Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Michele Comitini wrote: As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. A water tank where to put outgoing water and get volume by measuring height. I don't think he would have many more problems with mass/volume water in liquid phase than he has with steam... At high power a tank fills up quickly. You have to keep measuring it and dumping it. You could not do this for a test lasting hours or days. You might take a sample every hour and extrapolate. In most case the flow rate will remain fairly stable. But this is not a good method. (There's that Japanese word again! This would be iikagen.) You need a flow meter to do this right. In the 18-hour test they reportedly did use a flow meter. I asked them what make and model. They never responded so I did not include this detail in my description. It is annoying that they did not respond. They reportedly used a conventional, off-the-shelf analog meter such as the water meter at your house. These things cost ~$50 and they are perfectly suited to this flow rate and volume. If they had just provided a few more solid details such as the make and model of the flow meter, the exact temperature of the tap water, and a graph of the inlet and outlet temperatures, the 18-hour test report would be a lot more convincing. I asked for more information, but only once or twice. I did not press the issue. As I see it, it is not my job to make their case for them. If they don't want to publish a convincing account of their work, that's their problem, not mine. I am pleased to assist people writing and editing papers when they ask me to. But LENR-CANR.org is a library, not a journal. I do not take sides. I do not endorse claims. I am as neutral as I can bring myself to be. LENR-CANR is nothing like Krivit's New Energy Times where he campaigns in favor of a theory or tries to make researchers he disagrees with such as McKubre look bad, with preposterous accusations. There are several researchers in this field that I personally think are nitwits. A few I suspect may be liars, and one or two seem to have a screw loose. But I would not name names or make accusations. I guess if I suspected Rossi and Levi are lying I would not upload the data from their tests. I would upload whatever papers they provide and let the reader decide. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
2011/7/29 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. You need a flow meter to do this right. In the 18-hour test they reportedly did use a flow meter. I asked them what make and model. They never responded so I did not include this detail in my description. Flow meters have to be reliable: don't we all trust the gas pump? ... do we? ;-) mic
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Michele Comitini wrote: You need a flow meter to do this right. In the 18-hour test they reportedly did use a flow meter. I asked them what make and model. They never responded so I did not include this detail in my description. Flow meters have to be reliable: don't we all trust the gas pump? ... do we? ;-) Sure, the ones used for gas pumps and to water meters are especially reliable. In a test of several kilowatts you can use one of the latter and it should not be problem. The type I referred to as being a pain in the butt are laboratory grade high precision ones that typically measure less than 1 L/m. They produce good data but they frequently clog up and you have to monitor them. I may have uploaded this before, but here is a handy guide to laboratory grade flowmeters: http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=SelectingFlowmeter1.htm http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=SelectingFlowmeter2.htm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
On Jul 29, 2011 12:29 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: As I said, my feeling is that he prefers steam because it proves the thing works at high temperature. Also, it is a little more convenient to work with. The flow of water is lower and you can use a weight scale instead of a flow meter. As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. A water tank where to put outgoing water and get volume by measuring height. I don't think he would have many more problems with mass/volume water in liquid phase than he has with steam... of course the shape of the tank does not need to be more complex than a rectangular cuboid. Simplest way to do convincing demonstration is to recycle large enough volume of water, so that inlet water is pumped from the water tank and outlet will lead back to the same tank. Then it needs only to observe rising temperature. If Rossi wants to do really convincing demonstration he would take medium sized swimming pool and heat that water to boiling point in 8 hours. As we here see how trivial it is to setup absolutely convincing demonstration, then we have only one option left that Rossi does not want to do such thing! At least not before October. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
The difference between 4.4KW and 0.8KW was not visual, the former didn't seem to put much more steam. The difference was more in the intervals between bubbling noises. They seem to scale inversely linearly with the power.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Simplest way to do convincing demonstration is to recycle large enough volume of water, so that inlet water is pumped from the water tank and outlet will lead back to the same tank. Then it needs only to observe rising temperature. If Rossi wants to do really convincing demonstration he would take medium sized swimming pool and heat that water to boiling point in 8 hours. This is very similar to the experiments that Focardi says, in a few interviews, he had taken since 2007 to be convinced of existence of Rossi's Effect before taking the decision of becoming Rossi's consultant. Actually, as I understand, they put the reactor in a water tank and see the water start boiling in a very short time, then they used other setup with higher steam pressure. As we here see how trivial it is to setup absolutely convincing demonstration, then we have only one option left that Rossi does not want to do such thing! At least not before October. The question here is *WHY* he would not want to make such experiment? mic
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Michele Comitini wrote: As we here see how trivial it is to setup absolutely convincing demonstration, then we have only one option left that Rossi does not want to do such thing! At least not before October. The question here is *WHY* he would not want to make such experiment? Rossi has done this experiment, and so have others. He may be doing this kind of experiment now, for all anyone knows. The question is: *WHY* does he not want to have an expert do this and then publish a detailed, authoritative report? To put it another way, why does he insist on holding demonstrations only, and no more tests? He is adamant about this. He told me this is because he does not have enough time to do tests. Perhaps that is true, but he has spent a few hours doing demonstrations for Krivit and others. In my opinion, it would have been better to spend 8 hours allowing independent experts to make measurements. (Or if not experts, me.) He would not have to devote every minute of those 8-hours to operating the machine. I believe that during the 18-hour test, he left it running unattended for many hours. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
One interesting new electric E-Cat replication. This really puts final mark for steam depate, altough I still wait for modification where cooling water is continuously pumped. And steam temperature measured. Also it is good to see how much higher level Swedish discussion goes. Instead of plain and empty words they really does something concrete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsqSEw6Nti8sns=em I also need to upgrade slightly my previous estimations. For March E-Cat 1.6kW, April 2.4 kW and June E-Cat 1.4 kW. On Jul 21, 2011 1:07 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: One interesting new electric E-Cat replication. This really puts final mark for steam depate, altough I still wait for modification where cooling water is continuously pumped. And steam temperature measured. Also it is good to see how much higher level Swedish discussion goes. Instead of plain and empty words they really does something concrete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsqSEw6Nti8sns=em I can't see much difference here between the 900 W and 2200 W of steam. I am sure there is a difference, but you cannot see it easily by visual observation against a black background. Both look about the same as the Krivit video (which is linked to this video). This is not a good method of measuring steam enthapy. They should try sparging it. They should use a larger, deeper bucket than the one shown in this video, and a shorter hose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
This is a qualitative test, actually cannot be used for an analysis or judgment. The enthalpy of the steam has to be measured continuously mixing the steam with a known flow of cold water and measuring the temperature of the mixture. Simple like ...that. Peter On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: One interesting new electric E-Cat replication. This really puts final mark for steam depate, altough I still wait for modification where cooling water is continuously pumped. And steam temperature measured. Also it is good to see how much higher level Swedish discussion goes. Instead of plain and empty words they really does something concrete. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsqSEw6Nti8sns=em I can't see much difference here between the 900 W and 2200 W of steam. I am sure there is a difference, but you cannot see it easily by visual observation against a black background. Both look about the same as the Krivit video (which is linked to this video). This is not a good method of measuring steam enthapy. They should try sparging it. They should use a larger, deeper bucket than the one shown in this video, and a shorter hose. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This is a qualitative test, actually cannot be used for an analysis or judgment. The enthalpy of the steam has to be measured continuously mixing the steam with a known flow of cold water and measuring the temperature of the mixture. Simple like ...that. I agree completely. Better yet, just use liquid flowing water. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Yes, better and even simpler- but from some reasons (temperature difference, control) Rossi prefers steam. Peter On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This is a qualitative test, actually cannot be used for an analysis or judgment. The enthalpy of the steam has to be measured continuously mixing the steam with a known flow of cold water and measuring the temperature of the mixture. Simple like ...that. I agree completely. Better yet, just use liquid flowing water. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
On Jul 28, 2011 6:07 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, better and even simpler- but from some reasons (temperature difference, control) Rossi prefers steam. For me Rossi's choice does make perfect sense, because purpose of these steam generators is not to produce warm water, but steam for industrial applications. Therefore it is important to understand that E-Cat's are not designed to make scientific measurements, but to produce steam for practical solutions. Rossi has demonstrated commercially ready prototype and also he has shown how to make the scale up. And also it is good to remember that Rossi does not have any motivation to demonstrate unambigiously E-Cat before they are ready to enter the market. We shall see. Defkalion is supposed to start building factory in August. Therefore if someone goes late summer visit to Greek, this would be good tourist attraction site. If there is real factory construction work on going, this will reduce greatly the probabilty for hoax. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Dear Jouni, Low pressure steam is not good for its main potential use- to generate electricity. Ill willed people have said that he prefers steam because it is similar to smoke or fog. But this is ordinary calumny. Peter On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: On Jul 28, 2011 6:07 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, better and even simpler- but from some reasons (temperature difference, control) Rossi prefers steam. For me Rossi's choice does make perfect sense, because purpose of these steam generators is not to produce warm water, but steam for industrial applications. Therefore it is important to understand that E-Cat's are not designed to make scientific measurements, but to produce steam for practical solutions. Rossi has demonstrated commercially ready prototype and also he has shown how to make the scale up. And also it is good to remember that Rossi does not have any motivation to demonstrate unambigiously E-Cat before they are ready to enter the market. We shall see. Defkalion is supposed to start building factory in August. Therefore if someone goes late summer visit to Greek, this would be good tourist attraction site. If there is real factory construction work on going, this will reduce greatly the probabilty for hoax. —Jouni -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter, producing low pressure steam is not the point, but to produce high pressure steam when E-Cats are scaled up and connected in serial and paraller for 1MW plant. It is claimed by Defkalion that E-Cat is able to produce 414°C steam in high pressure. This is what scaling up means here. However, it is slight drawback that E-Cat cannot yet go to any higher temperatures and pressures than 414°C. But this is more than enough for steam aircrafts! —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: producing low pressure steam is not the point, but to produce high pressure steam when E-Cats are scaled up and connected in serial and paraller for 1MW plant. I am pretty sure Rossi said the 1 MW reactor is for hot water. I have no idea what they need with so much hot water. You need that much in a large hotel, but not a factory. It is claimed by Defkalion that E-Cat is able to produce 414°C steam in high pressure. That is a different machine. However, it is slight drawback that E-Cat cannot yet go to any higher temperatures and pressures than 414°C. But this is more than enough for steam aircrafts! Really? I think higher temperatures would be recommended for steam powered aircraft. Steam turbo-prop airplanes for freight might work at that temperature. Regarding steam in general, Rossi's eCats have demonstrated low temperature steam at 1 atm. That is very useful. It is process steam used in various industrial applications with fabric, food processing and so on. I do get a sense that he likes to demonstrate them with steam rather than hot water because it shows that they can be used for high-temperature applications. For a long time, some people thought that cold fusion might not achieve high temperatures and it might only be useful for space heating. Especially Ni cold fusion. Rossi's demonstrations refute that. He has not demonstrated temperatures high enough to generate electricity, which would be 200°C and above. Achieving higher temperatures is only a matter of engineering as scientists say. It is a trivial problem compared to making an eCat in the first place. It is obvious that it can be done. Indeed, Defkalion says they have done it. I do not see any point to demonstrating higher temperatures with the rather simple, crude machines Rossi has demonstrated. It might be hazardous. With these machines 100°C at 1 atm proves the issue beyond any reasonable doubt, except to people who imagine that every physics and chemistry textbook published in the last 150 years is wrong, and the heat of vaporization of water is not 540 cal/g. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Low pressure steam is not good for its main potential use- to generate electricity. As I said, low temperature process steam is very useful for many applications. But I think the point that Rossi is trying make is this: 'Here is steam at 100°C. If I can make steam at this temperature, there is no reason to think I cannot make it at higher temperatures using pressurized equipment.' I don't see how anyone can argue with that. There is no reason to think the machine can reach 100°C but not 200°C or 400°C (the normal temperature range for fission steam generators). Regarding steam powered aircraft, there are some references to fission powered jet engines in my book. See chapter 18, footnote 173. Look up HTRE (heat transfer reactor experiment). See, for example: http://www.atomictourist.com/ebr.htm http://www.megazone.org/ANP/ These engines were actually tested. Not in an aircraft but on the ground. The working fluid (the fluid that expands to transfer energy) in this case is air. I think the primary loop heat exchange fluid was pressurized water. Air is a good choice for an airplane. http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml With a ship, you have any amount of cooling fluid (ocean water) so it makes more sense to generate steam and then condense it. Modern cruise ships have Diesel electric engines. They are cooled with ocean water and the waste heat is also used for desalination to produce potable water. That's why those ships have swimming pools and you can shower as much as you like. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
The issue is why Rossi prefers steam, when for demonstrating the potential of the E-cat- simply heating water is straigtforward. Peter On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: Low pressure steam is not good for its main potential use- to generate electricity. As I said, low temperature process steam is very useful for many applications. But I think the point that Rossi is trying make is this: 'Here is steam at 100°C. If I can make steam at this temperature, there is no reason to think I cannot make it at higher temperatures using pressurized equipment.' I don't see how anyone can argue with that. There is no reason to think the machine can reach 100°C but not 200°C or 400°C (the normal temperature range for fission steam generators). Regarding steam powered aircraft, there are some references to fission powered jet engines in my book. See chapter 18, footnote 173. Look up HTRE (heat transfer reactor experiment). See, for example: http://www.atomictourist.com/ebr.htm http://www.megazone.org/ANP/ These engines were actually tested. Not in an aircraft but on the ground. The working fluid (the fluid that expands to transfer energy) in this case is air. I think the primary loop heat exchange fluid was pressurized water. Air is a good choice for an airplane. http://www.megazone.org/ANP/tech.shtml With a ship, you have any amount of cooling fluid (ocean water) so it makes more sense to generate steam and then condense it. Modern cruise ships have Diesel electric engines. They are cooled with ocean water and the waste heat is also used for desalination to produce potable water. That's why those ships have swimming pools and you can shower as much as you like. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
Peter Gluck wrote: The issue is why Rossi prefers steam, when for demonstrating the potential of the E-cat- simply heating water is straigtforward. As I said, my feeling is that he prefers steam because it proves the thing works at high temperature. Also, it is a little more convenient to work with. The flow of water is lower and you can use a weight scale instead of a flow meter. As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. Beyond that I cannot say why Rossi favors the steam approach. You could ask him but he probably will not respond. It is a shame he is not willing to do a better test heating water, but he has said emphatically several times that he will not do this. I doubt anyone can persuade him to change his mind. I gave up several weeks ago. Rossi does not agree that there is a problem with the steam tests. I think he is mostly right, and the problems have been greatly exaggerated. He does not agree that the instrumentation and documentation in all of these tests and in his recent trade-show style demonstrations has been second-rate. We disagree about that. Frankly, I think he is sloppy. * So are many other brilliant inventors. So are many professors. Just because a person is good at experiments and good at discovering things, it does follow that the person is neat, organized, or good at presenting the findings in a convincing fashion. Unfortunately, Rossi does not realize his own limitations. He does not see that the presentation and instrumentation was unconvincing, except to people like me who have done many similar tests and know how these things work. Apparently, Levi also does not see the problems, or he does not care whether people believe him or not. Or, perhaps he is busy. I, along with many others, advised these people about various ways that they could improve the instrumentation with things like better flow meters, redundant temperature sensors and so on. They evinced no interest in following our suggestions, publishing more information, or re-running the tests. It is regrettable. Fortunately, none of this matters. Rossi was able to transfer the knowledge to Defkalion. I hope they will present it to the public soon in more convincing tests and demonstrations, and I hope they will sell commercial units on schedule at the end of the year. I think they will. - Jed * Actually in this case, I am thinking of him in Japanese and the word that comes to mind is iikagen (いいかげん), meaning sloppy, remiss, perfunctory, half-baked, slapdash, and a bunch of other things less flattering, but I do not have them in mind: http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%84%E3%81%84%E3%81%8B%E3%81%92%E3%82%93/UTF-8/?ref=sa A multifaceted word, handy for parents: iikagen ni shinasai! -- That's enough out of you. (In other words, shut up!)
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
As I said, my feeling is that he prefers steam because it proves the thing works at high temperature. Also, it is a little more convenient to work with. The flow of water is lower and you can use a weight scale instead of a flow meter. As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt. A water tank where to put outgoing water and get volume by measuring height. I don't think he would have many more problems with mass/volume water in liquid phase than he has with steam... of course the shape of the tank does not need to be more complex than a rectangular cuboid. mic
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: A skeptic doesn't need excuses. They have the Magic Right-as-Rain Protective Shield? Someone who makes a claim and is challenged may need an excuse. The skeptic is not the one making a claim. The problem with the E-Cat demos was not that they were not self-powered. Imagine a self-powered demo that did what the E-Cats did, exactly. Supposedly too much power, eh? But wait, how much power did they generate? If it was a seventh as much, perhaps that was stored energy by some scheme. Then it would only be a matter of time. Boiling water without input would be pretty impressive with something the size of the smaller (or larger) ecats. It's certainly a fair fraction of a kW at those flow rates (even the lower ones calculated from the pump frequency). Then you need nothing more than a time piece to convince skeptics that there is a new energy source there. Sure. And it sure might be. Whether self-powered is in reach or not, reaching it would be an additional development step, one providing no particular advantage at the early demonstration stages. It's established engineering. Compared to finding a new energy source, it really is a trivial addition, and the advantage is huge, because infinity is so much bigger than any other gain, that demonstrating it is vastly easier and more convincing. The Pons-Fleischmann effect was -- and is -- relatively fragile and unreliable, but it's not down in the noise, there is plenty of experimental evidence that there is substantial heat being generated, but it's difficult to scale it up. The approach, loading the palladium with deuterium generated by electrolysis, wasted a lot of energy, and when excess energy was found, in the most reliable approaches, it was down around 5% of input energy. That's still ten times noise, and control experiments showed that the calorimetry was accurate, etc. Other evidence has shown that the effect is, indeed, fusion. Most scientists are not convinced by this. Essentially, that an effect is real doesn't mean that a practical application is ready or even close, it can take many, many years to find techniques to make such applications possible, if ever. Nobody claims that muon-catalyzed fusion isn't real because there is apparently no possibility of practically using it. Again? CF is claimed based on measuring the very thing that would make it practical: heat. Muon catalyzed fusion is observed based on detection of neutrons, not heat. Yes, a self-powered application would *probably* be more impressive. But that's all. In no way is it a requirement. Definitely more impressive. It may not be a strict requirement, but it seems like such an obvious thing to do, that when you're talking about validating something most people don't accept, failure to do it just seems too suspicious; especially for something people have been plugging unsuccessfully for 22 years. This is all the more true for something like the ecat, where the input is *heat*, and the output is heat. There is no reason, even with a gain of 1.5 that it couldn't be self-sustaining. Rossi's claim of safety is not believable, but even if true, for demonstration purposes, it would not be difficult to provide safe isolation. He says many have exploded, but he's still kicking. You know, I have a gas furnace that heats water to make steam to heat my apartment. It is not self-powered. It requires not only gas supply, but also electricity, to operate. So? A gas furnace does not need electricity. My barbecue does not need electricity. When the world is convinced of CF, a trickle of electricity to control something is OK. The ecat is not using electricity just for peripheral purposes, though. It is using it to provide heat; the very thing they are claiming the ecat produces. That's the problem.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
One interesting conspiracy theory hole is that in all demonstrations (January, March and May) total excess energy production was roughly 22 MJ, what is energy contained in 170 g of hydrogen. This kind of coincidence could be easily interpreted that there is somewhere small hidden hydrogen bottle and catalyzed hydrogen burning cell. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Due to these blunders, their measurements were meaningless. Probably true. However, there is one useful information in that March experiment, what has been ignored. They observed that E-Cat heated water for the first 9 min with 350W electric power to 60°C and after that power increased and temperature went in 4 min to 97.5°C. We know that water inflow was 6.48 kg/h and therefore if we assume that heating and water pump were initialized at the same moment, we can roughly calculate that total power of E-Cat was around 1000-1500 watts, because E-Cat contained 1.6-1.8 kg water and the thermal mass of metals is low. This reasoning is not right. The volume of the ecat (where the heat is transferred to the water) is only a fraction of a liter. The water in the rest of the contraption has nothing to do with the warm up period, any more than the water in the hose does, or the water down the drain does. And the difference between a cold ecat and one at equilibrium is that the output water is hot; the input is always cold. So, the contribution of the water in the ecat to the thermal mass is roughly divided by 2. Water has a much higher heat capacity than the metals, but the metals are much heavier, so they will constitute most (nearly all) of the relevant thermal mass. We know it takes 600 W to boil water at that flow rate, and from the rate of increase near boiling, it does seem to be well above that, so 1 kW is not implausible, but neither is 800W. Unfortunately, they did not monitor the input electrical power like they did in January, and this power can easily be provided by the mains. If we assume this to be constant, it suits very well with Mats Lewan's observation that he observed around 2 kW and temperature anomaly was 100.5°C. Where as EK observed temperature anomaly of 100.1-100.2°C. Therefore it is necessary that Mats Lewan's E-Cat was operating with higher power output than EK's E-Cat. The flow rate was lower in Lewan's case. That means more steam would have to be produced to remove the same amount of heat. So, even if you take these fractions of a degree seriously, they do not give evidence that the power was higher in Lewan's case. Also January E-Cat produced 101.5°C steam, but there power output and thus pressure, was considerably more. Perhaps something like 6-12 kW. Or, perhaps 2 kW, which is above the power required to reach boiling at the claimed flow rate, and twice the plausible power of EK. Or, perhaps 1.1 kW, which is above the power required to reach boiling at the estimated flow rate from the pump frequency, and corresponds to the average input power. I don't recall the thermometer was calibrated in that experiment. The problem with attributing this small increase in bp to more power is that it dips below the bp briefly after the input was reduced to 400 W, and then goes right back to previous bp when the input is jacked up to 1.55 kW. If there were 6 - 12 kW generated, it would have to drop to less than 2 kW and jump back to 6 - 12 kW in a matter of minutes. That's not plausible. February test, however confirmed that E-Cat is really able to perform with high power output, but it is just matter of regulation. You are more easily convinced than I am. PS. Here is my explanation and working theory how E-Cat is functioning: [...]We need some 600 wats for heating water inflow to boiling point. Then we can calculate how much power we need to increase pressure inside E-Cat to explain elevated boiling point. My gut feeling says that we need extra power some kilowatts, so there is clearly extra heat present. This clearly falsifies Krivit's criticism by one order of magnitude as he assumes that there is just few hundred wats for generating steam and elevating the pressure. First, your gut feeling, especially if it is completely unsupported, falsifies nothing. Second Krivit was not quantitative about the power he thought the output steam represented. He was merely questioning the conclusions because no evidence of steam dryness was provided, and claimed that the liquid content of the steam could change the claimed excess heat by *as much as* 2 orders of magnitude. To confirm this hypothesis on E-Cat, we should have strong correlation between alleged power output and measured boiling point (we have the same hose in all demonstrations). That is, because pressure is directly proportional to amount of generated steam. I don't think that's true. With the chimney filled with water, the height will produce an increase in the bp by a fraction of a degree. With pure steam, the pressure required to get through the various fittings, expanders, reducers, and elbows could cause a similar fraction of a degree increase in the bp. What happens in between is pretty hard to predict, but the fact that the temperature is very flat shows that from the very onset of boiling (at 600W)
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
At 06:07 PM 7/20/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote: One interesting conspiracy theory hole is that in all demonstrations (January, March and May) total excess energy production was roughly 22 MJ, what is energy contained in 170 g of hydrogen. This kind of coincidence could be easily interpreted that there is somewhere small hidden hydrogen bottle and catalyzed hydrogen burning cell. Jouni Frankly, I think it's a waste to examine fraud scenarios, as such, because once we suspect fraud, there is no end to possibilities. Early claims by some that fraud was impossible here were simply naive. Frauds are possible. That doesn't mean likely, necessarily, but possible, they are. Human ingenuity is boundless. A *specific fraud* might seem unlikely, but there is no limit to the number of possible fraud techniques. We address fraud by wanting to see independent verifications, it being considered unlikely that multiple independent, kowledgeable observers could be fooled by a fraud that they can examine in close detail. They don't need to be able to take the E-Cat apart, just to make sure that there aren't hidden inputs and that output is properly analyzed for heat released. Once the total excess energy out has well exceeded any known energy storage possibility, which these devices, if they operate as claimed, should be able to easily do, it's done. The demand for self-powered operation is a classic pseudo-skeptical excuse, that's not necessary for an independent test, where input power can be nailed down accurately, and simply complicates the device. (Suppose that this thing cheaply generates substantial extra power, but less than is necessary for self-powered operation. As an energy amplifier, that could reduce energy costs substantially, it could still be a practical product. Of course, much more than that is being claimed.) All this speculation is an attempt to jump the gun, to try to figure out of Rossi's results are plausible. Or to be the first to Pin The Tail On The Donkey.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: The demand for self-powered operation is a classic pseudo-skeptical excuse, that's not necessary for an independent test, where input power can be nailed down accurately, and simply complicates the device. A skeptic doesn't need excuses. This business about complications is an excuse for delivering on something even Rothwell calls trivial (in the case of the ecat). How can infinite gain not be worth the complication? (Suppose that this thing cheaply generates substantial extra power, but less than is necessary for self-powered operation. As an energy amplifier, that could reduce energy costs substantially, it could still be a practical product. Of course, much more than that is being claimed.) It would only have an advantage over a heat pump to the extent that the capital cost might be lower. If it delivers more energy than a heat pump, self-powered operation should be in reach, at least in principle. All this speculation is an attempt to jump the gun, to try to figure out of Rossi's results are plausible. Or to be the first to Pin The Tail On The Donkey.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
At 07:17 PM 7/20/2011, Joshua Cude wrote: On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The demand for self-powered operation is a classic pseudo-skeptical excuse, that's not necessary for an independent test, where input power can be nailed down accurately, and simply complicates the device. A skeptic doesn't need excuses. They have the Magic Right-as-Rain Protective Shield? Actually I didn't say anything about skeptics, the comment was about pseudo-skeptics. This business about complications is an excuse for delivering on something even Rothwell calls trivial (in the case of the ecat). How can infinite gain not be worth the complication? Rothwell was wrong, eh? Rothwell was saying that with respect to a claim of 6:1 power or more. And it was still wrong. Arranging for generation of power from the kind of heat that the E-Cat was producing would be complicated. It would require a radically different design. The problem with the E-Cat demos was not that they were not self-powered. Imagine a self-powered demo that did what the E-Cats did, exactly. Supposedly too much power, eh? But wait, how much power did they generate? If it was a seventh as much, perhaps that was stored energy by some scheme. (Suppose that this thing cheaply generates substantial extra power, but less than is necessary for self-powered operation. As an energy amplifier, that could reduce energy costs substantially, it could still be a practical product. Of course, much more than that is being claimed.) It would only have an advantage over a heat pump to the extent that the capital cost might be lower. If it delivers more energy than a heat pump, self-powered operation should be in reach, at least in principle. Sure. And it sure might be. Whether self-powered is in reach or not, reaching it would be an additional development step, one providing no particular advantage at the early demonstration stages. Anyone actually working with these 'cats could tell if they are generating power, and how much, using standard techniques. The problem is that those techniques weren't used, and when people like Rothwell offered to do it at their own expense, that was declined. The Pons-Fleischmann effect was -- and is -- relatively fragile and unreliable, but it's not down in the noise, there is plenty of experimental evidence that there is substantial heat being generated, but it's difficult to scale it up. The approach, loading the palladium with deuterium generated by electrolysis, wasted a lot of energy, and when excess energy was found, in the most reliable approaches, it was down around 5% of input energy. That's still ten times noise, and control experiments showed that the calorimetry was accurate, etc. Other evidence has shown that the effect is, indeed, fusion. Essentially, that an effect is real doesn't mean that a practical application is ready or even close, it can take many, many years to find techniques to make such applications possible, if ever. Nobody claims that muon-catalyzed fusion isn't real because there is apparently no possibility of practically using it. Yes, a self-powered application would *probably* be more impressive. But that's all. In no way is it a requirement. You know, I have a gas furnace that heats water to make steam to heat my apartment. It is not self-powered. It requires not only gas supply, but also electricity, to operate. So? All this speculation is an attempt to jump the gun, to try to figure out of Rossi's results are plausible. Or to be the first to Pin The Tail On The Donkey. Hmmph! No appreciation around here.
Re: [Vo]:E-Cat explained - Final chapter for steam controversy
I re-watched Krivit's video and got confirmation for this interpretation. Temperature anomaly was there just 100.1°C and steam production only fraction of Lewan's E-Cat. Therefore we can estimate that Krivit's E-Cat produced, while video was filmed, something like 1000W±200W total power. So, here are the temperature anomalies and corresponding estimated power output for all 6 demonstrations of E-Cat: in December (101.6°C / 9kW), January (101.2°C / 6kW), March (100.2°C / 1.2 kW), April (100.6°C / 2kW) and June (100.1°C / 1kW) Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVEBCN6D13w Andrea Rossi Explains His Energy Catalyzer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E Report on heat production during preliminary tests on the Rossi Ni-H reactor http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html?m=1
