Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: There was no feedback from the applied power level to the input flow rate, and there is no apparent reason for the output temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did. There is no feedback in the Hydrodynamics gadget either, just a constant flow pump, but once the water goes to dry steam it stays dry steam. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. It does not flip-flop, and the machine does not suddenly start adding much more energy as the phase transition occurs. You get a blast of hot water and steam, and then steam only, just like the Rossi device. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
On 02/09/2011 09:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: There was no feedback from the applied power level to the input flow rate, and there is no apparent reason for the output temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did. There is no feedback in the Hydrodynamics gadget either, just a constant flow pump, but once the water goes to dry steam it stays dry steam. Of course. That is not the point. The point is the temperature remained at 101.6 degrees, barely above boiling -- it did not rise above that. Is that not correct? The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. It wasn't. So, the reactor produced *EXACTLY* the amount of energy needed to vaporize the water. And that's a rather large coincidence. I spend a lot of my time doing performance tests on highly complex asynchronous software spread across multiple machines, and running experiments, and reducing output data to look for patterns to tell us what's going on and how to fix it. When we see a coincidence that large, we generally find it's not a coincidence. Ask yourself this: If the output power was random within a fixed range of, say, 1000 watts (that's 10% variance), what are the odds in favor of its turning out to be so close to exactly the amount needed to boil away all the input water that the steam temperature would hold within one degree of boiling throughout the run? (Boiling point that day in Bologna was 101C, or so someone claimed after checking weather records.) And then ask yourself what could have pinned the temperature at that point. One possibility is that the steam was actually very wet -- that would hold its temperature at just above boiling. Other possibilities may come to mind as well. But the one thing that doesn't seem plausible is that it was just a coincidence. It does not flip-flop, and the machine does not suddenly start adding much more energy as the phase transition occurs. You get a blast of hot water and steam, and then steam only, just like the Rossi device. No, NOT just like the Rossi device -- as you said, when the power level is higher, it comes out ... with more enthalpy. The Rossi device didn't do that. Why not? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. Nope. That's steam at 1 atm. It never gets any hotter than just above boiling. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. Nope. It would just move faster out of the end of the hose, as I said. You have to raise the pressure to make the temperature go up. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
On 02/09/2011 10:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. Nope. That's steam at 1 atm. It never gets any hotter than just above boiling. NO. Jed, I can't believe you're making this mistake! That's *exactly* like saying oxygen can't get any hotter than -183C (its boiling point) unless you raise the pressure above 1 atmosphere! There is nothing magic about water vapor -- it's just another gas, and it can exist at 1 atmosphere at any temperature above its boiling point. Increase its temperature while holding the pressure steady, and its density drops, that's all. Now, if you boil water in an /open/ boiler with a /submerged/ heating element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take a degree). The temperature of the steam in that case is pegged to the temperature of the water through which it must pass, and the temperature of the water is fixed at boiling, unless you close the boiler and raise the pressure. But in this case the heating element (the walls of the tube) is only submerged until the water boils. After that, the steam is in direct contact with the heating element, and no longer in close contact with liquid water, and there is nothing to keep its temperature from rising well above boiling. The geometry of the water jacket may be more complex than a simple tube but the same argument applies: Once the water has boiled away and the inner wall of the water jacket is in direct contact with the steam, the steam temperature is no longer fixed at boiling. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. Nope. It would just move faster out of the end of the hose, as I said. You have to raise the pressure to make the temperature go up. Sorry, that is completely wrong. Look, if it's moving faster out of the end of the hose, but it's the same number of moles of steam (which it *must* be, because the pumping rate is fixed), then the steam must be more spread out, right? It must be taking up more volume per mole. Volume coming out is the integral of the flow rate, flow rate is the speed of the steam times the area of the hose opening; ergo, if it's going faster, you've got a larger volume coming out. Pressure is fixed, number of moles are fixed, and the volume has increased. What's that tell us? PV = nRT; let's solve for T. T = PV/nR 'n' is fixed, 'R' is a constant, 'P' is fixed, 'V' has increased -- so the temperature has also increased. QED. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Jed is right, it is an open system and even if the surface of heating is at 300 C, the time of contact is short and the steam cannot be overheated much. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 02/09/2011 10:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. Nope. That's steam at 1 atm. It never gets any hotter than just above boiling. NO. Jed, I can't believe you're making this mistake! That's *exactly* like saying oxygen can't get any hotter than -183C (its boiling point) unless you raise the pressure above 1 atmosphere! There is nothing magic about water vapor -- it's just another gas, and it can exist at 1 atmosphere at any temperature above its boiling point. Increase its temperature while holding the pressure steady, and its density drops, that's all. Now, if you boil water in an *open* boiler with a *submerged* heating element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take a degree). The temperature of the steam in that case is pegged to the temperature of the water through which it must pass, and the temperature of the water is fixed at boiling, unless you close the boiler and raise the pressure. But in this case the heating element (the walls of the tube) is only submerged until the water boils. After that, the steam is in direct contact with the heating element, and no longer in close contact with liquid water, and there is nothing to keep its temperature from rising well above boiling. The geometry of the water jacket may be more complex than a simple tube but the same argument applies: Once the water has boiled away and the inner wall of the water jacket is in direct contact with the steam, the steam temperature is no longer fixed at boiling. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. Nope. It would just move faster out of the end of the hose, as I said. You have to raise the pressure to make the temperature go up. Sorry, that is completely wrong. Look, if it's moving faster out of the end of the hose, but it's the same number of moles of steam (which it *must* be, because the pumping rate is fixed), then the steam must be more spread out, right? It must be taking up more volume per mole. Volume coming out is the integral of the flow rate, flow rate is the speed of the steam times the area of the hose opening; ergo, if it's going faster, you've got a larger volume coming out. Pressure is fixed, number of moles are fixed, and the volume has increased. What's that tell us? PV = nRT; let's solve for T. T = PV/nR 'n' is fixed, 'R' is a constant, 'P' is fixed, 'V' has increased -- so the temperature has also increased. QED. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Now, if you boil water in an *open* boiler with a *submerged* heating element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take a degree). Exactly. And that's still how it works if you turn the pot sideways. That's what the Rossi and Hydrodynamics gadgets amount to: sideways open boilers. It makes difference whether the water is on top of the heater surface, or the heater surface is on top, or all around the water. For that matter, if you put the pot on the space shuttle, then the heater is neither on the top or bottom, but as long as the steam escapes immediately at 1 atm the steam temperature will not rise; the molecules merely move faster as the heating surface gets hotter. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Jed, did you actually read what I wrote? It sounds like you stopped after the first paragraph. On 02/09/2011 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Now, if you boil water in an /open/ boiler with a /submerged/ heating element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take a degree). Exactly. And that's still how it works if you turn the pot sideways. That's what the Rossi and Hydrodynamics gadgets amount to: sideways open boilers. It makes difference whether the water is on top of the heater surface, or the heater surface is on top, or all around the water. For that matter, if you put the pot on the space shuttle, then the heater is neither on the top or bottom, but as long as the steam escapes immediately at 1 atm the steam temperature will not rise; the molecules merely move faster as the heating surface gets hotter. What molecules move faster? The ones in the steam? The steam can NOT exit the tube going faster unless IT IS HOTTER. You've got a fixed flow rate in moles per minute, man -- doesn't that mean anything to you? Faster steam exit = larger volume of steam coming out. Repeat the mantra: Fixed number of moles, determined by the pump! Larger volume coming out = IT MUST BE HOTTER! PV = nRT, darnit, read the equation! You are proposing a physical impossibility, no matter what the boiler configuration, if you think you can just speed up the steam flow without increasing the water flow or increasing the temperature. Nature doesn't give a hoot about your preconceived notions of boilers; if the power level is above that needed to exactly boil away the water, and the pressure and flow rate are fixed, the water will boil off back far enough in the water jacket to allow the steam to contact the water jacket walls directly, and come out superheated. The only other possibility which conserves energy and water in the face of excess reactor power is to assume there's some other path for the reactor to dump heat by, and it's dumping just enough heat by that other path to keep the steam temperature down to boiling.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
I meant to say it makes NO difference whether the water is on top of the submerged heating element, or the heating element is on top of the water, or a joule heater in the water, or -- for that matter -- a laser hitting the water, or a Hydrodynamics gadget that imparts the energy with ultrasound. It makes no difference how much energy the source imparts to the water. As long as the pressure remains at 1 atm and the molecules intact, the temperature remains just over 100 deg C. The molecules just leave the pot or tube in a bigger hurry, imparting more kinetic energy to the air molecules they hit. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
I'm getting really tired of this. Peter, you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote. You don't seem to understand the fundamental point, which is that the rate of boil-off is being determined by the pump, with no feedback from the reactor. The flow rate is fixed and 100% of the water is boiled to steam. If the reactor were generating 10% more power than needed to exactly boil off the water, just where do you think that excess power would go? On 02/09/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Jed is right, it is an open system and even if the surface of heating is at 300 C, the time of contact is short and the steam cannot be overheated much. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 02/09/2011 10:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. Nope. That's steam at 1 atm. It never gets any hotter than just above boiling. NO. Jed, I can't believe you're making this mistake! That's *exactly* like saying oxygen can't get any hotter than -183C (its boiling point) unless you raise the pressure above 1 atmosphere! There is nothing magic about water vapor -- it's just another gas, and it can exist at 1 atmosphere at any temperature above its boiling point. Increase its temperature while holding the pressure steady, and its density drops, that's all. Now, if you boil water in an /open/ boiler with a /submerged/ heating element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take a degree). The temperature of the steam in that case is pegged to the temperature of the water through which it must pass, and the temperature of the water is fixed at boiling, unless you close the boiler and raise the pressure. But in this case the heating element (the walls of the tube) is only submerged until the water boils. After that, the steam is in direct contact with the heating element, and no longer in close contact with liquid water, and there is nothing to keep its temperature from rising well above boiling. The geometry of the water jacket may be more complex than a simple tube but the same argument applies: Once the water has boiled away and the inner wall of the water jacket is in direct contact with the steam, the steam temperature is no longer fixed at boiling. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. Nope. It would just move faster out of the end of the hose, as I said. You have to raise the pressure to make the temperature go up. Sorry, that is completely wrong. Look, if it's moving faster out of the end of the hose, but it's the same number of moles of steam (which it *must* be, because the pumping rate is fixed), then the steam must be more spread out, right? It must be taking up more volume per mole. Volume coming out is the integral of the flow rate, flow rate is the speed of the steam times the area of the hose opening; ergo, if it's going faster, you've got a larger volume coming out. Pressure is fixed, number of moles are fixed, and the volume has increased. What's that tell us? PV = nRT; let's solve for T. T = PV/nR 'n' is fixed, 'R' is a constant, 'P' is fixed, 'V' has increased -- so the temperature has also increased. QED. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
On 02/09/2011 11:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: I meant to say it makes NO difference whether the water is on top of the submerged heating element, or the heating element is on top of the water, or a joule heater in the water, or -- for that matter -- a laser hitting the water, or a Hydrodynamics gadget that imparts the energy with ultrasound. It makes no difference how much energy the source imparts to the water. As long as the pressure remains at 1 atm and the molecules intact, the temperature remains just over 100 deg C. The molecules just leave the pot or tube in a bigger hurry, imparting more kinetic energy to the air molecules they hit. Jed, have you ever heard of PV = nRT? There's no point in repeating what I've already said, you either are refusing to read it, or refusing to think about it, or you simply have no clue about physical chemistry or flow rates. I don't believe the last one, so it must be one of the first two -- you won't read it, or you won't think about it.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The steam can NOT exit the tube going faster unless IT IS HOTTER. You've got a fixed flow rate in moles per minute, man -- doesn't that mean anything to you? It isn't fixed at the outlet. It comes out as fast as it likes. Only the inlet rate is fixed. Let's turn it back vertically again. Suppose you have an open pot of boiling water. You pour make up water from the tap into a pot at a fixed rate. The steam might leave slowly in which case the pot will overflow, with hot water pouring out onto your stove. Or if the flame is hot enough, the water molecules spread out so that more water leaves until the pot boils dry. From then on, as soon as the make-up water falls into the pot, it flashes into steam. However, when you measure the steam temperature it is always just over 100 deg C. Lower the atmospheric pressure, and the temperature drops. The Rossi tube overflows at first, with water, then it spits out water and steam mixed together. It doesn't turn into dry steam until you reach a steady state like the pot boiled dry with new water flowing into it and flashing into steam. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
On 02/09/2011 11:58 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: The steam can NOT exit the tube going faster unless IT IS HOTTER. You've got a fixed flow rate in moles per minute, man -- doesn't that mean anything to you? It isn't fixed at the outlet. It comes out as fast as it likes. Only the inlet rate is fixed. Of course it's fixed at the output! What goes in comes out, and the flow rate, in *MOLES PER MINUTE*, is fixed!! It can come out faster than it goes in *for* *a* *short* *while*, duration determined by the size of the reactor's internal water reservoir. If the reactor's water reservoir is large enough to make a big difference then the whole test was garbage anyway: the calculations were based on the assumption that what came out was equal to what went in. Let's turn it back vertically again. Suppose you have an open pot of boiling water. You pour make up water from the tap into a pot at a fixed rate. The steam might leave slowly in which case the pot will overflow, with hot water pouring out onto your stove. Or if the flame is hot enough, the water molecules spread out so that more water leaves until the pot boils dry. From then on, as soon as the make-up water falls into the pot, it flashes into steam. However, when you measure the steam temperature it is always just over 100 deg C. Lower the atmospheric pressure, and the temperature drops. Your model is wrong. In an open, hot, dry pot, into which some water is being dribbled, most of the heat is being dumped as radiation and conduction to the air. A small fraction is coming out in the 100C steam. And it's at 100C because as soon as it turns to steam it moves away from the heating element, which is the bottom of the pot. In the Rossi device, if the calorimetry is worth anything, nearly all the heat is coming out in the steam. This is more like a kettle with a narrow neck than an open pot, and in a kettle which has been boiled dry, you sure can get steam at more than 100C, because the water vapor inside the kettle can't immediately get away from the heating element, which is the bottom and sides of the kettle. (And no, the pressure in a dry kettle doesn't go significantly above 1 atm. The narrow neck just restricts air exchange, so the steam must stick around for a while rather than immediately being convected away. It doesn't push the pressure up.) The Rossi tube overflows at first, with water, then it spits out water and steam mixed together. It doesn't turn into dry steam until you reach a steady state like the pot boiled dry with new water flowing into it and flashing into steam. And if the reactor is putting out an extra 500 watts over and above the amount to exactly vaporize the water, exactly *where* do you think that extra 500 watts is going? PV = nRT has not been repealed for the special case of the Rossi device.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
I have understood. I have even worked with many types of pumps, including those with constant, fixed flow, as in this case- the peristaltic pump.. Very probably the system works in this way- you have a core, very hot in the center of the device- Ni and H reacting in a metallic tube.. By external heating - with the input current a resistor heats the core to a temperature (350 C?) and the reaction is started. It releases heat and if this heat is not removed fast enough the core overheats and stops working. With sufficient cooling as in this case it works - probably the inner temperature oscillates in some limits. The entire quantity of cooling water is evaporated and a bit overheated. We don't know how the Ecat is controlled, probably the heat furnished by the resistor is automatically adjusted to the cooling load. Remember that Rossi told that he heat after death regime, zero input (after the start of reaction) can be dangerous. You can calculate the flow of water in non-evaporative hot water regime for this case approx 10-15 kW. The experiment had to be adjusted to what the Bologna University has, including practical experience with. Laboratory size peristaltic pumps yes greater gear pumps no. So they have decided to use the Ecat as a steam generator and not as a water heater. Now there are too many unknown unknowns- e.g. is the description of the device in the patent can be false in part, we don't know the effective section for the water flowing through the generator. And steam is high currency energy (it can be transformed in electrical energy) while hot water is considered low currency energy, ergo, it is better to work with steam. Plus the heat transfer surface is very hot. OK we can speculate a lot, we can try to demonstrate that the cell is not working, or it is not overunity with absolute certainty, or is collection of big bad IFs- but this seems contraproductive. Better wait and get more information. Waiting with empathy and expectation or with hostility and denial- personal choices. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I'm getting really tired of this. Peter, you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote. You don't seem to understand the fundamental point, which is that the rate of boil-off is being determined by the pump, with no feedback from the reactor. The flow rate is fixed and 100% of the water is boiled to steam. If the reactor were generating 10% more power than needed to exactly boil off the water, just where do you think that excess power would go? On 02/09/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Jed is right, it is an open system and even if the surface of heating is at 300 C, the time of contact is short and the steam cannot be overheated much. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.comwrote: On 02/09/2011 10:22 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: The energy produced was apparently *exactly* what was needed to boil away the input water -- no more, no less. And *that* is strange. Nope. That's steam at 1 atm. It never gets any hotter than just above boiling. NO. Jed, I can't believe you're making this mistake! That's *exactly* like saying oxygen can't get any hotter than -183C (its boiling point) unless you raise the pressure above 1 atmosphere! There is nothing magic about water vapor -- it's just another gas, and it can exist at 1 atmosphere at any temperature above its boiling point. Increase its temperature while holding the pressure steady, and its density drops, that's all. Now, if you boil water in an *open* boiler with a *submerged* heating element, the temperature of the steam will never go above 100C (give or take a degree). The temperature of the steam in that case is pegged to the temperature of the water through which it must pass, and the temperature of the water is fixed at boiling, unless you close the boiler and raise the pressure. But in this case the heating element (the walls of the tube) is only submerged until the water boils. After that, the steam is in direct contact with the heating element, and no longer in close contact with liquid water, and there is nothing to keep its temperature from rising well above boiling. The geometry of the water jacket may be more complex than a simple tube but the same argument applies: Once the water has boiled away and the inner wall of the water jacket is in direct contact with the steam, the steam temperature is no longer fixed at boiling. It comes out faster with more enthalpy if the pump adds more energy to it. THAT'S THE POINT! If the reactor produced even a few hundred watts more than what was needed to vaporize the water, the temperature of the steam would have been substantially higher than boiling. Nope. It would just move faster out of the end of the hose, as I said. You have to raise the pressure to make the temperature go
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Thank you for the clarification. My only point was that there was a coincidence in need of explaining: the power in and power out *seem* to be set independently and yet they match to a nicety. Your explanation of that coincidence, given below, is in rough agreement with Jones's, which is that there is (or could be) either explicit or implicit feedback to the reactor itself which is pinning the output temperature. Robin also speculated that that might be the case. That's reasonable, but again, I'd really like to see such an assertion from someone who knows. If it's true, then it has interesting implications of its own regarding the fine control it's possible to exercise over the reaction. The thing I find totally frustrating is that so many people on this list seem to feel that there is nothing here in need of explaining, because steam is just always magically at 100C. On 02/09/2011 12:52 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: I have understood. I have even worked with many types of pumps, including those with constant, fixed flow, as in this case- the peristaltic pump.. A nit: It's not a peristaltic pump, it's a constant displacement pump. The practical difference, as I understand it, is that the latter provides even more precise control over the flow rate. Very probably the system works in this way- you have a core, very hot in the center of the device- Ni and H reacting in a metallic tube.. By external heating - with the input current a resistor heats the core to a temperature (350 C?) and the reaction is started. It releases heat and if this heat is not removed fast enough the core overheats and stops working. Implicit negative feedback to the reaction. That's certainly possible, but if so, it would be nice if someone from the experimental team would state it as a fact. With sufficient cooling as in this case it works - probably the inner temperature oscillates in some limits. The entire quantity of cooling water is evaporated and a bit overheated. We don't know how the Ecat is controlled, probably the heat furnished by the resistor is automatically adjusted to the cooling load. Remember that Rossi told that he heat after death regime, zero input (after the start of reaction) can be dangerous.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Jones has explained the case better than me. It was a peristaltic pump, see Celani's report peristaltic pump, small size 10-20 W power I have used this type of pump for many liquids, including phosgene- so I noticed it immediately. The temperature of the steam was 101 C- and to be again personal when you are burned with it as I was twice, you don't feel the difference.. I hope to see a similar device, if my health permits I will visit Francesco Piantelli this summer and see his cells in action. Peter On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: Thank you for the clarification. My only point was that there was a coincidence in need of explaining: the power in and power out *seem* to be set independently and yet they match to a nicety. Your explanation of that coincidence, given below, is in rough agreement with Jones's, which is that there is (or could be) either explicit or implicit feedback to the reactor itself which is pinning the output temperature. Robin also speculated that that might be the case. That's reasonable, but again, I'd really like to see such an assertion from someone who knows. If it's true, then it has interesting implications of its own regarding the fine control it's possible to exercise over the reaction. The thing I find totally frustrating is that so many people on this list seem to feel that there is nothing here in need of explaining, because steam is just always magically at 100C. I hope to see a similar device, if my health permits I will visit Francesco Piantelli this summer and see his cells in action. On 02/09/2011 12:52 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: I have understood. I have even worked with many types of pumps, including those with constant, fixed flow, as in this case- the peristaltic pump.. A nit: It's not a peristaltic pump, it's a constant displacement pump. The practical difference, as I understand it, is that the latter provides even more precise control over the flow rate. Very probably the system works in this way- you have a core, very hot in the center of the device- Ni and H reacting in a metallic tube.. By external heating - with the input current a resistor heats the core to a temperature (350 C?) and the reaction is started. It releases heat and if this heat is not removed fast enough the core overheats and stops working. Implicit negative feedback to the reaction. That's certainly possible, but if so, it would be nice if someone from the experimental team would state it as a fact. With sufficient cooling as in this case it works - probably the inner temperature oscillates in some limits. The entire quantity of cooling water is evaporated and a bit overheated. We don't know how the Ecat is controlled, probably the heat furnished by the resistor is automatically adjusted to the cooling load. Remember that Rossi told that he heat after death regime, zero input (after the start of reaction) can be dangerous.
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
On 02/09/2011 02:28 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Jones has explained the case better than me. It was a peristaltic pump, see Celani's report peristaltic pump, small size 10-20 W power I have used this type of pump for many liquids, including phosgene- so I noticed it immediately. Interesting. Jed's report refers to, a plastic tube that runs to the yellow/black positive displacement pump that sits on table... In email to Vortex, Jed said, 30 seconds is how they quote the flow rate. It seems the pump setting is for 30 second intervals; i.e. 146 ml/30 s. In the video the pump makes a loud noise and sends a pulse of water every few seconds. I can understand just enough Italian that I think someone is saying that's the pump. A constant displacement pump grabs a precisely calibrated amount of water and sends it in a pulse, so you vary the flow by timing the pulses. Peristaltic pumps have a more even flow. That seems very clear to me. I was surprised that Celani says it was a peristaltic pump. Levi's report says nothing about the pump which I can find. [Peter wrote:] The temperature of the steam was 101 C- and to be again personal when you are burned with it as I was twice, you don't feel the difference.. I hope to see a similar device, if my health permits I will visit Francesco Piantelli this summer and see his cells in action. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
To be sincere, it is not essential if it was a peristaltic pump or a positive displacement pump as you can see here: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/positive-displacement-pumps-d_414.html By the way positive displacement is a generic concept peristaltic is a sub-category of it. Fiat voluntas tua! I am contented with the pump it made its job constantly sending some 13.5 liters of cold water per hour through the generator in a ~ pulsating style I am interested more in the nexte two demonstrations this year- Randy Mills\ CIHT technology and the Rossi Defkalion 1 MW generator. On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 02/09/2011 02:28 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: Jones has explained the case better than me. It was a peristaltic pump, see Celani's report peristaltic pump, small size 10-20 W power I have used this type of pump for many liquids, including phosgene- so I noticed it immediately. Interesting. Jed's report refers to, a plastic tube that runs to the yellow/black positive displacement pump that sits on table... In email to Vortex, Jed said, 30 seconds is how they quote the flow rate. It seems the pump setting is for 30 second intervals; i.e. 146 ml/30 s. In the video the pump makes a loud noise and sends a pulse of water every few seconds. I can understand just enough Italian that I think someone is saying that's the pump. A constant displacement pump grabs a precisely calibrated amount of water and sends it in a pulse, so you vary the flow by timing the pulses. Peristaltic pumps have a more even flow. That seems very clear to me. I was surprised that Celani says it was a peristaltic pump. Levi's report says nothing about the pump which I can find. [Peter wrote:] The temperature of the steam was 101 C- and to be again personal when you are burned with it as I was twice, you don't feel the difference.. I hope to see a similar device, if my health permits I will visit Francesco Piantelli this summer and see his cells in action. Peter
[Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08 Why didn't I see this, right in my face for three weeks? I really wanted the dream to be true, after 22 years... 3. If the flow rate measurement is accepted, and that could have been made much more definitive, then less than 1 kW is being produced by the reactor. This could easily be explained by a hydrogen reaction; combustion would require only a few tens of grams of hydrogen. Considering that the measurement of the hydrogen consumption was almost confounded by a piece of tape, hiding a 30-g change in 14 kg would not have been difficult. This makes more reasonable my suggestions that hidden heat sources may include H2 leaks leading to reaction with O2, Ni, Cu, Cr, Fe (stainless steel), as well as leaks leading to diversion of electric heating power from the resisters to heat the cooling water and any unexpected conductive paths from deposits from electrochemical corrosion, along with electrolysis of H2O into H2 and O2 -- a hidden witch's brew of complex processes at 100s of degrees C and 80 bar pressure for hours, days, weeks, months... It may well be that Rossi and Focardi and others involved have simply been mistaken. Rich Murray [H-Ni_Fusion] Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water fromjoshua.cude joshua.c...@yahoo.com reply-toh-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com to h-ni_fus...@yahoogroups.com dateTue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:15 AM subject [H-Ni_Fusion] Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water mailing listH-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.com 3:15 AM (6 hours ago) Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water * What is observed: The temperature of the output fluid begins at about 15C, and increases over a period of about 1/2 an hour to near 100C (101.6 is claimed), and then remains at that temperature for another 30 to 40 minutes. According to the figure in Levi's report, the *average* input power during the plateau was about 1 kW, not 400 W as has been frequently quoted. * What is claimed by Levi: Given the flow rate, and the temperature change, the amount of power transferred to the water before boiling at say 99C is about 1.2 kW. One minute later, when the temperature reads 101.6C, Levi claims the water is all being vaporized, meaning the power transferred is more than 10 kW. So, although it took 30 minutes to increase from zero to 1.2 kW, he expects us to believe it takes only one minute or so to increase 8-fold to 10 kW. When it reaches the necessary power transfer to vaporize all the water, the increase stops abruptly; 5% more power would increase the temperature of the steam by 60C. * Why it doesn't hold water: 1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is not believable. Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent more. How could the nickel know? No, the fact that the temperature becomes constant over a long time period should be taken as strong evidence that the phase change is not complete, and therefore that the actual power transfer is not known. 2. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water, assuming the flow rate is constant, is to increase the temperature of the conduit. Before boiling the power increases about 1 kW in 30 minutes, so you might expect an additional kW or so over the next 30 minutes, which on average would amount to less than 2 kW during the plateau. 3. In test 2, the temperature is not pinned at the plateau during the entire period, and in fact, about half-way through, briefly drops by a few degrees, suggesting that on the plateau, power is only slightly above the level needed to heat the water to boiling. Otherwise, if the power is really 10 kW just before and after this dip, then the power would have to decrease 8-fold and then increase 8-fold in a matter of minutes. The heat capacity of the conduit would make this impossible. * What would make 10 kW believable: If the power transfer to the water increases at a continuous rate, the output fluid temperature will increase to boiling over a time period, and then remain at (or near) boiling for about 7 times that time period, and then increase to higher temperatures. When the temperature increases substantially above boiling (110C), you can be reasonably sure that the steam is dry. So, to believe the 10 kW claim, the temperature should be increased to 110C or higher. If Levi's interpretation were correct, and all the water was converted to steam, then a slightly lower water flow would cause the temperature to increase rapidly. And yet, even though the flow rates in the two tests were quite different, the temperature was exactly the
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is not believable. Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent more. How could the nickel know? This is nonsense. Has this author ever made a pot of soup?!? When you adjust the flame, the water boils, stops boiling, and boils again abruptly. The transition is inherently abrupt but it is smoothed somewhat by latent heat in the metal of the pot, even though the specific heat of metal is 10 times lower than water. Furthermore, as the Rossi device or Hydrodynamics gadget approaches boiling, because water is pumped through it, a mixture of steam and boiling hot water comes out of it, so there is, in fact, an intermediate state. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08
On 02/08/2011 12:42 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com mailto:rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is not believable. Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent more. How could the nickel know? This is nonsense. Has this author ever made a pot of soup?!? When you adjust the flame, the water boils, stops boiling, and boils again abruptly. You are making the objector's point. When boiling water on the stove, the output flow rate is /not fixed./ It is determined /by the power level/, and that, in turn, determines the volume of steam produced. In short, the steam volume varies /in order to keep the output temperature at boiling./ In the experiment, the output flow rate was necessarily nailed to the input water flow rate, and that, in turn, was nailed by the constant displacement pump. There was no feedback from the applied power level to the input flow rate, and there is no apparent reason for the output temperature to hold steady at barely above boiling, as it did.
