independent scientist were guilty, who had free hands to perform all the measurements what they choose think as necessary. –Jouni It is you who does not get it. Investing in a free energy scheme which supposedly produces excess or free heat is not sensible without expert independent calorimetry being applied which determines a total energy balance for critical demonstration tests. It is whoever is responsible for due diligence that should be held accountable for failing to take proper and sufficient actions to protect investor's capital - assuming there are investors. In October or November I hope the world will see a demonstration of abundant excess heat. If not, it is a disaster for the field. If not, I hope no investors lose a lot of money. As stated earlier, I have made an earnest effort, and have resorted to speculation in the extreme, to attempt to understand and justify how Rossi's excess heat could be real: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44845.html I hope the Rossi phenomenon is real. The problem is no data or even theory has been presented, that I have seen, that reliably demonstrates it is real. Replication, the gold standard for science, is not permitted. The highest standards are thus required for any proof of principle from a single source. It is (still) incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a dime in this technology without even the most basic and inexpensive science being applied to the most important aspect, calorimetry on the output products. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:A simple method for extremely accurate enthalpy measurement
On Aug 19, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: No worry, if there is any invested money into E-Cat and it is a fraud, then any investor may request full monetary compensation with interest. Investors are carefully protected by law and any misleading information (that can be shown as such in courtroom) while raising money will lead full monetary compensation. Wow I never thought of that! Whenever someone comes up with a free energy scheme I should throw money at him knowing that even if it is an idea supported by less than professional or independent scientific measurements, it is a great investment strategy to just go ahead and throw money at him with the expectation the court will get my money back if it turns out to be scientific error or outright fraud. No worries! No need to bother to understand anything at all! No need to go to the expense of diligence before investing. Still, I think I would continually be concerned someone had Madoff with my money. 8^) Lest anyone be confused, my comments above are sarcastic humor. I just noticed the above was addressed to me and not vortex, even though the [Vo] keyword is in the title and thus the message was routed to my vortex-l in mailbox. As noted on my web site and posted here on occasion, Please be advised that the content of any correspondence to me, Horace Heffner, is placed into public domain unless otherwise specified by prior written agreement. I can be contacted at: hheff...@mtaonline.net. However, by sending unsolicited information to this address, the sender agrees to place it in public domain and to make it available for immediate posting to public news forums. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
