Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Horace Heffner]

SLight correction made at end

On Oct 13, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


Hi Horace,
Sorry! I didn't mean to be a pest,


You are not a pest!



but I didn't even get an ACK that
indicated you had seen my post



Here you mean the following I assume?

Look at all the pictures of the heat-spreader inside the E-Cat, and  
tell me that the shape of the finned structure is a square and not  
a rectangle… Now, do you think that Lewan’s dimensions for that  
structure 30 x 30 x 30 are right?


-mark






(or personal email)



Sorry, I did not realize I got a personal email from you on this.   
There vas a [Vo] in the subject line, which routes it to my vortex-l  
in box.


I am way behind on both reading and posting.  There are lots of posts  
I flagged to respond to but did not get to because of time. If a  
subject is one which I have already dealt with and not posted or am  
dealing with in my survey I tend to just delay any response, because  
I can simply quote or refer to the section which deals with the  
issue. In this specific case I have been looking at photos and film  
to try to determine the dimensions. This is a lengthy process.


BTW, it appears to me the rectangular look of the finned structure is  
just a matter of perspective.  It looks more square from the top:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanEcatTop2.jpg

in this modified photo by Mat Lewans of NyTeknik.

The thing most bothersome to me is the lack of any reference item  
with which to pin down *actual dimensions*.




about this issue... next
time, if possible, just a quick note to indicate that you saw the  
post or
email and are working on it... for a trivial issue I wouldn't care,  
but this
definitely affects some of your calculations in your report, so I  
wanted to
be sure you at least saw that there might be an error in Mat's  
dimensions.


I was keenly aware of the problem and working on it. I saw no sense  
in disagreeing with your post, which I anticipated, until I had  
better data put together.





No Hurry... let us know when you've updated your report.

-Mark


Here is a preview based on this modified photo by Mat Lewans of  
NyTeknik:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanEcatTop2.jpg

All lengths below in pixels unless otherwise given.

The ratio of the magneta lines is 244/195 = 1.319.  The ratio of the  
red lines is 179/154 = 1.162.  This is due to perspective, assuming  
all the angles are right angles.


The mid-line width of the inside of the container box (magenta lines)  
is (195+244)/2 =219.5.  The mid-line width of the reactor box (red  
lines) is (179+154)/2 = 166.6 The ratio of the width of the box to  
the width of the reactor is 219.5/166.6 = 1.3145.  If the reactor is  
30 cm wide then the box interior is 1.3145*(30 cm) = 39.4 cm wide.  
This gives a mean sideways gap width of (39.4 cm - 30 cm)/2 = 4.7 cm.


The average length of the reactor (blue lines) is (155+154)/2 =154.5.  
The average length of the inside of the container box (orange lines)   
is (229+237)/2 = 233.  Adjusting the orange line lengths for  
perspective, we have a length of (1.162/1.319)*233 = 205. The ratio  
of length of the interior of the container to the reactor box is  
205/154.5 = 1.6181.  If the reactor length is 30 cm then the length  
of the box is 48.5 cm. This gives a mean lengthwise gap width of  
(48.5 cm - 30 cm)/2 = 9.25 cm.


Using a gap between the top of the reactor and the bottom of the lid  
of 3.5 cm, determined elsewhere, we have a container interior  
dimensions of 34.9 cm x 48.5 cm x 33.5 cm, for a volume of 56703 cm^3  
= 56.7 liters. The volume of the reactor box is (30 cm^3) = 27000  
cm^3 = 27 liters. T this we need to subtract the water spaces between  
the fins.


It looks like about (1/9)*30 cm = 3.3 cm is cooling fins. About 50%  
of the 3.3 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm = 3 liters should be water, giving a  
total finned structure volume of 27 liters - 3 liters = 24 liters.  
The net water occupiable volume of the box is thus 56.7 liters - 24  
liters = 32.7 liters.  This volume should be reduced some for the  
many bolt heads that bolt the reactor case to the box, or bolt the  
reactor case together.  Rossi stated in his blog that this internal  
volume is 30 liters. The measurements estimated for the device based  
on a 30 cm^3 reactor appear to be roughly inconsistent with Rossie’s  
statement. It is of course important to obtain accurate measurements  
of these values to make consistent sense of the data.







-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Mark,

I am working on getting better or confirming estimates.  I am also
working on multiple other things at the moment so please be patient.

[snip]





Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 13, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


Hi Horace,
Sorry! I didn't mean to be a pest,


You are not a pest!



but I didn't even get an ACK that
indicated you had seen my post



Here you mean the following I assume?

Look at all the pictures of the heat-spreader inside the E-Cat, and  
tell me that the shape of the finned structure is a square and not  
a rectangle… Now, do you think that Lewan’s dimensions for that  
structure 30 x 30 x 30 are right?


-mark






(or personal email)



Sorry, I did not realize I got a personal email from you on this.   
There vas a [Vo] in the subject line, which routes it to my vortex-l  
in box.


I am way behind on both reading and posting.  There are lots of posts  
I flagged to respond to but did not get to because of time. If a  
subject is one which I have already dealt with and not posted or am  
dealing with in my survey I tend to just delay any response, because  
I can simply quote or refer to the section which deals with the  
issue. In this specific case I have been looking at photos and film  
to try to determine the dimensions. This is a lengthy process.


BTW, it appears to me the rectangular look of the finned structure is  
just a matter of perspective.  It looks more square from the top:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanEcatTop2.jpg

in this modified photo by Mat Lewans of NyTeknik.

The thing most bothersome to me is the lack of any reference item  
with which to pin down *actual dimensions*.




about this issue... next
time, if possible, just a quick note to indicate that you saw the  
post or
email and are working on it... for a trivial issue I wouldn't care,  
but this
definitely affects some of your calculations in your report, so I  
wanted to
be sure you at least saw that there might be an error in Mat's  
dimensions.


I was keenly aware of the problem and working on it. I saw no sense  
in disagreeing with your post, which I anticipated, until I had  
better data put together.





No Hurry... let us know when you've updated your report.

-Mark


Here is a preview based on this modified photo by Mat Lewans of  
NyTeknik:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanEcatTop2.jpg

All lengths below in pixels unless otherwise given.

The ratio of the magneta lines is 244/195 = 1.319.  The ratio of the  
red lines is 179/154 = 1.162.  This is due to perspective, assuming  
all the angles are right angles.


The mid-line width of the inside of the container box (magenta lines)  
is (195+244)/2 =219.5.  The mid-line width of the reactor box (red  
lines) is (179+154)/2 = 166.6 The ratio of the width of the box to  
the width of the reactor is 219.5/166.6 = 1.3145.  If the reactor is  
30 cm wide then the box interior is 1.3145*(30 cm) = 39.4 cm wide.  
This gives a mean sideways gap width of (39.4 cm - 30 cm)/2 = 4.7 cm.


The average length of the reactor (blue lines) is (155+154)/2 =154.5.  
The average length of the inside of the container box (orange lines)   
is (229+237)/2 = 233.  Adjusting the orange line lengths for  
perspective, we have a length of (1.162/1.319)*233 = 205. The ratio  
of length of the interior of the container to the reactor box is  
205/154.5 = 1.6181.  If the reactor length is 30 cm then the length  
of the box is 48.5 cm. This gives a mean lengthwise gap width of  
(48.5 cm - 30 cm)/2 = 9.25 cm.


Using a gap between the top of the reactor and the bottom of the lid  
of 3.5 cm, determined elsewhere, we have a container interior  
dimensions of 34.9 cm x 48.5 cm x 33.5 cm, for a volume of 56703 cm^3  
= 56.7 liters. The volume of the reactor box is (30 cm^3) = 27000  
cm^3 = 27 liters. T this we need to subtract the water spaces between  
the fins.


It looks like about (1/9)*30 cm = 3.3 cm is cooling fins. About 50%  
of the 3.3 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm = 3 liters should be water, giving a  
total finned structure volume of 27 liters - 3 liters = 24 liters.  
The net water occupiable volume of the box is thus 56.7 liters - 27  
liters = 29.7 liters. Rossi stated in his blog that this value is 30  
liters. The measurements estimated for the device based on a 30 cm^3  
reactor appear to be inconsistent with Rossie’s statement. It is of  
course important to obtain accurate measurements of these values to  
make consistent sense of the data.







-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Mark,

I am working on getting better or confirming estimates.  I am also
working on multiple other things at the moment so please be patient.

[snip]





Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Hi Horace,
Sorry! I didn't mean to be a pest, but I didn't even get an ACK that
indicated you had seen my post (or personal email) about this issue... next
time, if possible, just a quick note to indicate that you saw the post or
email and are working on it... for a trivial issue I wouldn't care, but this
definitely affects some of your calculations in your report, so I wanted to
be sure you at least saw that there might be an error in Mat's dimensions.

No Hurry... let us know when you've updated your report.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Mark,

I am working on getting better or confirming estimates.  I am also  
working on multiple other things at the moment so please be patient.  

[snip]

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 13, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


At 05:58 PM 10/13/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:

It does not appear there are any fins on the bottom of the reactor
housing.


My confidential observer said that there ARE fins on the bottom.

I pleaded with him to get photos of everything WITH a ruler   
but here we are again pixel-peeping!


Anyway, I don't think the eCat body is a problem.


I don't understand what "Anyway, I don't think the eCat body is a  
problem." means.  For sure it is necessary to determine the sizes of  
the reactor and the interior compartment to put good limits on the  
interior water volume.


Here are some photos by Mats Lewan of NyTeknik:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanEcatFront.jpg

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanEcatTop.jpg

From the top view pipe entry points it seems clear the reactor  
compartment is, if not bolted to the floor of the outer container,  
very close to the bottom.  Considering the location of the entry  
pipes on the exterior front, there does not appear to be room for fins.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Horace Heffner]

On Oct 13, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote:


I think the "resistor network" and finite element approaches discussed
below are a great track for understanding the possible magnitude of  
the

Tout error.  The big uncertainty is the pipe thread.  It may take
experiments to estimate the thermal resistance across the pipe  
thread -

particularly if it is NPT instead of NPTF because NPT will require
Teflon tape to seal which would provide greater thermal isolation  
of the

outlet pipe.

Can anyone discern the thread type or whether Teflon tape has been  
used?


Bob Higgins


Hi Bob,

The use of teflon tape may be important, but there may be issues with  
larger effects involved. There may have been electrician's tape  
between the thermocouple and the steel nut. Note the tape still  
present after the thermocouple is removed:


http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg

I do not know to whom the credit goes for the photos referenced here.  
Possibly Mats Lewan.


It appeared in one video that Rossi pulled on that wire quickly and  
firmly when unwrapping the heat exchanger. Sorry I don't know which  
video right now, but it might be the one in Italian.  It was very  
fast and at the end of a clip, so difficult to determine exactly what  
happened. In a later photo it appeared the wire was bent, not taught,  
between the end tape and the tape on the nut.  See:


http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg

It also appeared the wire segment after the end tape was long enough  
to locate at least part of the Tout thermocouple out in the air  
between the nut and the brass manifold edge.  See:


http://www.redmatica.com/media/Thermo2.jpg

It appears to me there is enough room for the sensor to extend out  
over the top of the big steel nut.  You might have to blow up the  
section next to the red arrow to see the sensor tip.


It is unfortunate there are not photos of the Tout location prior to  
wrapping with insulation.


If the tip extended out into the air pocket under the insulation,  
then it was exposed to the temperature on the edge of the big brass  
manifold, or possibly even touched it.


All this uncertainty obviously could have been avoided if the  
thermocouple had been located a few cm down the hose away from the  
heat exchanger, preferably in a protective well exposed to the water.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 05:58 PM 10/13/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:

It does not appear there are any fins on the bottom of the reactor
housing.


My confidential observer said that there ARE fins on the bottom.

I pleaded with him to get photos of everything WITH a ruler  but 
here we are again pixel-peeping!


Anyway, I don't think the eCat body is a problem. 

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Horace Heffner]

A belated welcome to Bob Higgins and all the other newcomers brought  
here by the Rossi extravaganza.



On Oct 13, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


Hi Bob,

Having some basic dimensioning (height, width, length, etc.) would  
have been
helpful for many of the analyses done to date, however, at this  
late stage
it probably isn't much needed.  I am still trying to get Horace to  
read my
articles about the dimensions of the spreader, since Lewan's 30x30  
must be

an error, ...

[snip]

Mark,

I am working on getting better or confirming estimates.  I am also  
working on multiple other things at the moment so please be patient.  
The 30 x 30 x 30 cm numbers are indeed just rough estimates provided  
to Mats Lewan, not measurements.  I have not found anything yet that  
permits accurate scale determination for the photos I have, in any  
photos or video video frames.  I'll post an analysis of multiple  
photos soon.  Here I provide evidence the T2 probe comes down right  
on the side of the fins. The probe may actually rest on the  
horizontal extension where the reactor housing is bolted to the  
bottom of the E-cat housing.


Here is a Mats Lewan photo with some pixel length measurements  
superimposed:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/lewan_bw.jpg

It is not clear which way the top bolts onto the box.  It turns out  
it does not matter. The T is located a relative distance of 59 px /  
296 px =  0.1993 from the edge of the top (see yellow lines with  
black numbers.)  Lengthwise (see blue lines) the relative distance of  
the fin edges is 49 px/ 246 px = 0.1992.  In the width direction (see  
brown lines) the relative distance is 81 px / 405 px = 0.020.


It appears from various analyses the fin tops are located between 3  
and 4 cm below the bottom of the top cover.  The probe itself is very  
long (see below).


It does not appear there are any fins on the bottom of the reactor  
housing.


For convenience, my earlier comments regarding the T2 probe follow:

POSSIBLE SYTEMATIC THERMOMETRY ERRORS

Regarding the T2 probe, examine the two photos to the right of this  
article:


http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece

The top one shows the E-cat with the T2 thermocouple probe inserted  
down through the T fitting located on top. The second photo shows  
the  E-cat without insulation and the cover removed.  The T fitting  
can clearly be seen.  The top of the cooling fins almost reach the  
bottom of the lid when it is on.  The long probe may be resting on  
the cooling fins when it is in the fitting.


A careful analysis of the photo shows the center of the T fitting  
located right at the edge of the fin location. The probe should thus  
touch the fins or even the base of the reactor structure where it is  
bolted to the bottom of the E-cat.


The length of the probe can be seen in Steve Krivit’s New Energy  
Times photos here:


http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/ 
AndreaRossiEnergyCatalyzerPhotoGallery-June.shtml


more specifically here:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/img/June2011/DSC_0025- 
BlueBox.JPG


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Higgins Bob-CBH003]

I think the "resistor network" and finite element approaches discussed
below are a great track for understanding the possible magnitude of the
Tout error.  The big uncertainty is the pipe thread.  It may take
experiments to estimate the thermal resistance across the pipe thread -
particularly if it is NPT instead of NPTF because NPT will require
Teflon tape to seal which would provide greater thermal isolation of the
outlet pipe. 

Can anyone discern the thread type or whether Teflon tape has been used?

Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

At 03:26 PM 10/13/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote:
>Hi Mark,
>
>I will consider such a drawing.  However, the present diagram is not
>geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the
>cross-section so as to highlight the fins.  What is needed is a proper
>drawing from the pictures.  I just don't know what useful insight would
>be obtained from spending the time on that.

I don't think anything's to gain.   The only thing I'd change is to 
mark the pressure regulator as speculative.

>I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of
>the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the
>heat flow.  It is my contention, that because of the high secondary
>flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a
>significant error temperature rise in Tout.  This is because the heat
>conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel
>along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an
>inch through a cross-section of about 1/4".  The secondary water tube
in
>that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the
high
>flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in
that
>water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway.

I started on that : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg
(but misunderstood the "nut" that my observer said the thermocouple 
was connected to -- so I didn't draw the attached pipe segments).

See (eg) my 2-resistor models at
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52539.html
(Horace Heffner first suggested the resistor model, but I used it in 
a different way).

21-resistor model
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52547.html

He gave me some clear pictures of the manifold :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg


>Regards, Bob Higgins


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3949 - Release Date: 10/13/11

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Higgins Bob-CBH003
 wrote:
> At this point, I can only say that my involvement is personal.  I was
> around in those Patterson days and was part of a panel that considered
> Motorola's involvement.  Unfortunately, I am one of the few from that
> group that is still with the company.  Patterson really didn't want
> Motorola's investment - he wanted a bigger share in what he developed.
> Unfortunately, he passed away soon after the recipe was lost, and I
> don't think it was ever found again by his son.  Patterson Sr. was a
> very senior chemist, but I don't believe his son, who continued CETI was
> (a chemist).
>
> I hope one day I can have Motorola involved in this technology.  It has
> a huge upside potential and I think Motorola could bring a lot to the
> productization.

Thanks for your candid response, Bob.  Seems Rossi suffers from some
of the same impediments as Dr. Patterson.

I had the pleasure of knowing another Bob who was in charge of the Bat
Wings when I began my career in the Communications Division in 1977 as
a Motorola Systems Engineer in Atlanta.

I have been an advocate of Cold Fusion since I read the article in the
Wall Street Journal in 1989 with a brief hiatus that was corrected by
a wonderful man by the name of Chris Tinsley.

I was thrilled when an insider informed me of Motorola's interest in
CF and devastated when it fell apart.

Again, welcome and hang around for what appears to be a great ride!
You won't find a more knowledgeable group anywhere else.

T

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Hi Bob,

Having some basic dimensioning (height, width, length, etc.) would have been
helpful for many of the analyses done to date, however, at this late stage
it probably isn't much needed.  I am still trying to get Horace to read my
articles about the dimensions of the spreader, since Lewan's 30x30 must be
an error, and that would significantly affect his volume calculations.  Sent
them to Jed as well via personal email...

Can you please elaborate more on your second point that the 120C steam
coming into the external heat exchanger is not affecting the Tout
thermocouple... did you do some calcs, or is this a gut feeling, and if the
latter, is it from considerable experience with heat-flows?  You realize
that Tout is a key variable which we'd really like to feel more confident
about...

Thanks,
-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 [mailto:bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 3:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Hi Mark,

I will consider such a drawing.  However, the present diagram is not
geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the
cross-section so as to highlight the fins.  What is needed is a proper
drawing from the pictures.  I just don't know what useful insight would
be obtained from spending the time on that.  

I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of
the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the
heat flow.  It is my contention, that because of the high secondary
flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a
significant error temperature rise in Tout.  This is because the heat
conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel
along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an
inch through a cross-section of about 1/4".  The secondary water tube in
that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the high
flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in that
water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway.

Regards, Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Hi Bob,
I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses
and
diagrams...

I know you say the diagram is only meant to help visualize things, but
from
what I've read and seen, it seems pretty accurate; not sure about the
pressure limiter. I think the water inlet is on the bottom... 

I'd like to make reference to the assembly which basically 'sandwiches'
the
reactor core between identical layers of shielding and heat spreaders,
both
on top and underneath. We never see this assembly removed, so the only
way
we know what's underneath the top spreader is from comments made by
Rossi;
and what you've drawn is the image that I had in mind.

I'd like to suggest that you look again at all available pics or videos
which have the lid off, and look at the clearance between the spreader
and
the 4 walls.  It sure seems to me that there is a consistent ~3cm gap
between the heat spreader and the walls, which would make it rectangular
and
not the square 30cm x 30cm dimensions that Mats Lewan has reported.

One request:  could you add some measurement dimensions (in cm) to the
diagram?

Much appreciate your efforts!
-Mark

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 03:26 PM 10/13/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote:

Hi Mark,

I will consider such a drawing.  However, the present diagram is not
geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the
cross-section so as to highlight the fins.  What is needed is a proper
drawing from the pictures.  I just don't know what useful insight would
be obtained from spending the time on that.


I don't think anything's to gain.   The only thing I'd change is to 
mark the pressure regulator as speculative.



I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of
the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the
heat flow.  It is my contention, that because of the high secondary
flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a
significant error temperature rise in Tout.  This is because the heat
conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel
along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an
inch through a cross-section of about 1/4".  The secondary water tube in
that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the high
flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in that
water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway.


I started on that : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg
(but misunderstood the "nut" that my observer said the thermocouple 
was connected to -- so I didn't draw the attached pipe segments).


See (eg) my 2-resistor models at
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52539.html
(Horace Heffner first suggested the resistor model, but I used it in 
a different way).


21-resistor model
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52547.html

He gave me some clear pictures of the manifold :
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg
http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg



Regards, Bob Higgins

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Higgins Bob-CBH003]

At this point, I can only say that my involvement is personal.  I was
around in those Patterson days and was part of a panel that considered
Motorola's involvement.  Unfortunately, I am one of the few from that
group that is still with the company.  Patterson really didn't want
Motorola's investment - he wanted a bigger share in what he developed.
Unfortunately, he passed away soon after the recipe was lost, and I
don't think it was ever found again by his son.  Patterson Sr. was a
very senior chemist, but I don't believe his son, who continued CETI was
(a chemist).

I hope one day I can have Motorola involved in this technology.  It has
a huge upside potential and I think Motorola could bring a lot to the
productization.

Regards, Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 5:38 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
 wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses
and
> diagrams...

Yes!  Welcome to Vortex, Bob.

I'm curious.  At one time it was rumored that Motorola was interested
in the CETI cold fusion power cell.  Unfortunately, Dr. Patterson was
unable to replicate the manufacturing process when he ran out of those
miraculous beads.

Is your interest in the Rossi Reaction strictly personal or
professional?  "Can't say," is a valid answer.  :-)

T


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3949 - Release Date: 10/13/11

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Higgins Bob-CBH003]

Hi Mark,

I will consider such a drawing.  However, the present diagram is not
geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the
cross-section so as to highlight the fins.  What is needed is a proper
drawing from the pictures.  I just don't know what useful insight would
be obtained from spending the time on that.  

I think it would be more useful to draw a speculative cross-section of
the headers of the heat exchanger to have a proper discussion of the
heat flow.  It is my contention, that because of the high secondary
flow, that the heat from even primary hot water would not cause a
significant error temperature rise in Tout.  This is because the heat
conducted through the brass from the primary input would have to travel
along the brass shell past the flowing secondary water for at least an
inch through a cross-section of about 1/4".  The secondary water tube in
that section can be considered nearly a perfect sink because of the high
flow, and almost all of the heat from the primary will terminate in that
water - which is where it is supposed to terminate anyway.

Regards, Bob Higgins

-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:53 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Hi Bob,
I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses
and
diagrams...

I know you say the diagram is only meant to help visualize things, but
from
what I've read and seen, it seems pretty accurate; not sure about the
pressure limiter. I think the water inlet is on the bottom... 

I'd like to make reference to the assembly which basically 'sandwiches'
the
reactor core between identical layers of shielding and heat spreaders,
both
on top and underneath. We never see this assembly removed, so the only
way
we know what's underneath the top spreader is from comments made by
Rossi;
and what you've drawn is the image that I had in mind.

I'd like to suggest that you look again at all available pics or videos
which have the lid off, and look at the clearance between the spreader
and
the 4 walls.  It sure seems to me that there is a consistent ~3cm gap
between the heat spreader and the walls, which would make it rectangular
and
not the square 30cm x 30cm dimensions that Mats Lewan has reported.

One request:  could you add some measurement dimensions (in cm) to the
diagram?

Much appreciate your efforts!
-Mark

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Terry Blanton]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
 wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses and
> diagrams...

Yes!  Welcome to Vortex, Bob.

I'm curious.  At one time it was rumored that Motorola was interested
in the CETI cold fusion power cell.  Unfortunately, Dr. Patterson was
unable to replicate the manufacturing process when he ran out of those
miraculous beads.

Is your interest in the Rossi Reaction strictly personal or
professional?  "Can't say," is a valid answer.  :-)

T

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Hi Bob,
I think all us Vorts appreciate the time you've put into the analyses and
diagrams...

I know you say the diagram is only meant to help visualize things, but from
what I've read and seen, it seems pretty accurate; not sure about the
pressure limiter. I think the water inlet is on the bottom... 

I'd like to make reference to the assembly which basically 'sandwiches' the
reactor core between identical layers of shielding and heat spreaders, both
on top and underneath. We never see this assembly removed, so the only way
we know what's underneath the top spreader is from comments made by Rossi;
and what you've drawn is the image that I had in mind.

I'd like to suggest that you look again at all available pics or videos
which have the lid off, and look at the clearance between the spreader and
the 4 walls.  It sure seems to me that there is a consistent ~3cm gap
between the heat spreader and the walls, which would make it rectangular and
not the square 30cm x 30cm dimensions that Mats Lewan has reported.

One request:  could you add some measurement dimensions (in cm) to the
diagram?

Much appreciate your efforts!
-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 [mailto:bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

The drawing I included is only meant to be a diagrammatic/schematic
representation to help understand the quantities being considered.

Regards,  Bob Higgins
 
-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

However, I'm not sure if he's got the dimensions of the heat spreaders
correct.

>From all the pics of the fat-cat open, the heat spreader fins look to
have a
uniform ~3cm clearance from the 4 walls.  In Higgins' drawing, he shows
the
heat spreaders having a much larger clearance on one side... I do not
think
that is accurate.

-mark


-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat...

-mark

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:32 PM 10/13/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote:

The drawing I included is only meant to be a diagrammatic/schematic
representation to help understand the quantities being considered.


Welcome to vortex 

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:19 PM 10/13/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:

Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat...


He offered me a higher-res version, if anyone wants it.  

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Higgins Bob-CBH003]

The drawing I included is only meant to be a diagrammatic/schematic
representation to help understand the quantities being considered.

Regards,  Bob Higgins
 
-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:27 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

However, I'm not sure if he's got the dimensions of the heat spreaders
correct.

>From all the pics of the fat-cat open, the heat spreader fins look to
have a
uniform ~3cm clearance from the 4 walls.  In Higgins' drawing, he shows
the
heat spreaders having a much larger clearance on one side... I do not
think
that is accurate.

-mark


-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat...

-mark

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

However, I'm not sure if he's got the dimensions of the heat spreaders
correct.

>From all the pics of the fat-cat open, the heat spreader fins look to have a
uniform ~3cm clearance from the 4 walls.  In Higgins' drawing, he shows the
heat spreaders having a much larger clearance on one side... I do not think
that is accurate.

-mark


-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] 
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 1:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat...

-mark

RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Mr. Higgins did a fantastic diagram of the fat-cat...

-mark

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 01:03 PM 10/13/2011, Robert Lynn wrote:
Obviously a lot of effort went into this.  I am 
curious, where did the information about the 1 
bar pressure regulator in the outlet come 
from?  How does that talley with the 124°C 
temperature that was recorded at 15:58, given 
that 124°C implies a pressure (saturated steam) 
of 2.25bar absoulute (1.25bar guage)


I don't know (and out of time) -- I think it's a 
guess to explain why the output is intermittent.


I'm going with the idea that the T2 120C 
measurement is due to the probe being too close 
to (and maybe even touching) the core or heat fins. 

Re: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins

[Robert Lynn]

Obviously a lot of effort went into this.  I am curious, where did the
information about the 1 bar pressure regulator in the outlet come from?  How
does that talley with the 124°C temperature that was recorded at 15:58,
given that 124°C implies a pressure (saturated steam) of 2.25bar absoulute
(1.25bar guage)

On 13 October 2011 18:25, Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

> Bob Higgins of Motorola Solutions did an analysis which he sent to Mats
> Lewans, who copied it to me and a couple of others on Vortex.
>
> Hello Mr. Lewan,
>
> I am enclosing my spreadsheet analysis of the data you published for Ing.
> Rossi’s October 6 test at U. of Bologna of his E-cat.  In this analysis, I
> tried to incorporate reported items such as water leakage, heat loss through
> the insulation, difference in source water temperature and the water
> temperature of Tin, and the final energy stored in the E-cat when the
> experiment was terminated.  If you have the occasion to look through this
> analysis, I would appreciate hearing of anything you find that may not be
> consistent with your observation as a first hand witness to the test.  You
> are welcome to share this with others that may also be able to evaluate the
> analysis for missing features or wrong calculations.
>
> We considered the possibility of contamination of the Tout by the hot
> water/steam of the heat exchanger primary input.  However, because the
> secondary water was flowing up out of the secondary outlet and out of the
> brass header, and the contamination primary heat would have to pass this
> water to reach the thermocouple, and because the flow rate was high in the
> secondary, heat from the primary inlet would quickly be diverted into the
> secondary outlet water.  Thus, very little of this contamination heat would
> make it to the thermocouple and cause temperature error - we regarded it as
> a possible minor second order error.  If you draw a cross-section picture of
> this pipe and the flowing water, you can see how possible contamination heat
> from the primary inlet would likely terminate in the secondary outlet water
> long before reaching the thermocouple.
>
> I would agree with everyone else that there was much that could have been
> improved the experiment, but the real point now it to understand the data we
> have and determine what information that can be derived from it with
> confidence.
>
> It is interesting now how the skeptical criticism on the net seems to be
> switching from “doesn’t work at all” to “doesn’t work with acceptable
> commercial COP”.  Are the skeptics now convinced there was large scale
> excess energy?  In and of itself, this is a physics shattering breakthrough.
>  It is clear from the data that the COP would have been much higher if the
> test had been run for a longer period.  I am personally excited by the
> results and data from the experiment.
>
> Thanks to Ing. Rossi for hosting the experiment – he was under obligation
> to no one to do the experiment - and to you for reporting the data.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Higgins
> Motorola Solutions
>
> I suggested he subscribe to vortex, but meanwhile ...
>
> He sent a very large spreadsheet, with a couple of interesting diagrams /
> plots.
>
> I've put some of them (with permission) in my initial draft report
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_**ecat_oct11_a.php
>
> I extracted and annotated a couple of pictures from his spreadsheet :
>
> a) a very nice schematic diagram of the fat-cat.
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111012_bh_plots0002.png
> (He shows a pressure regulator at the outlet ... I don't know if this is a
> guess or new information!)
>
> b) Another data plot and comments
> http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111012_bh_plots0001.png
>
> Initially, heat is stored in the E-cat as it is filled with water and the
> water is being heated.  This energy is accounted a lumped addition at the
> end.
> When E-cat fills at about 173 min into the experiment, steam is not yet
> formed and liquid spills into heat exchanger and there is measurable
> heat exchanger output.  Some of the stored energy in E-cat is being quickly
> lost into the heat exchanger as the liquid water carries out heat
> quickly.  This causes the spike seen just after 173 min.
> At 185 minutes, steam begins to form (crosses 100C) and by 200 minutes the
> steam is 110C which corresponds to about .6 bar pressure (AJF : over
> atmospheric -- 1.6 total).
> At 220 minutes, the steam reaches about 120C which is about 1 bar of
> pressure (over ambient) and the output is probably mostly steam.
> At 350 minutes, the steam is down to about 116C which may make it oscillate
> in the pressure valve:  valve closes, pressure builds up,
> valve opens and outputs a burst of steam, valve closes.  The data is too
> coarse to show this possible temperature/pressure oscillatio