subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:E\-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee\/tea..."



On Jun 24, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:

It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the
water boils away, core temperature may rise too high.

That is an astute observation. Thank you.

You are right that if the water boils away the temperature will  
rise rapidly.


If the heat is too low, the teapot fills up and starts to overflow,  
cold water will flow in and replace the hot water, and it will soon  
stop boiling. The outlet temperature will fall below 100 deg C.


While the machine is running, Rossi is constantly checking the  
screen numbers and adjusting the anomalous heat. I do not know he  
does this, but apparently he is able to do it. He changes the input  
power slightly, I think. I assume he is keeping the teapot full  
without letting it overflow. It would be easier to do this with a  
tube on the outside.


Of course this can be automated. He is running the thing manually.

- Jed



Hi Jed,

If Rossi is running the thing manually why is the controller box in  
use and why does he make a point of stating it responds based on  
temperature and pressure.  See:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Joshua Cude

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
  Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot, and the
  output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the reactor are
  both horizontal at the same level.

 here was your misunderstanding. This is not true, because water input
 is at the same level as reactor core, but water output or boiling
 surface is above the reactor core somewhere in the chimney.


The output of the entire device is at the end of a hose in another room. The
output from the *reactor* is horizontal, and level with the input. Then it
flows through a pipe into a chimney. There is no heating element in the
vertical part (according to Rossi).


 You forgot that the chimney makes it tea pot like and essentially
 vertical in structure.


No because the chimney is not situated vertically above the reactor. Check
the videos.


 And the more powerful is the reactor, the
 taller and wider the chimney must be, so that it can contain several
 liters of water.


The heating does not happen in the chimney. The steam is produced in the
reactor and passed horizontally to the chimney. There the flow of steam and
water produces a steam/ mist mixture. At least that's my picture of it. But
the reservoir there is not heated.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:


 On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
  Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot, and the
  output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the reactor
  are
  both horizontal at the same level.

 here was your misunderstanding. This is not true, because water input
 is at the same level as reactor core, but water output or boiling
 surface is above the reactor core somewhere in the chimney.

 The output of the entire device is at the end of a hose in another room. The
 output from the *reactor* is horizontal, and level with the input. Then it
 flows through a pipe into a chimney.

This is NOT TRUE because chimney is filled with water. You seem to
have really hard time to understand this.

 No because the chimney is not situated vertically above the reactor.

According fluid dynamics this is completely irrelevant, if it is first
horizontal and then bends into vertical.It does not change a
thing.Only thing what matters is the volume of the water containment
around the reactor and especially in the chimney. This is all that
matters.

 The heating does not happen in the chimney.

It is completely irrelevant where the heating happens, because chimney
is filled with water.In the tea pot heating does not happen in the
water surface.Chimneys diameter is large enough, so that chimney
effectively prevents all the sputtering and mist formation. That is
the whole point of having a chimney.

Try to understand this that chimney is filled with water. And this
undermines ALL your arguments against E-Cat.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Mark Iverson

Jeff:
Thanks for all the effort to get a better understanding of how the sensors work.

I filled out a technical response request at two different sensor manufacturers 
to also get a better
understanding.  Here is one response from Vaisala.com re: the effects of liquid 
droplets...

If the water droplets are large enough or if they are able to collect on the 
sensor surface or
connector, you would get some measurement errors. Water could short out the 
electrical measurement
and cause the unit to read from one extreme to the other. The filter should be 
able to protect the
sensor from some small particles but if there is enough free water it may be an 
issue. In any case,
once the senor dries out the readings should recover.

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...



On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot,  
and the
output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the  
reactor are

both horizontal at the same level.


here was your misunderstanding. This is not true, because water input
is at the same level as reactor core, but water output or boiling
surface is above the reactor core somewhere in the chimney.


This statement seems nonsensical.  Water boils (coverts from liquid  
to gas) at the surface interface where the *heat transfer* takes  
place, in this case on a metal surface. The heat transfer should  
therefore be occurring where the heating elements are mounted, and,  
providing nuclear heat is being provided, at the metal surface of  
the  Ni containing compartment.


Rossi himself would clearly agree with you. Rossi's statement in the  
video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

also seems nonsensical. At YouTube time 9:36 he states: This is the  
chimney. At this point the water is evaporated, because here we are  
above 99.9 C degrees, the limit of the liquid state of the water.   
He also states: This is the thermocouple that measures the  
temperature of the *water* in the chimney.


This makes me wonder if you are actually Rossi or work for Rossi!  
8^)  (This is funny because there was an accusation that I worked for  
Rossi made here at one time. A conspiracy theory.)


There seems to be a major error in understanding going on here. Steam  
bubbles clearly will move through the chimney, assuming water temp is  
100 °C, but they do not originate there. Steam is not generated there  
unless some source of heat is provided there. The origin of any steam  
is where energy is being supplied, which in the case of the E-cat is  
the horizontal section.  This means bubble formation is occurring in  
the boiling chamber, and oscillating flows as well as mixed gas/ 
liquid flows are occurring in the chimney.


Given there is water in the chimney then a percolator effect is  
obviously likely.





You forgot that the chimney makes it tea pot like and essentially
vertical in structure. And the more powerful is the reactor, the
taller and wider the chimney must be, so that it can contain several
liters of water. That reactor type what was used in most recent
demonstrations used shorter chimneys, but also the input output power
ratio was much smaller and more predictable, so that it can be
controlled by adjusting input water flow on proper level, although
short chimney's ability to buffer water level is drastically limited.


As I noted in earlier posts, this short chimney,  provided the  
controller momentarily reduces power output sufficiently, will permit  
the water to overflow the chimney into the hose, due to the constant  
pump rate.  Provided the power provided is at least 600 W the water  
temperature in the chimney should not be affected at all, wile about  
2 cc/sec is pumped out the top of the chimney and overflows, falling  
down through the hose.  For those that care, I use the word  
overflow  here with deliberation. See:


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overflow

However, if any steam is being produced at all, then the bubbling  
effect will cause a percolator effect that causes the overflow in  
small increments, producing a gas/liquid mix output.





So next time you boil water for tea in the kettle, please measure the
dryness of the steam! E-Cat produces _exactly_ as dry steam as your
tea pot!

–Jouni


A tea pot has no means to overflow. Water is not continually added.   
It is also not designed like a percolator, with large confined  
boiling compartment, and a narrow short chimney.


The Rossi device is a horizontal boiling chamber followed by a  
vertical tube and elevated ejection port. This is essentially a  
formula for a percolator that can continuously operate at boiling  
temperature, provided a minimum of 600 W required is supplied.


A percolator can produce liquid mass flows far exceeding 1% by volume  
of gas.  The amount of percolation obtained can be controlled by  
controlling the ratio of the flow of water to the amount of heat  
applied to the chamber. Active controllers exist in the Rossi device,  
thus may do this.


Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use  
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is  
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber.  See:


http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html

A transparent U-trap just past the current steam exit might prove  
informative.


Rossi's main claim of utility is excess heat. Yet no one has made any  
effort at even very basic calorimetry measurements on the output.


It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a  
dime in this technology without even the most basic and inexpensive  
science being applied to the most important aspect -

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Hoyt A. Stearns Jr.


Thanks for those links.

You can use the long hairs from a horse's tail too if you don't want to
spend US$600 -:)  -- see:


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/whairhyg.htm

http://www.ehow.com/way_5820088_homemade-hair-hygrometer.html

I've hear that the US weather service stations use dew point sensors based
on chilling a mirror 'til it fogs.   Where I live, you'd have to chill it to
40 below zero ( °C == °F there ) to get it to fog, though.

Hoyt Stearns
Scottsdale, Arizona US



-Original Message-
From: Jeff Driscoll [mailto:hcarb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 12:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


The discussion related to Galantini using the wrong instrument to
measure steam quality in Rossi's experiment seems to be slowing down.

But here are details on how a relative humidity sensor works (as
others have also mentioned)

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Mark Iverson

Horace said:
This is funny because there was an accusation that I worked for Rossi made 
here at one time. A
conspiracy theory.

Horace, that was me, and it was only in jest... :-)

Are you? 
Because, come to think of it, I don't think you've explicitly denied it!!
 Double :-)

-Mark

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...



On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:


Horace said:
This is funny because there was an accusation that I worked for  
Rossi made here at one time. A

conspiracy theory.

Horace, that was me, and it was only in jest... :-)

Are you?
Because, come to think of it, I don't think you've explicitly  
denied it!!

 Double :-)

-Mark



Thanks!  I needed a good laugh. 8^)

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Jouni Valkonen

2011/6/25 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
 A tea pot has no means to overflow. Water is not continually added.  It is
 also not designed like a percolator, with large confined boiling
 compartment, and a narrow short chimney.


It does not require much engineering to modify tea pot that it
supports adding water during boiling...

But you got the design of E-Cat wrong, because chimney is wider than
actual boiling area near reactor core. Therefore it is not percolator
like setup, but more like a teapot. We now this because it produces as
dry steam as tea pot. If you say that E-Cat acts like a percolator,
then you need to have better and detailed knowledge about E-Cat, but
you have none. Therefore your discussion is just plain speculation and
it does not have any basis on facts.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...



On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/6/25 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
A tea pot has no means to overflow. Water is not continually  
added.  It is

also not designed like a percolator, with large confined boiling
compartment, and a narrow short chimney.



It does not require much engineering to modify tea pot that it
supports adding water during boiling...


Sigh.  OK, if it is that easy then heat a tea pot with a 600 W burner  
and flow 2 cc/s of cold water a minute into it for few hours.  Let us  
know how it turned out!  You don't even have to modify the tea pot,  
just provide a fixed flow rate of water into the pot and a 600 W  
burner, or use a variac to achieve 600 W input.  Alternatively, if  
you have an X watt teapot, flow (X/600)*(2 CC/s) water into it for a  
few hours, and see what happens. You don't even have to flow at a  
uniform 2 CC/s.  You could just add the correct amount every few  
minutes or so from a glass.  For example, if you have a 1200 W  
electric tea pot, you would add 4 CC/sec or 240 CC/min, or 720 CC per  
3 minutes.  A 3 minute egg timer might be of use.  Make sure that  
when the (hot) water overflows it does so safely. You may have to  
insulate the pot to get an accurate reproduction of what I am talking  
about.





But you got the design of E-Cat wrong, because chimney is wider than
actual boiling area near reactor core. Therefore it is not percolator
like setup, but more like a teapot. We now this because it produces as
dry steam as tea pot. If you say that E-Cat acts like a percolator,
then you need to have better and detailed knowledge about E-Cat, but
you have none. Therefore your discussion is just plain speculation and
it does not have any basis on facts.

–Jouni




Take a look at the interior of the E-cats, as they were at one point:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VIn_mQi1H-M/TZ1ZIpKD4-I/LAE/ 
xo1T4ZRm41o/s1600/ECAT_explained.jpg


Now look at the YouTUbe video of the E-cat as demonstrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

You can see that the large top chamber is no longer present in the  
unit under test, that the hose comes out not far up from the  
horizontal part.  Of course even this does not matter, because, as I  
said, if the thermal power drops below 600 W then the thing will  
eventually overflow water.  An overflow of water means the estimates  
of heat output can be off by a large factor.  There can in fact be no  
free energy, no nuclear energy, provided whatsoever.  The only way to  
determine the energy produced is to do calorimetry on the steam/water  
output. That has not been done, or at least not reported.


Since there is no serious technical content in your post, I'll now  
just repeat my prior statements.


Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use  
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is  
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber.  See:


http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html

A transparent U-trap just past the current steam exit might prove  
informative.


Rossi's main claim of utility is excess heat. Yet no one has made any  
effort at even very basic calorimetry measurements on the output.


It is incredible that it could be expected that anyone would invest a  
dime in this technology without even the most basic and inexpensive  
science being applied to the most important aspect - calorimetry on  
the output.


Despite my dismay at the calorimetry, or lack thereof, and lack of  
due diligence (on the part of investors), I should note that I have  
made an effort to understand how Rossi's results might be real. For  
example:


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44845.html

I still hope beyond all reason that Rossi's methods are real and  
useful.  If not, this could be the worst thing that has happened in  
the field of LENR.  LENR is clearly very real, if not useful yet.  I  
think everything is still purely a matter of speculation though  
regarding Rossi's results, for those outside Rossi's inner circle. It  
is thus best to simply wait and see what unfolds.


Best regards,

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

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-25 Thread Mark Iverson

Still no denial Horace!
Now you're messin' with us...
:-)
I hope you got some stock in Rossi's company, cuz the parr-teee is gonna be at 
your house, and it
ain't gonna be cheap! :-)

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 4:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


On Jun 25, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Mark Iverson wrote:

 Horace said:
 This is funny because there was an accusation that I worked for Rossi 
 made here at one time. A conspiracy theory.

 Horace, that was me, and it was only in jest... :-)

 Are you?
 Because, come to think of it, I don't think you've explicitly denied 
 it!!
  Double :-)

 -Mark


Thanks!  I needed a good laugh. 8^)

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
 that it matches evaporation rate.


 First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
 experiment is started.


Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is adjusted.


The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as
 you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating
 element remains wet.


Right, but if it overflows, the incoming cold water will replace the hot
water, and it will fall below 100 deg C. That's what happens with other
experiments close to boiling with flow calorimeters. You cannot keep it
right at 100 deg C when it overflows.


To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would
 require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the
 power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so.


Not a per cent. Just boost it a little if the temperature falls below 100
deg C (starting to overflow), and back off if it seems to rise much above
102 deg C (drying up). There is plenty of space for a reservoir of water in
there. It would take a while to fill up to the top, or boil off to the
bottom.

Besides, Rossi has run it many times before; he knows how to control the
anomalous power; he knows what the incoming flow rate is; and he knows high
he should set the anomalous power to match the flow rate. The response time
to adjust the heat is about the same as it is for a cook to keep a saucepan
of boiling vegetables from boiling over or running out of water and burning.



 Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the
 bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up.


He does not want to overheat the thing. He told me that.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

 element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
 that it matches evaporation rate.


 First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
 experiment is started.


 Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is adjusted.


How?


 The only thing that is necessary to account for a flat temperature is, as
 you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that the entire heating
 element remains wet.


 Right, but if it overflows, the incoming cold water will replace the hot
 water, and it will fall below 100 deg C.


The incoming cold water replaces the water no matter what. The water is
being pumped in at a steady rate, horizontally, past the reactor. Depending
on the temperature of the reactor the water is heated to varying degrees. If
the reactor temperature is high enough, it will heat the water to the
boiling point. If it is still higher, some of the water changes phase, and
if it is high enough, all the water changes phase as it passes the reactor.
If it is heated beyond that, the steam increases in temperature.

Here's the implication of the wacky idea you suggest. You claim all the
water is being vaporized, and that corresponds to almost 5 kW power. Then
you suggest that if the power drops a little and the water overflows, the
temperature of the water goes below the bp. When the water is below the bp,
the power transfer is about 600W. So you are suggesting that the power is
oscillating between 5 kW and 600 W. How is that possible?


 That's what happens with other experiments close to boiling with flow
 calorimeters. You cannot keep it right at 100 deg C when it overflows.


I see no other possibility if the power in is at something like 2 kW. The
output would have to be a mixture of steam and liquid at 100C. And there is
no difficulty in keeping the input power between 600W and 4 kW.



 To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would
 require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the
 power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so.


 Not a per cent. Just boost it a little if the temperature falls below 100
 deg C (starting to overflow), and back off if it seems to rise much above
 102 deg C (drying up).


This oscillation between 5 kW and 600W would have to be accompanied by an
oscillation in the temperature of the reactor between about 1500C and 300C.
It's just not plausible. You are simply not making any sense.


 There is plenty of space for a reservoir of water in there.


In the reactor? That cyclindrical thing in the picture? Have another look at
the pictures and videos, and pay close attention to what Rossi calls the
reactor, and what he calls the chimney.


 Besides, Rossi has run it many times before; he knows how to control the
 anomalous power; he knows what the incoming flow rate is; and he knows high
 he should set the anomalous power to match the flow rate. The response time
 to adjust the heat is about the same as it is for a cook to keep a saucepan
 of boiling vegetables from boiling over or running out of water and burning.


But what is he adjusting? You insisted Krivit would report any adjustments
that he made.



 Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the
 bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up.


 He does not want to overheat the thing.


But letting the steam go to 110C briefly would not have to increase the
temperature of the ecat. He just has to reduce the flow rate. And why is the
bp of water a magic temperature that the ecat can tolerate, and not a few
degrees more. It's all too convenient for his con, if you ask me.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:


  Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly
  the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat,
  vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam
 leaves
  as it is produced, and so it would be forgiving of fluctuations in the
 power
  or input flow rate. That is, the output mass flow rate does not have to
  match the input flow rate.
  But the ecat is not open like that. The output mass flow rate must match
 the
  input. So, even if the flow rate matched the output of dry steam, a very
  small decrease in the flow rate or a very small increase in the power
 would
  show up as a substantial increase in the steam temperature.
  The ecat is not a tea pot. Get used to it.

 To say this you need to know exactly how much water E-Cat can contain
 in liquid form. If you cannot answer that then your argument does not
 have any relevance, because you lack crucial details of the
 experiment. You can make tea pots with water pump, but you need to
 know what is the volume of the teapot.


If you want to know the volume, look at the photos, estimate the volume of
the cylinder, subtract 50 mL for the reactor, and maybe as much again for
the steel around it. I don't see the relevance, so I'm not going to do it.


 It is important that tea pot does not overflow,


It's not a tea pot. The water flows past the reactor horizontally. It comes
in cold on one side, and exits hot or gaseous on the other. It's not like a
tea pot.

because it messes up
 calculations, because steam is not dry anymore.


Well yes, but nature does not pay any attention to Rossi's desire for his
calculations to be unmessed.

If there is not enough power, the output will not be dry steam, messed up
calculations or not. And if the power exceeds 600W, but is below 4 kW, the
output has to be a mixture of liquid and gas.

Therefore E-Cat's
 inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
 because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the
 water boils away, core temperature may rise too high.

 But you're claiming all the water does boil away. Of course, part of the
reactor near the cold water input will always be wet, but according to the
claim, as the water passes by the reactor it is all converted to steam, so
at the output of the reactor, the fluid is pure steam.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
 calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
 inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
 because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the
 water boils away, core temperature may rise too high.


 That is an astute observation. Thank you.


Well it might be if the reactor were at the bottom of a tea pot, and the
output at the top of the pot. But the input and output to the reactor are
both horizontal at the same level. The water is passed by the reactor in a
pretty small cylinder, and is heated as it goes by. On the side where the
cold water flows in, the reactor is always going to be wet. On the other
side, it might dry up, in which case the steam would increase in
temperature. That has not happened in any of the demos.


 You are right that if the water boils away the temperature will rise
 rapidly.


Rossi claims the water does boil away. It's the central assumption to his
calculations.


 While the machine is running, Rossi is constantly checking the screen
 numbers and adjusting the anomalous heat.


No he's not. He's walking in to the next room and holding the hose up in
front of a t-shirt. He's stroking his invention and explaining it to Krivit.
He's walking over to the hydrogen bottle and explaining how to charge the
cell.

And what is this adjusting the anomalous heat? Is he Kreskin?

This thing is supposed to be ready for commercialization. Does every ecat
sold come with a clone of Rossi? I'm beyond incredulous.


I do not know he does this, but apparently he is able to do it. He changes
 the input power slightly, I think.


Aha. And yet before you said he couldn't be changing the input power because
Krivit woulda noticed.


 I assume he is keeping the teapot full without letting it overflow. It
 would be easier to do this with a tube on the outside.

 Of course this can be automated. He is running the thing manually.


You're just making excuses so you can cling to what is becoming an untenable
position. Automating what you are suggesting is harder than engineering
self-power (assuming the claims are valid), and you say that's too hard.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Harry Veeder



Harry Veeder wrote:
 
 From: Joshua Cude wrote:
  
 What's not plausible is that at the moment it hits the bp, which 
 requires 750 W, it immediately begins to vaporize all the water, which 
 requires 
5 kW. A 7-fold increase in power requires a 7-fold increase in the 
temperature 
 difference between the reactor walls and the fluid. How can that happen so 
 fast?  
 
 What is the size of this initial temperature difference that increases 
 7-fold? 
 Don't you mean a 7-fold increase in the heat absorbed by the water?
  
 Harry
  

hang on, I see what you mean.
Firstly some of the input electric power might not be used to make heat. It 
might be used to make an electric or magnetic field which
enables the exothermic reaction. Secondly perhaps some the resistive heat 
initiates an endothermic-exothermic nuclear cycle, where
the applied heat is changed into matter and then the matter releases much more 
energy.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Andrea Selva

2011/6/24 Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com

 **
 Dear Angela et al,

 On 23-6-2011 22:30, Angela Kemmler wrote:

 The electrical input was 750W

 No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V 
 in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. I already posted 
 the link to the italian wikipedia article abt mains tension in Italy. Must I 
 repeat it? It was 220 V there until the end of the 90ies. When I was a child, 
 it was 110 V in some areas, I remember it very well.

 Lewan measured the tension in the Rossi showroom in april, and the tension 
 was even above 230 V: on 19th and 28th of april it was 236 V AC. I dont know 
 why Rossi talks about 220 V.


 You are right that the current voltage (ref. *count Alessandro Giuseppe
 Antonio Anastasio Volta*) is 230 Volt AC (50 Hz) in Europe; as a result of
 European Harmonisation in 1995; but as you mention that was not always the
 case.

 For precision sake I can tell that, here in Italy, the voltage, excluding
very few cases near the end of heavy loaded power lines, is always over 230
an mostly near 240 V. Checked by my self several times.
Rossi could have shown the line voltage too in order to better support his
claim of 750W.
Very smart guy, isn't it ?

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Jones Beene

From: Andrea Selva wrote:

 

Angela Kemmler wrote: 

 

The electrical input was 750W
 
No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V
in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. 
 
 
Sorry but this is still incorrect. 
 
You have not taken into account the required RMS (root mean square)
calculation for AC - which lowers the average power considerably.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 24-6-2011 15:22, Jones Beene wrote:


*From:*Andrea Selva wrote:

Angela Kemmler wrote:

The electrical input was 750W
  
No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it.
  
  
Sorry but this is still incorrect.
  
You have not taken into account the required RMS (root mean square) calculation for AC - which lowers the average power considerably.


I'm afraid you're mistaken.
230 Volt AC (single phase) is the _*average*_ AC voltage and not the 
peak. So 230 Volt AC means essentially 325 Volt AC peak.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-06-23 11:23 PM, Joshua Cude wrote:



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.com mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


It's flowing water, not a kettle.  So the input power can only
heat it so much.



In the chart of temperature, a sudden change in rate of
temperature rise appears, at 60 degrees C. I assume that this
represents the time when the core reached turn-on temperature.


Something certainly happens there. It could be a reaction (chemical or 
nuclear) initiated in the reactor. It is consistent with an increase 
in the input electrical power. (It's not consistent with a sudden 
reduction of flow rate, because that would produce a step change in 
the temperature, not just a change in the gradient.)


Good point -- I had overlooked that.   In fact, the flow rate must have 
been more or less constant (or changed only slowly) during the warming 
phase or there would be a temperature step where it changed.  (This 
argument is quite aside from any consideration of what kind of pump was 
used or what else is known about the flow rate, of course.)





There are lots-o-mysteries here. The original point was that the
thing shows no sign of settling at 60 degrees without excess heat,
it was rising linearly to that point. 



That's true. And that suggests that the power going to the reactor 
(from wherever) was already greater than 300W (or there would be an 
indication of saturation), or that the flow rate was lower than claimed.


Indeed.  For whatever reason it hadn't occurred to me that a higher 
input power could produce a curve that looked like that also -- I'd been 
thinking solely in terms of the flow rate when I saw that piecewise 
linear graph.



***
And now I've got to get my nose back out of Vortex and go do something 
useful with the rest of the day...

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:

Until replication of Miles' heat/helium claims makes it past 
replication, there is nothing to critique.


Miles' heat/helium claims were published in peer reviewed journals in 
1993 and 1994.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Jones Beene

. right you are - MoB. 

 


 230 Volt AC (single phase) is the average AC voltage and not the peak.
So 230 Volt AC means essentially 325 Volt AC peak.

Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Andrea Selva

Nope. If you use fuzzy data as input and elastic math  a power gain of 1 can
easily rise to 6 or even more ...

2011/6/24 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Andrea Selva wrote:

  Rossi could have shown the line voltage too in order to better support his
 claim of 750W.
 Very smart guy, isn't it ?


 You can say the line voltage was 260 V. That would not affect the
 conclusion.

 This kind of nitpicking is a waste of time. Anyone can see that Rossi is
 making a rough estimate of input and output power. There is no chance his
 estimate is wrong by a factor of 6, so the details do not matter.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Andrea Selva wrote:
Nope. If you use fuzzy data as input and elastic math  a power gain of 
1 can easily rise to 6 or even more ...
 There is nothing fuzzy about the data. The method Rossi is using has 
been used successfully by physicists and engineers since the 1840s, 
millions of times. The discussions here about how wet steam might 
produce a gigantic error are nonsense. No one has demonstrated such an 
error with a system like this. No one here has run a test demonstrating 
how to make steam with 6 times less energy than it normally takes. That 
is impossible.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 The discussions here about how wet steam might produce a gigantic error
 are nonsense. No one has demonstrated such an error with a system like this.
 No one here has run a test demonstrating how to make steam with 6 times less
 energy than it normally takes.


It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow
rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the
corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 times lower than it
is for 100% steam.

Rossi has never provided data to distinguish between those two extremes, and
the video evidence that is available is strong evidence that it is much
closer to very wet, than it is to very dry.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

He doesn't need to provide data for that. 1% of liquid mass would mean
an intense bubbling foam outside the hose. Just for a comparison, a
nebulizer with an output of 46L/min of oxygen takes several minutes to
deplete a shallow reserver of a few grams of liquid, and the fog is
very thick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xre92Ap0vrA

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:

It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input 
flow rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 
100C, the corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 
times lower than it is for 100% steam.


This vessel is shaped like a teapot or a steam locomotive. For a reason. 
Unless the liquid flows through too fast and overflows, only dry steam 
can escape from it. If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the 
temperature.


The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates. It is 
not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C. If vessel 
produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the vessel 
itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings.


This has been common knowledge for 170 years. Anyone familiar with 
teapots knows this. The speculation and handwaving here about a magical 
ability to make water appear to boil with far less energy than this is 
complete, 100% pure, unadulterated bullshit.


Naturally, the steam is quite wet by the time it reaches the end of that 
hose. Plus there is probably water in there from the start-up, when the 
vessel itself was heating.


By the way, Rossi uses exact numbers with 2 decimal digits of precision, 
but obviously the total mass of water over 1 hour was not exactly 7 kg. 
That was a rough approximation. He probably measured it, but he is the 
kind of guy who does not write things down. He just remembers it was 
around 7 kg. It might have been 5 kg or 8 kg. Who knows? It does not matter.


The test probably wasn't exactly 1 hour long, either.

The details do not matter, but if I had been there instead of Krivit, 
you can be darn sure I would have written them down. Krivit's 
preliminary report was long on impressions, coffee, and (somewhat) 
impertinent question, and short on hands-on details such as the weight 
of the water, the duration of the test, and so on. It would better with 
less Krivit and more facts.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude wrote:

  It is not necessary to do any tests to know that with a given input flow
 rate of water at room temperature, if the output fluid is at 100C, the
 corresponding power for 99% liquid (by mass) is about 7 times lower than it
 is for 100% steam.


 This vessel is shaped like a teapot or a steam locomotive. For a reason.
 Unless the liquid flows through too fast and overflows, only dry steam can
 escape from it.


And yet, before it is boiling, liquid water escapes from it. Below the
boiling point.


 If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature.


How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam
mixture would be at 100C.



 The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates.


There is no evidence that it does that.



 It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C.


You don't need pressure to increase the temperature of dry steam above
100C.

If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the
 vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings.


If the vessel gets hotter, the water will boil earlier in its path through
the device, and the steam will have to get through this hotter device. When
you pass air, far above its boiling point, past a heating element in a
furnace, what happens? Why, it gets hotter. That's how I keep my house warm
in winter. The heat capacity of steam is pretty small (half that of water),
so only a little heat transferred to the steam would show up as a
substantial increase in its temperature.


 This has been common knowledge for 170 years. Anyone familiar with teapots
 knows this.


It's not a teapot. The fluid is pumped through the system.


 The speculation and handwaving here about a magical ability to make water
 appear to boil with far less energy than this is complete, 100% pure,
 unadulterated bullshit.


To get water to boil, you only have to heat it to 100C. To convert it all to
steam takes 7 times the energy. That's been known for 170 years.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

If you don't want to hot bubbles outside he machine, you have to heat
almost all to steam. Using a teapot shaped boiler is a way to not let
that happen. Jed is right this time.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:


If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature.


How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam 
mixture would be at 100C.


With this flow configuration, in my experience it would around ~95°C as 
soon as the feed water starts overflowing. You only get a stable 
water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot). Again, in my 
experience, with a closed vessel the temperature is just below 100°C: 
~99°C. With a flow system like this, it would be very hard to manually 
adjust the flow rate to keep it close to 99°C, to mimic a teapot. (You 
could do it with computerized controls.)


When the cell is first heating up, the feed water overflows. The 
temperature rises. You can easily tell when water stops coming through 
and it converts entirely to steam. The sound changes. You can tell this 
with a miniature steam engine, for example. It is readily apparent. You 
can also hear when water is coming to boil, a very distinct hissing, 
roiling sound, familiar to cooks and people who play with steam engines.



It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C. 



You don't need pressure to increase the temperature of dry steam above 
100C.


It only goes up to ~101°C in Rossi's test, as you see on the screen.



If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the
water, the vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the
surroundings.


If the vessel gets hotter, the water will boil earlier in its path 
through the device, and the steam will have to get through this hotter 
device.


A little. That's why you see the numbers on Rossi's screen fluctuate, 
occassionally going up to ~102°C.




This has been common knowledge for 170 years. Anyone familiar with
teapots knows this. 



It's not a teapot. The fluid is pumped through the system.


That's true but I was referring to the shape of the vessel preventing 
unboiled water from leaving. Mostly preventing it.


Pumping fluids through boilers is also something people have been doing 
for a long time. It is well understood.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-24 Thread Harry Veeder

From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 2:20:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
The vessel will boil away all of the water at these flow rates.

To get water to boil, you only have to heat it to 100C. To convert it all to 
steam takes 7 times the energy. That's been known for 170 years.  

Liquid water will produce a hot mist (wet steam) just below the boiling point. 
At the boiling point it produces dry steam.
What happens is that the water keeps absorbing energy until it becomes dry 
steam. The temperature of the vessel walls doesn't increase 
7 times while this is happening. It would increase 7 times if the vessel 
contained no liquid water.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 **
 Joshua Cude wrote:

   If it was overflowing that would be obvious from the temperature.


  How? If part of the water was converted to steam, then the water/steam
 mixture would be at 100C.


 With this flow configuration, in my experience it would around ~95°C as
 soon as the feed water starts overflowing.


I'm not familiar with your experience, so this means nothing to me.

You only get a stable water/steam mixture in a closed vessel (a teapot).


Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water to
100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then only
part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have to
have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. What other possibility is
there?

Again, in my experience, with a closed vessel the temperature is just below
 100°C: ~99°C. With a flow system like this, it would be very hard to
 manually adjust the flow rate to keep it close to 99°C, to mimic a teapot.
 (You could do it with computerized controls.)


Again, your experience is no help here. If the power is just above what's
necessary to bring the water to the bp, then you must have a mixture of
steam and liquid, and it must be at the bp. Not hard at all. It's hard to
get anything else.


 When the cell is first heating up, the feed water overflows.


It's not overflowing. It's simply flowing through a conduit.

The temperature rises. You can easily tell when water stops coming through
 and it converts entirely to steam.


As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700 times
the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around.
It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled
water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the water (by mass) changes phase,
the fluid is 95% gas, with a fine mist entrained in it. This looks like
steam, and that's Rossi's ace in the hole. Because uncritical people like
you, are so eager to believe in it, that you simply accept it.

 It is not pressurized, so the temperature will be just over 100°C.

 You don't need pressure to increase the temperature of dry steam above
 100C.

 It only goes up to ~101°C in Rossi's test, as you see on the screen.


That's because there is liquid water mixed with it.


   If vessel produces more heat than is needed to boil away the water, the
 vessel itself will get hotter, and radiate into the surroundings.


  If the vessel gets hotter, the water will boil earlier in its path
 through the device, and the steam will have to get through this hotter
 device.


 A little. That's why you see the numbers on Rossi's screen fluctuate,
 occassionally going up to ~102°C.


It's perfectly flat. There is far more fluctuation on the heating and
cooling gradients, where the water is liquid with a higher heat capacity.
Gas heats up when it passes a hot element. And not just a little.



 That's true but I was referring to the shape of the vessel preventing
 unboiled water from leaving. Mostly preventing it.


The fluid is pumped through it. There is nothing preventing water from going
through it. You're not making any sense.



 Pumping fluids through boilers is also something people have been doing for
 a long time. It is well understood.


Yes, but not by you, evidently.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

  Why? If it takes say 1 kW to raise the temperature of the flowing water
 to
  100C, and then you supply 1.5 kW (using only and electric heater), then
 only
  part of the flowing water will get converted to steam, and you will have
 to
  have a mixture of liquid and gas coming out. What other possibility is
  there?

 The wet part falls back until it becomes dry vapor later, when more
 energy is added.


How can it fall back if there's more water coming in all the time to occupy
the space. Come on people. There's a pump pushing the water through. The
water is only in contact with the heater for a limited time. If that time is
not long enough to change the phase, it's gonna exit as liquid.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

You have to trap most of  the steam until all the heat gets
transfered. And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged
out by the flow.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Isn't there a small transparent hose besides the one that pumps water inside?

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
 As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700 times
 the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around.
 It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled
 water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the water (by mass) changes phase,
 the fluid is 95% gas, with a fine mist entrained in it. This looks like
 steam, and that's Rossi's ace in the hole.

I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist
mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below
99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that
are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal
digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the
difference,

Of course this is thermometer reading is trivial to fake e.g. putting
carefully calibrated and electronically controlled electric resistor
near thermometer sensor. Of course there are many other easy or
difficult methods to fake results. E.g. mixing some H2O2, into water
then catalyze the reaction that produces enough heat to account excess
energy.

It is plain foolish to crap insignificant and probably false details,
because there is not enough information of all the relevant variables,
if the whole system does not even resemble science and can be
fabricated quite easily. Those recent demonstrations are not even
demonstrations, because Rossi has only let observers to watch when he
is performing alleged E-Cat tests for 1 MW plant.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
  As soon as it starts boiling, things get very turbulent. Steam is 1700
 times
  the volume of water for the same mass, so it's gonna push things around.
  It's gonna push all the water ahead of it out, and convert the unboiled
  water behind it to a fine mist. If 1% of the water (by mass) changes
 phase,
  the fluid is 95% gas, with a fine mist entrained in it. This looks like
  steam, and that's Rossi's ace in the hole.

 I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
 measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist
 mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below
 99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that
 are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal
 digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the
 difference,


It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling
point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat. If the
steam were dry, its temperature would be free to increase, but it never
does. In all the experiments, at various different flow rates and input
powers, when boiling is reached, it stays flat.

The actual value of the bp depends on pressure (which could be slightly
elevated inside the conduit because of the production of steam and pressure
from the pump), and on impurities, and on the exact placement of the probe
(in relation to the heater). (I suspect the last point is the reason the
temperature is slightly different (but always flat) in the different
experiments: 101.6 in some 100.1 in others.

If Rossi wants to use the fact that the temperature is above the bp as
evidence for dry steam, then reduce the flow rate a little, and let the
temperature go to 110 or 120C. He never does this.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 You have to trap most of  the steam until all the heat gets
 transfered.


I don't know what that means.


 And 1% by mass is a very think fog, it won't be dragged
 out by the flow.


It's not given a choice. There is a pump forcing it out.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C.


Yup. It is ~99°C here in Atlanta, GA, elevation ~300 m.


Of course this is thermometer reading is trivial to fake e.g. putting
carefully calibrated and electronically controlled electric resistor
near thermometer sensor.

That's true.


It is plain foolish to crap insignificant and probably false details,
because there is not enough information of all the relevant variables,
if the whole system does not even resemble science and can be
fabricated quite easily. Those recent demonstrations are not even
demonstrations, because Rossi has only let observers to watch when he
is performing alleged E-Cat tests for 1 MW plant.


That's true too. What Krivit saw was not a scientific test, or an 
engineering test. It was more like a trade show demo. As I said, when 
Rossi invited me, I asked him to do a test. He politely refused, saying 
he did not have time, and he does not want to do any more tests until 
the 1 MW demo.


There is nothing wrong with a trade show demo! It is educational. We can 
draw some conclusions from it. We can't prove anything, because it would 
be a trivial matter to fake the results, as Valkonen says. But, as I 
just noted, if we assume that Rossi is being honest, and that Krivit 
would have noticed gross problems such as the flow rate not being ~7 
L/h, then we can conclude there was some anomalous heat with 800 W 
input. The amount is hard to estimate.


What I wanted to do on a visit to Rossi would be closer to an 
engineering test. I was hoping to spend many hours measuring the effect, 
first with flowing water, and then later with steam. I was planning to 
measure the input power, flow rate, inlet and outlet temperature with my 
own instruments. I was planning to sparge the steam. This would make the 
results somewhat independent of Rossi. Not fully independent of course, 
but more independent than what Krivit observed.


There is a spectrum of demonstrations. At one end we have what Krivit 
saw, which is completely dependent on the good will and honesty of 
Rossi. At the other end we have a replication from scratch done by a 
researcher who has never met Rossi. What I wanted to a little more 
toward the center of spectrum than what Krivit saw. Not because I don't 
trust Rossi. I wanted to do this because it is more fun, and more 
convincing.



I am pleased that Rossi took the time to do this trade-show demo for 
Krivit. I thought Rossi did a good job. The two video segments are very 
interesting and revealing. Krivit did a fine job with the video camera 
position, lighting and sound. That's not easy! Kudos to both of them.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:

 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
 measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist
 mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below
 99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that
 are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal
 digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the
 difference,


 It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling
 point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat.
This is explained that the heat resistor is below the water level. If
you want to go significantly above 102 without increasing pressure,
then it is necessary to boil all the water away and start heating
steam directly. However one method, how to fabricate the result, is to
increase pressure so that the boiling point increases. But as it is
said quite clearly, the pressure is near room temperature, therefore
boiling point is significantly below 100,1 °C, if we trust Rossi. If
we do not trust, then discussion is meaningless, because E-Cat can be
fabricated on all possible levels

There is not just enough information on all the variables that are
affecting to the system. Therefore any constructive criticism is not
possible, but we need to only trust or distrust what Rossi is saying,
(he has 30 year experience  on energy industry, therefore it is safe
to assume that he knows what he is doing). Any arguments on validity
of measurements are just speculative because all the necessary
variables are not known. You should know that neither Rossi's
Demonstrations, nor these speculative steam discussions are science,

This is really important to remember what can be said and what cannot
be said if there is insufficient knowledge available. Therefore this
is only a matter of trust and distrust, not a matter of facts.

However on Thursday, University of bologna did sign a research
contract and they are free to publish any measurements that they make
on arbitrary detail. If I understood rumors correctly, we should get
independent scientific verification of E-Cat in early July.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:

It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the 
boiling point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly 
flat. If the steam were dry, its temperature would be free to 
increase, but it never does.


If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:

Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn 
the flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature 
of the steam. You will find it is ~101°C.


Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out. 
Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C.


You have to pressurize it to make it any higher. When you add more heat, 
all you do is boil more water.


Of course a flow configuration is not quite the same, and there may be a 
little more opportunity for the vapor to cross the hot surface and heat 
up before it escapes, but with something the size of the Rossi device, 
at 1 atm, you would have to make it produce many kilowatts of anomalous 
heat before you get the steam up to up to 110°C or 120°C.


(I realize I got this wrong before, but not that wrong!)


In all the experiments, at various different flow rates and input 
powers, when boiling is reached, it stays flat.


Yup. This is exactly what you see when you calibrate with a joule 
heater. Turn the power way up; the line will stay flat. Try it! Build a 
flow calorimeter.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/6/24 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
 
  On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
 
  wrote:
  I do not know how many times you and abd have been told that the
  measured boiling point of water is 99,7 °C. Therefore if there is mist
  mixed into dry steam, it will reduce the steam temperature below
  99,7°C. But this is not what is observed, but steam temperatures that
  are above 100,1 °C. You really should not ignore the last decimal
  digit in the thermometer readings, because it makes all the
  difference,
 
 
  It is not the temperature reading that convinces me it is at the boiling
  point, it is the fact that the temperature is so perfectly flat.
 This is explained that the heat resistor is below the water level. If

you want to go significantly above 102 without increasing pressure,
 then it is necessary to boil all the water away and start heating
 steam directly.


Well, if you're claiming that all the water is boiled away, then the steam
would be heated directly. You would have to supply a very carefully
regulated power exactly equal to the power required to vaporize the all the
water to satisfy the claim that the steam is dry. Just one per cent more
power would cause the steam temperature to rise about 10C. It is not
plausible that in all these different runs with different flow rates and
different power inputs the ecat always gave just enough power to exactly
vaporize all the water, and not a per cent more or less.

A far easier explanation for the flat temperature is that there is liquid in
the output fluid.

if we trust Rossi. If we do not trust, then discussion is meaningless,
 because E-Cat can be
 fabricated on all possible levels


I suppose trust is not binary. But if we blindly trust him, then there is no
need for demos at all. My point is that only a few hundred watts are needed
from the ecat to explain even the numbers as given by Rossi.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:

 Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the
 flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the
 steam. You will find it is ~101°C.

 Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out.
 Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C.


Of course, because there is liquid water present. You are heating the water,
not the steam.


 You have to pressurize it to make it any higher. When you add more heat,
 all you do is boil more water.


In a pot, yes. The ecat is not a pot.



 Of course a flow configuration is not quite the same, and there may be a
 little more opportunity for the vapor to cross the hot surface and heat up
 before it escapes, but with something the size of the Rossi device, at 1
 atm, you would have to make it produce many kilowatts of anomalous heat
 before you get the steam up to up to 110°C or 120°C.


Well, for the flow rates used, you have to produce many kW to vaporize all
the water. That's Rossi's claim. But once the water is all vaporized, you
only need another watt to raise the temperature of 1 g/s steam flow by 2 C.
In the Krivit demo, with about 2 g/s, 10 W more will increase the steam
temperature by 10C.

Now, it may not be exactly like this, but the additional heat has to get out
somehow. If the steam doesn't take it, then the ecat will get hotter, and
maybe lose a little more through the insulation. But if the ecat gets
hotter, the water boils quicker, and exposes the dry steam to more heating
element and allows it to get hotter.

It's conservation of energy. If all the water is already in the form of
steam, and if you put more power into the ecat, or if it produces more
power, then the only way for it to come out is if the steam gets hotter.


 (I realize I got this wrong before, but not that wrong!)


Yes. Completely, unequivocally, blatantly, wrong. You still don't seem to
grasp it.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
 Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn the
 flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of the
 steam. You will find it is ~101°C.

 Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out.
 Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C.

 Of course, because there is liquid water present. You are heating the water,
 not the steam.

That is good insight, because E-Cat heats water in liquid phase.
Heating element is completely submerged into water. Input water flow
is adjusted for exactly on that reason, so that E-Cat's heating
element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
that it matches evaporation rate.

Therefore E-Cat is exactly the same thing as a kettle where there is a
hose plugged into nozzle and input water flow is adjusted so that
there is always water present in liquid form. This why E-Cat has a
tall chimney, to prevent overflow of water and boiling away all the
water coolant. If there is no water in liquid form around heating
element, E-Cat melts down.

–Jouni

P.S. It is surprising that you and abd have written hundreds of very
long messages although misunderstanding is on such a basic level that
people do not know how tea pot is functioning!

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:

 2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
  On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  If you have a high temperature thermometer, please try this at home:
  Boil some water in a teapot so that steam emerges from the spout. Turn
 the
  flame down, so that only a little emerges. Measure the temperature of
 the
  steam. You will find it is ~101°C.
 
  Turn the flame up as high as it will go. A lot of steam will come out.
  Measure the temperature again. It will still be 101°C.
 
  Of course, because there is liquid water present. You are heating the
 water,
  not the steam.
 
 That is good insight, because E-Cat heats water in liquid phase.
 Heating element is completely submerged into water. Input water flow
 is adjusted for exactly on that reason, so that E-Cat's heating
 element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
 that it matches evaporation rate.


First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
experiment is started. The only thing that is necessary to account for a
flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that
the entire heating element remains wet.

To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would
require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the
power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Neither are
believable. Rossi's admitted in the secret run, where there was no
water/steam regulation that the output power fluctuated significantly.

Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the
bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up.

I've often thought a better way to do this experiment would be to adjust the
flow rate (reduce it) until the temperature of the steam begins to climb to
110C or 120C. Then you could be sure the steam is dry, the calculation he
likes to stumble over would have some validity.


 Therefore E-Cat is exactly the same thing as a kettle where there is a
 hose plugged into nozzle and input water flow is adjusted so that
 there is always water present in liquid form.


Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly
the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat,
vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam leaves
as it is produced, and so it would be forgiving of fluctuations in the power
or input flow rate. That is, the output mass flow rate does not have to
match the input flow rate.

But the ecat is not open like that. The output mass flow rate must match the
input. So, even if the flow rate matched the output of dry steam, a very
small decrease in the flow rate or a very small increase in the power would
show up as a substantial increase in the steam temperature.

The ecat is not a tea pot. Get used to it.


 This why E-Cat has a
 tall chimney, to prevent overflow of water and boiling away all the
 water coolant.


The water or steam is pushed out no matter what. It's a closed system. There
is no concept of overflowing.

My theory of the chimney is it provides a place for the liquid water to
become aerosolized by the turbulence of the little steam that is produced,
so that what comes out looks like steam.


 If there is no water in liquid form around heating
 element, E-Cat melts down.


Or the steam gets hotter. Or both. But the steam would get hotter.


 P.S. It is surprising that you and abd have written hundreds of very
 long messages although misunderstanding is on such a basic level that
 people do not know how tea pot is functioning!


We unfortunately do not have the benefit of being trained by members of the
tea party.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011/6/25 Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com:
 First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
 experiment is started. The only thing that is necessary to account for a
 flat temperature is, as you say, that the flow rate is high enough so that
 the entire heating element remains wet.
 To believe that all the water is converted to dry steam at the bp, would
 require (1) that Rossi knew beforehand the exact flow-rate to balance the
 power, and (2) that the power remain stable to a per cent or so. Neither are
 believable. Rossi's admitted in the secret run, where there was no
 water/steam regulation that the output power fluctuated significantly.
 Secondly, why would he want to do this? Allowing the steam to go above the
 bp would give him the evidence he needs to shut the likes of me up.
 I've often thought a better way to do this experiment would be to adjust the
 flow rate (reduce it) until the temperature of the steam begins to climb to
 110C or 120C. Then you could be sure the steam is dry, the calculation he
 likes to stumble over would have some validity.

 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 Therefore E-Cat is exactly the same thing as a kettle where there is a
 hose plugged into nozzle and input water flow is adjusted so that
 there is always water present in liquid form.

 Well, that would explain the temperature regulation, but it's not exactly
 the same, because there is no pump pushing whatever is in the ecat,
 vaporized or not, out. In the case of the teapot, the exiting steam leaves
 as it is produced, and so it would be forgiving of fluctuations in the power
 or input flow rate. That is, the output mass flow rate does not have to
 match the input flow rate.
 But the ecat is not open like that. The output mass flow rate must match the
 input. So, even if the flow rate matched the output of dry steam, a very
 small decrease in the flow rate or a very small increase in the power would
 show up as a substantial increase in the steam temperature.
 The ecat is not a tea pot. Get used to it.

To say this you need to know exactly how much water E-Cat can contain
in liquid form. If you cannot answer that then your argument does not
have any relevance, because you lack crucial details of the
experiment. You can make tea pots with water pump, but you need to
know what is the volume of the teapot.

So what is the exact volume of E-Cat?

It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the
water boils away, core temperature may rise too high.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is important that tea pot does not overflow, because it messes up
 calculations, because steam is not dry anymore. Therefore E-Cat's
 inner volume has to be big enough to account power fluctuations
 because peak power can surge over 120 kW. On the other hand if all the
 water boils away, core temperature may rise too high.


That is an astute observation. Thank you.

You are right that if the water boils away the temperature will rise
rapidly.

If the heat is too low, the teapot fills up and starts to overflow, cold
water will flow in and replace the hot water, and it will soon stop boiling.
The outlet temperature will fall below 100 deg C.

While the machine is running, Rossi is constantly checking the screen
numbers and adjusting the anomalous heat. I do not know he does this, but
apparently he is able to do it. He changes the input power slightly, I
think. I assume he is keeping the teapot full without letting it overflow.
It would be easier to do this with a tube on the outside.

Of course this can be automated. He is running the thing manually.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.netwrote:

 Abd wrote:
 Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain
 assumptions. Unfortunately, the
 assumptions are the very issue here!

 I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions.
 The instrument does calculations based on scientific laws and uses what
 measured variables it does have to calculate different units... For example,
 Relative humidity is calculated from Absolute humidity and temperature and
 pressure.


It sounds like you're just making shit up.

The instrument doesn't have a way to measure absolute humidity directly. It
measures capacitance, which varies with relative humidity. So, they have to
calibrate it using known humidities (usually with different salts that have
a known vapor pressure). So, humidity h1 in air corresponds to capacitance
c1, and humidity h2 in air corresponds to capacitance c2, and so on. Then
they make a graph of capacitance vs humidity, and use the graph to determine
an arbitrary humidity from an arbitrary capacitance. Now, if it's calibrated
in air, as it is, then the assumption they make when they report humidity is
that you are using the device in air. If you use it in a mixture of steam
and mist, the capacitance measurement may mean something, but using the
calibration curve generated in air will not be meaningful.

  I have never seen an instrument that bases the display of other units on
 assumptions. I certainly wouldn't buy one!


Most speedometers make assumptions about tire diameters. Many mass scales
assume a value for g, and wouldn't read the correct mass on the moon, or in
orbit. A barometric altimeter assumes you are in earth's atmosphere (and the
weather is fair for good accuracy), and will not work in the space shuttle
in orbit, or on another planet. Etc.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Harry Veeder



Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at 100% 
RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, 
the 
vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the partial pressure of 
the water vapor) is also 1 atm. Ergo, 100% RH.


I think the RH of the steam is 0% when it is fully dry just like the RH of 
fully 
dry air is 0%.
You can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my reasoning:

Dry steam is water in the form of a gas and only a gas. (I prefer the word gas 
over the word vapour because the meaning of water vapour is highly fluid 
in common paralance. Pun intended) Water can only exist as a gas if 
the atmospheric pressure drops considerably or if the temperature rises 
considerably or through combination of the two. 

Therefore at room temperature and pressure water does not exist as a gas, and 
the humidity of the air consists entirely of an extremely fine suspension of 
liquid water drops. Air at room temperature and pressure is free of water gas. 


When the relative humidity of the air (or some other gas)  reaches 100% it 
can't 
hold any more liquid water drops.

On the other hand my assertions about water gas are hard to reconcile 
with the phenomena of water evaporation so I may well be wrong!
Harry




From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, June 23, 2011 1:02:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...




On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: 
Yes, as I've been trying to explain all along, once you get to 100%RH, all 
remaining water will be
in the form of liquid water because at the given temperature and pressure it 
is 
now saturated and
can no longer support further water molecules as vapor.


But steam inside the conduit is always at 100% RH. Regardless of what fraction 
of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and 
the steam pressure (also the partial pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 
atm. 
Ergo, 100% RH.


I've already answered your question as to HOW one can calculate that portion 
that is liquid water...


No. You really haven't.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:


 It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power.


That's true, but I've only been arguing that Rossi has not provided the
public with evidence of excess heat. I don't have proof that the rock in my
front yard is not producing heat either. But Rossi is making the claim. The
onus is on him to provide the evidence.



 Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed excuses
 this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm skeptical. I suspect that
 Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows how he looks and is deliberately
 creating the impressions that he's creating. I can think of a number of
 reasons for this, both psychological and practical or economic.


I don't know how one can come to this idea except to start with the
conclusion that the ecat works, and you said starting from the conclusion is
a bad thing.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:


 Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at
 100% RH. Regardless of what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At
 100C, the vapor pressure is 1 atm, and the steam pressure (also the partial
 pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 atm. Ergo, 100% RH.


 I think the RH of the steam is 0% when it is fully dry just like the RH of
 fully dry air is 0%.
 You can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my reasoning:

 Dry steam is water in the form of a gas and only a gas. (I prefer the word
 gas over the word vapour because the meaning of water vapour is highly fluid
 in common paralance. Pun intended) Water can only exist as a gas if
 the atmospheric pressure drops considerably or if the temperature rises
 considerably or through combination of the two.

 Therefore at room temperature and pressure water does not exist as a gas,
 and the humidity of the air consists entirely of an extremely fine
 suspension of liquid water drops. Air at room temperature and pressure is
 free of water gas.

 When the relative humidity of the air (or some other gas)  reaches 100% it
 can't hold any more liquid water drops.

 On the other hand my assertions about water gas are hard to reconcile
 with the phenomena of water evaporation so I may well be wrong!



You are indeed wrong. Time for a refresher. Look up vapor pressure in
wikipedia for a start.

Water evaporates into pure gas (not droplets) below its boiling point.
Humidity measures the amount of water vapor (gas, not droplets) in the air.
When the partial pressure of the water vapor in air equals the vapor
pressure of water, evaporation stops, or at least it balances condensation.
That represents 100% humidity. The ratio of the partial pressure of the
water vapor to the vapor pressure of water is the relative humidity.

The RH of steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere is therefore 100%.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


From this document http://www.macinstruments.com/pdf/handbook.pdf, from a 
website trying to sell absolute humidity gauges, it would appear that a 
relative humidity sensor can give accurate reading up to the boiling point of 
water and that the measurement of humidity decreases in dry steam as the 
temperature of the super heated vapor increases.
The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% 
above 95% RH from this spec sheet  
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.
If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then 
an an examination of the phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water 
can be entrained in the vapor.  Under these conditions the steam would be dry 
and the humidity sensor would read = 100 +/- 3.5% according to the above 
information.  The fact that the steam exiting the hose in the video is 
invisible is very strong qualitative evidence that the steam is relatively dry. 
 Since the steam can only become wetter after it's exit from the chimney, it 
must be more dry when it is produced than when it exits the hose.  If the 
temperature and pressure were measured accurately then the steam is likely to 
be significantly dry.
In summary, it would appear that if the water is superheated then the steam is 
dry. 

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:52:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com 
wrote:






If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric 
constant of steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very 
different and yield very different readings. 


From what I found, it is not the dielectric constant of the fluid that 
determines the capacitance, but the dielectric constant of a polymer which 
absorbs more or less water depending on the humidity. I found variations of 
this paragraph at several different sites:

Most humidity sensors use capacitive measurement to determine the amount of 
moisture in the air. This type of measurement relies on the ability of two 
electrical conductors to create an electrical field between them with a 
non-conductive polymer film laying between them. Moisture from the air collects 
on the film and will cause changes in the voltage levels between the two 
plates.  (www.tech-faq.com/humidity-sensors.html)

In this case wet steam is likely to give a higher reading than dry steam, which 
would give exactly the wrong information.

In any case, if the device does actually give different measures for different 
wetness of steam, it would have to be calibrated for the purpose. The 
manufacturer does not do this. They calibrate it to represent the humidity in 
air.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Harry Veeder

Joshua Cude wrote:

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting
microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C.

You don't expect water droplets above the boiling point. The temperature of 
the 



mixture of steam and droplets will be *at* the boiling point.  



The actual boiling point inside the conduit will be slightly elevated because 
of 



a slight increase in pressure. Rossi emphasizes that the pressure is at 
atmosphere inside the reactor, but in fact it must be slightly higher, or 
there 



would be no flow of the fluid. The pressure difference, flow rate, and tube 
geometry are related by a simple formula, and reasonable estimates indicate an 
elevation in the bp of a degree or so is easily plausible. 

If the boiling point goes up by degree or two that makes no difference to the 
implausibility of water drops existing in the beginning of the plume which has 
a 

temperature just above the boiling point.


As a practical matter it seems to me steam quality is primarly an issue at the 
place
where it is needed, e.g. to drive a turbine etc. Steam quality would rarley be 
an issue
near the boiler where it is produced.

Haary

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 12:12 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:

 Yes, that is true. But the steam is way too low for 2.5KW. If someone
 can provide me a mathematical example refuting that, I will be happy.


 *What steam?*

 Understand that 2.5 KW of steam being generated at the E-Cat is not going
 to be 2.5 KW of steam coming out of a 3 meter hose, right.


Except Rossi claims the ecat is producing 5 kW, not 2.5 kW.


 Suppose, as someone claimed, the steam is right for the input power claimed
 (about 750 watts).


Actually, I think that's wrong. Taking the flow rate as claimed, 600 W are
needed to bring the water to the boiling point, leaving only 150 W to
produce steam. So, on the face of it, the ecat seems to be producing some
power, if the output steam represents more than 150 W.

The problem is that it's hard to trust any of the numbers. Someone has
estimated the flow rate to be 1/2 of what Rossi claimed, based on the pump
frequency, and a photograph of the pump dials. And the power was only
measured at the beginning. It was not monitored. In the Lewan video, Rossi
is caught with his paws on the control dials. He is not similarly caught in
Krivit's video, but it can't be ruled out.

What is abundantly clear though, is that the steam coming out is not
consistent with 5 kW being produced by the ecat, as claimed by Rossi.



 So, then, we need only lose 1.75 KW by conduction, convection, and
 radiation, from the 3 meters of hose, and someone did calculations showing
 that to be reasonable.


There is no way that is reasonable. The equivalent surface area of a steam
radiator produces about 150 W, and there is no way that rubber radiates more
than 10 times the amount of heat than cast iron does at the same
temperature. And anyway, even at 1.75 kW, there should still be about 3 kW
left corresponding to the steam.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 **
  Oh well, I'll run the errand tomorrow...

 As a start, go read about the gas laws and partial pressure and how
 humidity is calculated from partial pressure...

 In order to understand how Galantini can ESTIMATE the liquid water content
 of the steam, you need to think several steps ahead as in chess, or in a
 complex mathematical derivation that involves many steps and applying
 theorems at each step in order to derive the final desired answer.  Its not
 a direct measurement as I've said numerous times.


You're not saying anything.



 The behavior and properties of gases are very different from liquids, and
 are dictated by mass or mole fraction, not concentrations.
 Gases dissolve, diffuse, and react according to their partial pressures,
 and not according to their concentrations in gas mixtures or liquids.


Still nothing.



 If you vaporized so many grams of liquid water into a cubic meter box with
 NO other molecules present, you'd end up with a specific temperature and
 pressure, and that could also be communicated as a mixing ratio.  For
 atmospheric science where we ARE dealing with air, then the mixing ratio is
 the mass of water (if you condense the water vapor) to the mass of dry air.
 However, you do NOT need other molecules in order to measure humidity.


Humidity exists without other molecules. That's true. But if you want to
measure humidity with a device calibrated in air, you need to make the
measurement in the same conditions the calibration was performed under.

But humidity is not what you want if you're interested in the steam wetness.
The relative humidity of steam is 100%. If that device gives the mass of
water vapor per unit volume, then it will give the density of steam: 0.6 kg/
m^3, or 1000 g of water vapor per kg of steam. We already know that number.



 So you're getting hung up on the denominator thinking that there has to be
 some entity or volume of some other molecule(s) when in fact, it might as
 well say, cubic meter of empty space.

But if all you know is x g/m^3, you don't know the mass unless you know how
many m^3.

And you need the mass for your simple algebra. The mass per unit volume
doesn't help.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Finlay,
Appreciate your contributions...
 
Thanks for the link to the humidity handbook... good clear explanations.
Given my reading so far, I would agree with your statement that...
If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then 
an examination of the
phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water can be entrained in the 
vapor.  Under these
conditions the steam would be dry...
 
You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over minor 
details, but one of
the senior contributors to the Vort collective calculated that if only 5% (by 
mass) of the water
going in was not vaporized (i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing 
steam), it would pretty
much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi.  So this has been a 
major concern since the
Jan demo... 
 
Then again, some have already concluded that this really is a moot point given 
the work by Piantelli
and Focardi on Ni-H systems, the extensive history of LENR research, and 
recently Ahern's work with
Ni-H and zero energy input (and 8W of heat out).  We are dealing with 
macroscopic effects that don't
require extremely sensitive and accurate and expensive instruments to measure.  
I think that there
is strong evidence that allows one to make a qualitative call that there is 
overunity here and
something novel is going on... thus, move on and figure out how to optimize it. 
 Quibbling over
whether its 1% or 2% liquid water in the steam is probably a waste of time... 
 

-Mark

 

  _  

From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:51 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


From this document http://www.macinstruments.com/pdf/handbook.pdf, from a 
website trying to sell
absolute humidity gauges, it would appear that a relative humidity sensor can 
give accurate reading
up to the boiling point of water and that the measurement of humidity decreases 
in dry steam as the
temperature of the super heated vapor increases. 

The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% 
above 95% RH from this
spec sheet  http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.

If the temperature of the vapor is above 100C and the pressure is 1 atm, then 
an an examination of
the phase diagram of water suggests that no liquid water can be entrained in 
the vapor.  Under these
conditions the steam would be dry and the humidity sensor would read = 100 +/- 
3.5% according to
the above information.  The fact that the steam exiting the hose in the video 
is invisible is very
strong qualitative evidence that the steam is relatively dry.  Since the steam 
can only become
wetter after it's exit from the chimney, it must be more dry when it is 
produced than when it exits
the hose.  If the temperature and pressure were measured accurately then the 
steam is likely to be
significantly dry.

In summary, it would appear that if the water is superheated then the steam is 
dry. 


  _  

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:52:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com 
wrote:


If the relative humidity sensor measures capacitance then the dielectric 
constant of steam and the
dielectric constant of steam plus water would be very different and yield very 
different readings. 



From what I found, it is not the dielectric constant of the fluid that 
determines the capacitance,
but the dielectric constant of a polymer which absorbs more or less water 
depending on the humidity.
I found variations of this paragraph at several different sites:

Most humidity sensors use capacitive measurement to determine the amount of 
moisture in the air.
This type of measurement relies on the ability of two electrical conductors to 
create an electrical
field between them with a non-conductive polymer film laying between them. 
Moisture from the air
collects on the film and will cause changes in the voltage levels between the 
two plates. 
(www.tech-faq.com/humidity-sensors.html)


In this case wet steam is likely to give a higher reading than dry steam, which 
would give exactly
the wrong information.


In any case, if the device does actually give different measures for different 
wetness of steam, it
would have to be calibrated for the purpose. The manufacturer does not do this. 
They calibrate it to
represent the humidity in air.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Joshua wrote:
The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure of 
water is the relative
humidity.
 
The physics definition for RH is:
   %RH = (Pw/Ps)*100
Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the saturation 
pressure of water
vapor... 
 
What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit up.

-Mark

  _  

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:46 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...




On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:


 
Joshua, and I think Abd, believe ...steam inside the conduit is always at 100% 
RH. Regardless of
what fraction of the water is converted to steam. At 100C, the vapor pressure 
is 1 atm, and the
steam pressure (also the partial pressure of the water vapor) is also 1 atm. 
Ergo, 100% RH.
 
 
I think the RH of the steam is 0% when it is fully dry just like the RH of 
fully dry air is 0%.
You can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my reasoning:
 
Dry steam is water in the form of a gas and only a gas. (I prefer the word gas 
over the word vapour
because the meaning of water vapour is highly fluid in common paralance. Pun 
intended) Water can
only exist as a gas if the atmospheric pressure drops considerably or if the 
temperature rises
considerably or through combination of the two. 
 
Therefore at room temperature and pressure water does not exist as a gas, and 
the humidity of the
air consists entirely of an extremely fine suspension of liquid water drops. 
Air at room temperature
and pressure is free of water gas. 
 
When the relative humidity of the air (or some other gas)  reaches 100% it 
can't hold any more
liquid water drops.
 
On the other hand my assertions about water gas are hard to reconcile with the 
phenomena of water
evaporation so I may well be wrong!



You are indeed wrong. Time for a refresher. Look up vapor pressure in wikipedia 
for a start.

Water evaporates into pure gas (not droplets) below its boiling point. Humidity 
measures the amount
of water vapor (gas, not droplets) in the air. When the partial pressure of the 
water vapor in air
equals the vapor pressure of water, evaporation stops, or at least it balances 
condensation. That
represents 100% humidity. The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor 
to the vapor pressure
of water is the relative humidity. 

The RH of steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere is therefore 100%.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 **


 You might think that all this time on the steam quality is quibbling over
 minor details, but one of the senior contributors to the Vort collective
 calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the water going in was not vaporized
 (i.e., ended up as liquid water in the outflowing steam), it would pretty
 much wipe out all excess energy being claimed by Rossi.


No. Where do you get that? What senior contributer said that? If 95% of the
water (by mass) is converted to steam then Rossi's claims are 95% right.
(Well, ignoring discrepancies in flow rate and input power.)

What is true is that if the output is 5 % liquid by *volume*, then Rossi's
claims are 6 or 7 times too high. Because 5% liquid by volume corresponds to
99 % liquid by mass.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 **
 Joshua wrote:
 The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor
 pressure of water is the relative humidity.

 The physics definition for RH is:
%RH = (Pw/Ps)*100
 Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the
 saturation pressure of water vapor...

 What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit
 up.


Nope.
*Vapor pressure* or *equilibrium vapor pressure* is the
pressurehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure of
a vapor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor in thermodynamic
equilibriumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
with
its condensed phases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(matter) in a
closed system. 

Meteorologists also use the term *saturation vapor pressure* to refer to
the equilibrium vapor pressure of water or
brinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brine above
a flat surface, to distinguish it from equilibrium vapor pressure which
takes into account the shape and size of water droplets and particulates in
the atmosphere.

They're pretty close in meaning, and the difference is too subtle to matter
here.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:


 The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/-
 3.5% above 95% RH from this spec sheet
 http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.



I think you're reading that spec sheet wrong. The 150C refers to the range
of temperature measurement. But the RH sensor operating temperature is
given as -20 to 80C in the section on common characteristics of RH sensors
below the table.

So, there appears to be no claim that it can measure even RH at 100C.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Joshua Cude wrote:
 
 On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting
 microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C.
 
 You don't expect water droplets above the boiling point. The temperature
 of the
 mixture of steam and droplets will be *at* the boiling point.
 
 The actual boiling point inside the conduit will be slightly elevated
 because of
 a slight increase in pressure. Rossi emphasizes that the pressure is at
 atmosphere inside the reactor, but in fact it must be slightly higher, or
 there
 would be no flow of the fluid. The pressure difference, flow rate, and
 tube
 geometry are related by a simple formula, and reasonable estimates
 indicate an
 elevation in the bp of a degree or so is easily plausible.

 If the boiling point goes up by degree or two that makes no difference to
 the implausibility of water drops existing in the beginning of
 the plume which has a temperature just above the boiling point.

 I don't follow. If the bp goes up, then the temperature of the plume is not
just above the boiling point; it is at the boiling point. And so water drops
are entirely plausible.

What's not plausible is that at the moment it hits the bp, which requires
750 W, it immediately begins to vaporize all the water, which requires 5 kW.
A 7-fold increase in power requires a 7-fold increase in the temperature
difference between the reactor walls and the fluid. How can that happen so
fast?

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Josh wrote:
It sounds like you're just making shit up. 
The instrument doesn't have a way to measure absolute humidity directly. It 
measures capacitance,
which varies with relative humidity..
 
Yes, agreed that at the most fundamental level it is making an electrical 
measurement, that being
capacitance.  However, since relative humidity is a moving target depending on 
the temperature, RH
is usually calculated from absolute humidity and temperature.  
 
I'm not making this up... this is from direct experience... a few years ago we 
were using a
temp/humidity sensor in the lab and I wrote the code to query it and get its 
data.  I believe it too
was a polymer/capacitive sensor and what it measured was absolute humidity 
(which doesn't change
with temperature), and the user manual provided an equation to convert that 
into RH given the
temperature, which it also measured.  Perhaps they are a bit more sophisticated 
these days and
they've incorporated the adjustment for temperature in order to get RH... 

-Mark

  _  

From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...




On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:


Abd wrote:
Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain assumptions. 
Unfortunately, the
assumptions are the very issue here!


I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions.
The instrument does calculations based on scientific laws and uses what 
measured variables it does
have to calculate different units... For example, Relative humidity is 
calculated from Absolute
humidity and temperature and pressure. 


It sounds like you're just making shit up. 

The instrument doesn't have a way to measure absolute humidity directly. It 
measures capacitance,
which varies with relative humidity. So, they have to calibrate it using known 
humidities (usually
with different salts that have a known vapor pressure). So, humidity h1 in air 
corresponds to
capacitance c1, and humidity h2 in air corresponds to capacitance c2, and so 
on. Then they make a
graph of capacitance vs humidity, and use the graph to determine an arbitrary 
humidity from an
arbitrary capacitance. Now, if it's calibrated in air, as it is, then the 
assumption they make when
they report humidity is that you are using the device in air. If you use it in 
a mixture of steam
and mist, the capacitance measurement may mean something, but using the 
calibration curve generated
in air will not be meaningful.


  I have never seen an instrument that bases the display of other units on 
assumptions. I certainly
wouldn't buy one!



Most speedometers make assumptions about tire diameters. Many mass scales 
assume a value for g, and
wouldn't read the correct mass on the moon, or in orbit. A barometric altimeter 
assumes you are in
earth's atmosphere (and the weather is fair for good accuracy), and will not 
work in the space
shuttle in orbit, or on another planet. Etc.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-06-23 04:23 AM, Joshua Cude wrote:



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net 
mailto:zeropo...@charter.net wrote:



You might think that all this time on the steam quality is
quibbling over minor details, but one of the senior contributors
to the Vort collective calculated that if only 5% (by mass) of the
water going in was not vaporized (i.e., ended up as liquid water
in the outflowing steam), it would pretty much wipe out all excess
energy being claimed by Rossi.


No. Where do you get that? What senior contributer said that? If 95% 
of the water (by mass) is converted to steam then Rossi's claims are 
95% right. (Well, ignoring discrepancies in flow rate and input power.)


What is true is that if the output is 5 % liquid by *volume*, then 
Rossi's claims are 6 or 7 times too high. Because 5% liquid by volume 
corresponds to 99 % liquid by mass.


That would probably have been Horace, and I think he may have meant by 
volume.  The calculations are in the archive, among the most recent 
posts from Horace just before he bowed out due to lack of time, if 
anyone cares to go digging.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

 **

 Yes, agreed that at the most fundamental level it is making an electrical
 measurement, that being capacitance.  However, since relative humidity is a
 moving target depending on the temperature, RH is usually calculated from
 absolute humidity and temperature.


 I'm not making this up... this is from direct experience... a few years
 ago we were using a temp/humidity sensor in the lab and I wrote the code to
 query it and get its data.  I believe it too was a polymer/capacitive sensor
 and what it measured was absolute humidity (which doesn't change with
 temperature), and the user manual provided an equation to convert that into
 RH given the temperature, which it also measured.


If that device used a capacitive probe, then I doubt it measured absolute
humidity, independent of what it reported to the user. Because the same
absolute humidity at different temperatures would result in different
wetness of the polymer, and therefore different capacitance measurements.
Therefore, it certainly cannot deduce the absolute humidity from the
capacity measurement alone.

The wetness of the polymer will have a much simpler relationship with the RH
than with the absolute humidity. There may still be a temperature
dependence, but it will be weaker, and probably it is calibrated at
different temperatures. And that's probably why it's only valid within a
range of temperatures.

If the device is calibrated at different temperatures, and uses the
temperature to calculate the humidity, then it is entirely equivalent
whether it calculates relative or absolute humidity. But if it deduces
humidity from the capacitance measurement alone, then it can only be the
relative humidity.

The fact that you don't actually know the technology used in the probe in
your lab, and that a capacitance measurement alone cannot give a unique
absolute humidity, but that it could do reasonably well at giving relative
humidity, suggests you were just guessing.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show?

Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate? How 
would this show that Galantini was correct?


Yes, I meant the test with flowing water. This showed that the steam in 
the first test must have been dry.


It is conceivable that Galantini measured it wrong but he got lucky and 
it was dry anyway.



Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those 
results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we don't 
have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be 
confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter.


I do not see how they contradict Galantini.


Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are confusing 
confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers, with 
confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public demonstrations 
with private evidence, as with the second test, i.e., by Levi with 
high flow.


It wasn't exactly private. Or I guess I should say it wasn't supposed to 
be. Lewan and I got a report of it. We were hoping and expecting more. I 
might not have described it at LENR-CANR.org if I had known that no 
further details were forthcoming. The interview with Levi in Query today 
discusses it. I disagree with his assertion that a far more compelling 
test is needed, and much more time. If I had a few days with flowing 
water tests, or even one day, I think I could do a more compelling job 
than they have done so far.



You have already acknowledged being convinced by private 
information. That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us.


Yes. It is very frustrating for me, but I cannot do anything about it. 
Believe me, I am trying. In the larger sense, I have been trying for 
years to persuade cold fusion researchers to publish more. I have had 
mixed success. I have thousand of pages of papers and information I 
cannot upload. Most of it is unimportant, but some would go a long way 
to clearing up these misunderstandings.


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf.

A number of them are rated to 150C.

also.

It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of 
pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated.

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 03:46:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com wrote:






The delta ohm probe in question is rated to 150C with an accuracy of +/- 3.5% 
above 95% RH from this spec sheet  
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347.



I think you're reading that spec sheet wrong. The 150C refers to the range of 
temperature measurement. But the RH sensor operating temperature is given as 
-20 to 80C in the section on common characteristics of RH sensors below the 
table.

So, there appears to be no claim that it can measure even RH at 100C.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what 
seems to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is 
being generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to 
claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky.


No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these 
tests if there was no anomalous heat. There would be no trace of steam. 
The only question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a 
little? Who cares?!?



The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and 
serious fraud -- could be easily done.


That is true. But it would not matter how convincing the test is. Some 
people would find reasons to disbelieve it, and many would say it has to 
be fraud. For example, many people would say the thing has to be 
self-powered or in heat after death or they will not believe it. This is 
irrational, but that is what they would say.


Actually, this test is nowhere near as bad as portrayed here. All this 
discussion of wet and dry steam is bullshit. It is nitpicking. Any steam 
at all is proof there is cold fusion heat, and the amount of heat does 
not matter. This is like watching the Wright brothers fly and arguing 
whether they are 10 feet in the air or 20 feet. People do argue about 
that! At ~10 feet they had the advantage of ground effect. Some people 
say this is cheating, so they did not really fly at first. I say flying 
is flying and who cares.



Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed 
excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor.


I do not excuse it. I explain it. There is world of difference. It is 
causing me no end of trouble, so I am in no mood to excuse it.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:

  There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the
 pdf.

 A number of them are rated to 150C.


Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the
application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The
application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think
that means the RH can be measured over that range.

Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning
it applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it
gives the sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C.


 also.

 It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of
 pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated.


Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure
enough.

I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not
superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature
increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations.
But when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some
fundamental physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid
water.

It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the
flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more
degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat,
and within a degree or so of 100C.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

  My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems to
 be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being generated
 than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that this demo
 shows that, it's way too shaky.


 No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests
 if there was no anomalous heat.


Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires only
600W. The electrical input was 750W.



 There would be no trace of steam.


With just the electrical power, there would be just a trace of steam.



 The only question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a little?
 Who cares?!?



The output steam does seem to exceed the 150 W from electrical only, but the
amount of excess is important, because only a little can be produced
chemically.

Moreover, if it is only a little, then there are other possible
discrepancies that could account for what is seen. For example, esowatch has
calculated a flow rate based on the pump frequency to be 1/2 that claimed by
Rossi. Then only 300W are needed to bring the water to 100C. And that leaves
450 W to go into steam. That seems pretty consistent with what is coming out
of the hose.



  The sad thing about this is that a convincing demo -- absent true and
 serious fraud -- could be easily done.


 That is true. But it would not matter how convincing the test is.


That's not true. You yourself have said that an isolated device that stays
hotter than its environment for a really long time would be convincing to
anyone.

This is like watching the Wright brothers fly and arguing whether they are
 10 feet in the air or 20 feet. People do argue about that! At ~10 feet they
 had the advantage of ground effect. Some people say this is cheating, so
 they did not really fly at first. I say flying is flying and who cares.


Well no one denies flying is possible now, so clearly a sufficiently
convincing demonstration of that is possible.

But no, it's not about 10 ft or 20 ft. Rossi has not got off the ground yet.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Finlay MacNab


I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table.  The 
chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the %RH 
than is listed in the common characteristics table. 

There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet 
steam that should be ruled out:

If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged with 
water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam would 
be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to the input 
flow rate.  For the short demonstrations so far this explanation would be 
sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are correct.

The only way that you would see a significant change in the temperature of the 
output steam is if the heating took place after evaporation or under pressure.  
It seems logical to assume that most of the heat is transferred to the water at 
a liquid/reactor core interface.

The 18 hour test did show fluctuations in output power however.



Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:14:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com



On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com 
wrote:







There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf.

A number of them are rated to 150C.

Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the 
application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The 
application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think 
that means the RH can be measured over that range.


Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning it 
applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it gives the 
sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C.


also.

It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of 
pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated.



Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure enough.
I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not 
superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature 
increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations. But 
when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some fundamental 
physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid water.

It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the 
flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more 
degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat, and 
within a degree or so of 100C.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Harry Veeder




Joshua Cude wrote:

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:

Joshua wrote:
The ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor pressure 
of 

water is the relative humidity.
 
The physics definition for RH is:
   %RH = (Pw/Ps)*100
Where Pw is the partial pressure of the water vapor and Ps is the saturation 
pressure of water vapor... 
 
What's the 'vapor pressure of water'... sound like you're making this shit up.

Nope. 
Vapor pressure or equilibrium vapor pressure is the pressure of 
a vapor in thermodynamic equilibrium with its condensed phases in a closed 
system. 

hmm but we aren't dealing with a closed system.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:


No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of
these tests if there was no anomalous heat. 



Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires 
only 600W. The electrical input was 750W.
So you will stick to the Krivit demo and ignore the others. You look at 
one piece of data at a time while ignoring other pieces. That is a 
common technique used by people who are determined to deny reality.



Moreover, if it is only a little, then there are other possible 
discrepancies that could account for what is seen. For example, 
esowatch has calculated a flow rate based on the pump frequency to be 
1/2 that claimed by Rossi.


Whereas Rossi measured the flow by weighing the reservoir before and 
after. That method is infallible. It overrules the people at esowatch 
who are speculating about the pump and waving their hands.



But no, it's not about 10 ft or 20 ft. Rossi has not got off the 
ground yet.


No comment.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

To clear up the working range of the RH sensor, I found the answer from page 
110 of this extensive users manual:
 
http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2008/uk/manuali/DO9847_M_17-06-2009_3.1_uk.pdf
 
In looking into the working temperature range for the capacitive RH sensors, 
there are two different sets of specs.
The 'working temperature of the probe' is -40C to +150C, but there was also a 
spec with a -20 to +80C working range.
Whether the two sets of specs are determined by limits of the 
capacitive/polymer element, or a temperature limit which is determined by the 
max temp of the other materials that go into probe construction, is not 
stated...
 
=

Measuring relative humidity

Sensor Capacitive

Typical working temperature of the probe -40°C…+150°C

Measuring range 0 … 100%R.H.

Accuracy ±1%RH in the range 20…90%RH

±2%RH in the range 10…99%RH

Resolution 0.1%RH

Temperature drift @20°C 0.02%RH/°C

Response time %RH at constant temperature 10sec (10Æ80%RH; air velocity=2m/s)

==

 

I need to stop playing and get some work done!

 

-Mark

 

  _  

From: Finlay MacNab [mailto:finlaymac...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 9:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table.  The 
chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the %RH 
than is listed in the common characteristics table. 

There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet 
steam that should be ruled out:

If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged with 
water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam would 
be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to the input 
flow rate.  For the short demonstrations so far this explanation would be 
sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are correct.

The only way that you would see a significant change in the temperature of the 
output steam is if the heating took place after evaporation or under pressure.  
It seems logical to assume that most of the heat is transferred to the water at 
a liquid/reactor core interface.

The 18 hour test did show fluctuations in output power however.




  _  

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:14:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...
From: joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com




On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com 
wrote:


There are several different part numbers listed in the sensor chart in the pdf.

A number of them are rated to 150C.



Again, I think you're reading that wrong. There is a table that gives the 
application range for RH and temperature measurement in two columns. The 
application range for temperature measurement is -40 to 150C. I don't think 
that means the RH can be measured over that range.

Below the table, there is a section called common characteristics (meaning it 
applies to all of the probes in the table) and for the RH sensors, it gives the 
sensor operating temperature as -20 to 80C.


also.

It would appear that the measurement would benefit from a measurement of 
pressure inside the reactor in order to confirm the steam is super heated.



Assuming it could be measured accurately enough, and the water is pure enough.

I think the flat temperature curve is better evidence that the steam is not 
superheated. Look at any of the temperature graphs. As the temperature 
increases, the curve is not perfectly smooth. There are small fluctuations. But 
when the bp is reached, it is completely flat, as if there is some fundamental 
physical reason for it. That reason is the presence of liquid water.

It would be much easier and much more convincing if a small reduction in the 
flow rate caused the steam to go substantially above boiling by 10 or more 
degrees. But in all the experiments, the steam temperature is always flat, and 
within a degree or so of 100C.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 08:08 PM 6/22/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Joshua Cude mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.comjoshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:

So, what specifically do you think that g/kg means in the context of 
a 2-phase mixture of steam and water?


What do you use for the denominator to calculate the total mass of the steam?

If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of water vapor, 
then it should be 1000 g / kg. How do you use that?



If 10% by mass is liquid water then it would be 900 g/kg. That's the 
whole point. How could it measure enthalpy or partial pressure of 
vapour if it doesn't know how much vapour there is?


It measures the enthalpy of vapor by measuring water vapor. RH meters 
measure vapor pressure of water, comparing it with saturation at the 
given pressure and temperature. The meter knows how much vapor is 
present, in terms of vapor pressure, by how much vapor is absorbed by 
a capacitor, as Cude has, I believe correctly, explained.


 If it means the mass of water vapor per unit mass of total fluid, 
how could a device that measures humidity (i.e. wetness of air) determine that?


You are not making sense.


Not me. Complain to instrument manufacturer or Galantini.


I don't see grounds to complain to either. What claims have they made 
to complain about? Nobody, here, has pointed to an actual claim by 
Galantini. It's all about what others have said about Galantini, such 
as Levi or Rossi. Galantini claimed to use a certain meter. He has 
not explained exactly how he used it.


What we don't see is how to use that meter to measure steam quality. 
He hasn't explained how he did it. The manufacturer does not explain 
how to use the meter to measure steam quality, it is not at all a 
claimed application, and it seems to conflict with the meter specifications.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.comwrote:

  I disagree with your assumption about he common characteristic table.  The
 chart for the high temperature sensors lists a different accuracy for the
 %RH than is listed in the common characteristics table.


OK, you may be right, but it seems a little ambiguous to me. Anyway, if the
device can measure the RH of steam at 100C. I hope is reads 100%, or someone
got taken.


 There is another explanation for the stable output temperature besides wet
 steam that should be ruled out:

 If the reactor piping has a significant volume and the reactor is charged
 with water prior to being energized then the temperature of the output steam
 would be as observed even if the rate of steam production was not equal to
 the input flow rate.  For the short demonstrations so far this explanation
 would be sufficient to explain the observed results if the assumptions are
 correct.


I agree that in principle a reservoir of water in the reactor could regulate
the temperature at the bp even if the power exceeded that necessary to
convert all the input to steam. But it's hard to think of a practical design
for this within the confines of the ecat as shown in the photos. The steam
from the reservoir would have to join the flow of output steam, but it
should not be replenished by the input flow of water, because then the mass
flow rate would be constant, and regulation wouldn't work. They claim the
reactor itself is only 50 mL, and some demos have gone on for several hours.


The question is why would they do this. Letting the temperature go higher
would be all the evidence they need that the steam is dry. And if there is
some need to maintain the temperature of the fluid at 100C, they could
simply adjust the flow rate to keep the steam a little wet. That is, they
could first identify the flow rate at which the steam temperature exceeds
boiling, in order to calculate power, and then increase it a little to keep
the steam a little wet. A reservoir seems implausible to me.

But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still pinned
to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry is still
absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of steam at the output is
pretty good evidence that most of the liquid does not change phase.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 10:38 PM 6/22/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:

Do you expect water droplets above 100C? This is like expecting
microscopic ice to not immediately melt above 0C.


Wrong question. Do we expect water droplets above the boiling point 
of water? No, not except transiently. Is Mr. Rocha assuming that the 
boiling point of water is 100 C?


If we can tell that the steam is above the boiling point, yes, water 
droplets, if they exist at all, would very rapidly evaporate, 
absorbing energy from the steam to do so. This will tend to maintain 
the steam at exactly the boiling point, only very slightly above 
because of rate considerations, it takes time for a droplet to heat


The measurements apparently show that the steam is at the boiling 
point for the atmospheric pressure (part of the measurement must be 
the pressure inside the measurement space, as well as the 
temperature. From this, we cannot tell the percentage of water droplets.


Basically, the appearance is that any droplets in the steam are in 
equilibrium with the steam, which is precisely why the temperature 
seems to be nailed at boiling.


Ice is a similar situation. If you have a mixture of ice and water, 
the temperature of the water will be stabilized at the melting point 
(which also varies with pressure, I think, though I think that is not 
so much). Cool it, more ice will form. Heat it, ice will melt, 
maintaining the constant temperature until the whole thing is frozen 
or the whole thing melts.


We cannot, from the temperature, tell how much of the water is ice! 
For the same reason, we can't, from the temperature, tell how much of 
the steam is water, if we have a mixed phase condition. If the 
temperature of the ice goes above the melting point, we know that the 
ice is all gone, and if it goes below the melting point, we'd know 
that it all froze. In between the extremes, we can't tell.


In addition, there is another very serious problem. The steam could 
be very dry, but water could still be running out the hose underneath 
the steam. That the feed rate is fixed leads to a serious suspicion 
of this, for matching the feed rate to the evolution of steam is 
tricky, a fixed rate would probably be too much or too little.


The water running out, if there is steam being evolved, would be at 
the same temperature. It would take quite a while to fill the hose, 
so the hose could be displayed as this one was, provided that the 
hose was first emptied into the drain, which Rossi took care to do.


That's not an indictment of Rossi at all, because even if the steam 
is completely dry, water would accumulate in the hose from 
condensation and cooling over that very significant length.


Bottom line: the demonstration did not show what was apparently 
intended. People may have completely independent reasons for 
believing or disbelieving, hence, as people often do, they line up in 
sides, attempting to support or reject what is, in this case, a 
bogus claim, that steam quality has been conclusively determined. It 
may have been determined, but not by the means that have been shown.


(Kullander and Essen report examining steam directly. That's 
interesting, confirming steam quality, but unfortunately does not 
appear to have ruled out water running out the hose without having evaporated.)

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

I went digging... its an important bit of data.
Yep, its the liquid portion by *volume*, thanks Josh and Stephen for catching 
that...
 
I'll copy Horace's table below...
For anyone who would like to review Horace's analysis 
and calculations, the posting was on 1/21/2011 and has 
a subject line of:
  [Vo]:Wet vs Dry Steam in Rossi Experiment
 
PortionPortion   Portion
by Volume  by Mass   by Mass
-  ---   ---
0.0000. 100.00
0.0010.6252 0.3747
0.002  0.7695 0.2304
0.0030.8337 0.1662
0.0040.8700 0.1299
0.0050.8933 0.1066
0.0060.9095 0.0904
0.0070.9215 0.0784
0.0080.9307 0.0692
0.0090.9380 0.0619
0.0100.9439 0.0560
0.011  0.9488 0.0511
0.0120.9529 0.0470
0.0130.9564 0.0435
0.0140.9594 0.0405

Horace explains,
We can thus see from this table that if 1 percent by volume of the steam is 
entrained water
micro-droplets, easily not seen in tubing or exhaust ports, that only 5.6 
percent of the heat of
vaporization is required to produce that mixture.

-Mark



From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:sa...@pobox.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 6:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

That would probably have been Horace, and I think he may have meant by 
volume.  The calculations
are in the archive, among the most recent posts from Horace just before he 
bowed out due to lack of
time, if anyone cares to go digging.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

At 11:34 PM 6/22/2011, Finlay MacNab wrote:
If the relative humidity sensor measures
capacitance then the dielectric constant of
steam and the dielectric constant of steam plus
water would be very different and yield very different readings.

A quick google search for capacitance
measurement of steam quality yields several
papers and a multitude of patents on the subject
so it would seem that a measurement of steam
quality from capacitance values is possible. A
quick literature search for the dielectric
constant of steam results in an avalanche of
data about the dielectric constant of steam at
various temperatures and pressures. There is even data at 100.1C and 1 atm.

Then again I am just a lowly chemist so what do I know?

About as much as anyone else outside their specialty. Maybe a little more.

Saying that a Google search leads to this or that
without providing the actual search, and without
showing what results you looked at, is less than helpful.

I did this search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=capacitance+measurement+of+steam+qualityie=utf-8oe=utf-8aq=trls=org.mozilla:en-US:officialclient=firefox-a

I found papers, for example, on the measurement
of steam quality using capacitance. The RH meters
in question are not designed to use that
approach. If they were, they would surely
advertise it! (This is a valuable application.)
You want to measure steam quality, see

http://www.thermochem.com/Geo_On-line_Steam_Quality_Measurement_Equipment

The equipment described is far more complex than
these RH meters. I've suggested here a simple
possibility for steam quality measurement or at
least estimation, involving light passing through
a glass tube containing the steam flow. I see
this from Thermochem: New Laser-Based Steam
Quality Meter is under Development and soon to be
Commercial. It's pretty easy to guess what they
are doing and, in fact, I've been involved in the
design of equipment that does something like this
with smoke particles in air (in wind tunnels).

They are simply observing the water droplets,
directly, with lasers. My own suggestion was much
simpler, it would detect dry steam but would not
catch really large water droplets as much. My
guess is that with some experimental work to
calibrate it, it could set an upper bound on entrained water.

But for the gross measurements being done, seeing
that steam is transparent, visibly, and with the
tests suggested used by experienced steam
engineers, should be enough. Has anyone thought
of inviting an actual steam engineer to the
demonstrations? That is *not*, apparently,
Galanatini, a chemist from every piece of
evidence I've seen. His company, touted as
evidence of his expertise, does mostly chemistry
with some environmental analysis, the kind that
will use an RH meter. So he'd have a meter, but
nothing there indicates steam quality measurement experience.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 12:14 AM 6/23/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:

Abd wrote:
One page 6, the list of humidity probes begins. The robust probe, 
part number 0628 0021, is rated
to 180 C. The measurement range extends from 0 to 100% RH. However, 
the accuracy is not rated above

98%. Basically, the accuracy is 2%, from 2 to 98% RH.

Abd, give me a link to what you're reading because on the webpage 
that Galantini provided a link to
on NET website in his response to Krivits visit, here are the specs 
for humidity accuracy:

 +-2.5%RH (10...90% RH)
 +-3.5%RH remaining range
And the usable temperature range is -40C...+150C and the usable RH 
range is 0...100% RH


I believe that I gave the link. There is more than one meter that has 
been referenced, and they have different specifications, leading to 
lots of confusion. I don't have time to look back right now. When I 
referred to page 6, I believe that this was after having given the 
specific reference.


What Mark wrote is not really different, though. The usable range 
does go up to 100% RH, as I wrote. The problem is?


Wet steam is, in terms of g/m^3, above 100% RH. The meter does not go 
above 100%, apparently. Don't you see that?



Abd wrote:
But the meter has no capacity to measure that excess water, it 
would simply peg at 100%, it seems.
I see no sign, anywhere, of any expert opinion that RH meters have 
any application to the

measurement of steam quality.

Yes, as I've been trying to explain all along, once you get to 
100%RH, all remaining water will be
in the form of liquid water because at the given temperature and 
pressure it is now saturated and

can no longer support further water molecules as vapor.


Right.

I've already answered your question as to HOW one can calculate that 
portion that is liquid water...


As I recall, you left out a critical factor. The value provided by 
the RH meter is useless, once we know that we have steam at the 
boiling point, it will give us no information at all on the 
percentage that is liquid water. All steam, wet or dry, will show the 
same temperature and RH.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 11:54 PM 6/22/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:

Abd wrote:
Basically, the device does some math for you, based on certain 
assumptions. Unfortunately, the

assumptions are the very issue here!

I don't' think that's correct... Not assumptions.
The instrument does calculations based on scientific laws and uses 
what measured variables it does
have to calculate different units... For example, Relative humidity 
is calculated from Absolute
humidity and temperature and pressure. The instrument, if it has the 
right probe, is measuring
atmospheric pressure, temperature and at least 3 or 4 other 
variables.  It then provides the
convenience of displaying other units, like mixing ratio, based on 
the actual measured variables and
specific scientific laws (mathematical equations).  I have never 
seen an instrument that bases the

display of other units on assumptions. I certainly wouldn't buy one!


The instrument does not give mixing ratio as a displayed value, as 
far as I've seen.


It displays g/m^3, but grams of what? Looks to me like this is grams 
of water vapor per cubic meter, which can be calculated from RH at a 
given temperature and pressure. That is not the mixing ratio of 
interest, which would be grams of liquid water per kilogram of steam. 
It gives, however, if designed to do that (I think it may be an 
option), grams of water vapor per kilogram of gas, on an assumption 
that the gas is air or water, i.e., air/water vapor mixed.


The meter is not accurate above 98% RH, apparently, at least the 
accuracy is not guaranteed.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 **
 Joshua Cude wrote:

  No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these
 tests if there was no anomalous heat.


  Sticking to the Krivit demo, no, increasing the water to 100C requires
 only 600W. The electrical input was 750W.

 So you will stick to the Krivit demo and ignore the others.


Well, that's the one under discussion now. The others have had their turn.
We can't consider them all together all the time. It's too confusing.

But anyway, it's only the EK test that the water would be 60C from the
input power alone, if all measurements are accepted. That means an
additional 300W was needed to reach the boiling point. They used  4 kW to
rule out chemical sources. It would not be as obvious with 300W. Moreover,
the power was not monitored in this experiment. It is possible that it was
turned up after the initial measurement.

In both of Lewan's demos, the electrical input was enough to bring the water
to its boiling point (at least within a few degrees).

In the January demo, the reported power was not enough to bring the water to
its bp at the reported flow rate. In that case, the power was monitored, but
the reported flow rate was about twice higher than the pump could provide.
If you use the maximum flow rate of the pump, the input power is enough to
boil the water.

And in all the cases, it is not implausible that the reactor supplies some
chemical heat.

Moreover, if it is only a little, then there are other possible
 discrepancies that could account for what is seen. For example, esowatch has
 calculated a flow rate based on the pump frequency to be 1/2 that claimed by
 Rossi.


 Whereas Rossi measured the flow by weighing the reservoir before and after.
 That method is infallible. It overrules the people at esowatch who are
 speculating about the pump and waving their hands.


Why should I believe Rossi? If I did, there would be no need for demos,
would there? I'd put in an order for my own ecat.

I don't trust Rossi at all. That pump has now been photographed from every
angle, scrutinized in excruciating detail, and I have far more confidence in
the Esowatch analysis of the pump frequency than I do in Rossi's word.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 02:32 AM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:


On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:


It is not in any way proof that the E-Cat is *not* producing excess power.


That's true, but I've only been arguing that Rossi has not provided 
the public with evidence of excess heat. I don't have proof that the 
rock in my front yard is not producing heat either. But Rossi is 
making the claim. The onus is on him to provide the evidence.


For science, yes. For dramatic theater, no. He can say what he wants, 
he can induce you to tie yourself in knots, and he knows what he has 
in reserve, and you don't.


If he wants to convince us, he could do so -- if this thing is real. 
That doesn't mean that he has *any* motive to convince us. Are we 
offering him payment? Is he asking us for payment? I don't think so.


At this point, the more skeptical outrage there is, the more he wins, 
if the device is real. And if it's not real, he doesn't lose 
anything, unless he fails to avoid actionable fraud.





Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a complete nut case. Jed 
excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor. Maybe. I'm 
skeptical. I suspect that Rossi is smarter than that, that he knows 
how he looks and is deliberately creating the impressions that he's 
creating. I can think of a number of reasons for this, both 
psychological and practical or economic.



I don't know how one can come to this idea except to start with the 
conclusion that the ecat works, and you said starting from the 
conclusion is a bad thing.


No, the number of reasons could include scenarios where he's a 
fraud. A suspicion is not reasoning from conclusions, though 
certainly held conclusions could influence it, such as your held 
conclusion, my guess, that this thing *must* be bogus, since LENR is 
impossible. Right?

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

  such as your held conclusion, my guess, that this thing *must* be bogus,
 since LENR is impossible. Right?


 Wrong. It's highly unlikely, in my opinion, and so until good evidence is
presented, I will remain skeptical.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 02:45 AM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
You are indeed wrong. Time for a refresher. Look up vapor pressure 
in wikipedia for a start.


Water evaporates into pure gas (not droplets) below its boiling 
point. Humidity measures the amount of water vapor (gas, not 
droplets) in the air. When the partial pressure of the water vapor 
in air equals the vapor pressure of water, evaporation stops, or at 
least it balances condensation. That represents 100% humidity. The 
ratio of the partial pressure of the water vapor to the vapor 
pressure of water is the relative humidity.


The RH of steam at 100C and 1 atmosphere is therefore 100%.


Hah! Cude depends on Wikipedia too. A small confirmation, not 
conclusive, of a private theory of mine as to his identity.


People arguing with Cude should realize that he knows his physics, he 
has demonstrated that again and again. He also knows the literature 
of cold fusion moderately well. I highly recommend being very careful 
arguing with him, he can make the relatively ignorant look like 
idiots, to those who know, and always remember, these debates are 
read by people who do know, eventually.


He mixes up his extensive knowledge of physics with what he doesn't 
know, he seems to be unaware of the edges of quantum mechanics, where 
it breaks down and is unable, because of the sheer complexity, to 
make accurate predictions unless simplifying assumptions are made. In 
the case of cold fusion, those simplifying assumptions assume away 
the necessary conditions, which involve serious multibody effects, apparently.


In any case, we'll know about the E-Cats soon enough, I'll predict.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:


Whereas Rossi measured the flow by weighing the reservoir before
and after. That method is infallible. It overrules the people at
esowatch who are speculating about the pump and waving their hands.


Why should I believe Rossi? If I did, there would be no need for 
demos, would there? I'd put in an order for my own ecat.


Everyone who has seen the test told me he did this, including the 50 
people who saw the first test. Some of the photos show the reservoir is 
sitting on the scale. In Krivit's visit, Rossi said he had weighed the 
water and he would do it again after the test. If he had not done this, 
and he was lying, my guess is that Krivit would mentioned that.


So you don't have to believe Rossi.

I think you should stop making this about Rossi. Stop focusing 
exclusively on him. He is not the only one who ran tests and made claims 
with this device. Other such as Piantelli have seen heat from Ni 
systems. Many others have seen heat from Pd systems. I realize that you 
do not believe any of these claims, but as I said, you should stop 
considering the claims one at a time, in isolation. Looking at one while 
ignoring all others. First you pretend that Rossi did only one 
experiment. Then you pretend that Rossi is the only one who says he 
weighed the reservoir, so if we cannot believe him, it cannot be true. 
Next you will claim that if Rossi says 4.2 joules equals one calorie, we 
can't believe it because he says it.


Your tactic is called divide and conquer or defeating in detail 
(piecemeal). It is good military strategy. It is a shame the Union Army 
did not do this to Gen. Lee before the Battle of Gettysburg. But it is 
not a valid method of doing science. It is not rational. You have to 
consider the totality of the evidence. Some number of mistaken or even 
fraudulent experiments are possible, but this many is out of the 
question. For you to believe this many researchers could be wrong (or 
lying) is a lot like believing that NASA faked the moon landings.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 11:04 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:


Jed, I've asked this before. What second test proved what you show?

Are you referring to the Levi test that increased the flow rate? 
How would this show that Galantini was correct?


Yes, I meant the test with flowing water. This showed that the steam 
in the first test must have been dry.


Okay, thanks for clarifying. No, it doesn't show that the steam in 
the first test must have been dry. It shows, to the extent that a 
private test like this shows anything, that it is plausible that 
the steam in the first test was dry or not far from dry. In fact, we 
have reason to believe that the steam isn't dry, not completely. 
Remember, Rossi has acknowledged that these earlier E-Cats emitted 
wet steam, at least somewhat wet!


And completely dry steam is apprently pretty hard to come by, so the 
question is really how much? If you had an E-Cat with stable heat 
output, you might make a pretty good guess from the data. I'd 
suggest, Jed, getting very precise about this issue. Don't say dry 
as a finding, especially when completely dry steam is fairly unlikely.


It is conceivable that Galantini measured it wrong but he got lucky 
and it was dry anyway.


Right. That Galantini didn't use a correct method doesn't mean that 
his conclusion was wrong. But, Jed, we don't know what Galantini 
said, do we? Where is his measurement -- or calculation -- of the 
wetness of the steam? What did the meter indicate and how was this used?


I haven't seen it anywhere.



Or are you referring to the results of Kullander and Essen? Those 
results appear to contradict Galantini, though, to be sure, we 
don't have Galantini's results, so how can non-existent results be 
confirmed, or contradicted, for that matter.


I do not see how they contradict Galantini.


Kullander and Essen did not claim that the steam was dry. Rather, 
they measured the wetness and found it to be, correctly or not, 
between 1.2% and 1.4%. I'm assuming that these are mass measurements, 
not volume, in spite of Kullander sputtering in the Krivit phone 
interview. Otherwise those are pretty high! From the way that 
Kullander used the measurements, they would be mass ratio, the 
percentage of water being discharged as liquid instead of as vapor. I 
just don't see how they came up with the values!


Jed, you are completely confused here. It looks like you are 
confusing confirmation of heat generation, in very rough numbers, 
with confirmation of steam quality. You are mixing public 
demonstrations with private evidence, as with the second test, 
i.e., by Levi with high flow.


It wasn't exactly private. Or I guess I should say it wasn't 
supposed to be. Lewan and I got a report of it.


Private, here, means witnessed only by Levi and Rossi. Lots of 
people were told about it, not private in the sense of kept secret.


We were hoping and expecting more. I might not have described it at 
LENR-CANR.org if I had known that no further details were forthcoming.


Yeah. It's got to be disappointing.

The interview with Levi in Query today discusses it. I disagree with 
his assertion that a far more compelling test is needed, and much 
more time. If I had a few days with flowing water tests, or even one 
day, I think I could do a more compelling job than they have done so far.


I think you are correct, but this gives Rossi more time, it fits with 
my understanding of his strategy.


You have already acknowledged being convinced by private 
information. That's fine. For you. It's not adequate for the rest of us.


Yes.


Great!

It is very frustrating for me, but I cannot do anything about it. 
Believe me, I am trying. In the larger sense, I have been trying for 
years to persuade cold fusion researchers to publish more. I have 
had mixed success. I have thousand of pages of papers and 
information I cannot upload. Most of it is unimportant, but some 
would go a long way to clearing up these misunderstandings.


Yes. It's a problem, a problem with science in general, but 
especially in a field like cold fusion, where the issues are 
extremely complex and where the sharing of knowledge can be crucial. 
There is a conflict here between the general advancement of science, 
and private interest. I'd hope for public support of pure science; in 
exchange for public support, the scientists openly publish and share 
their results, and hopefully rapidly. Errors can be corrected! And 
that, of course, should also be part of it


I think that with publically funded research, the desirable situation 
is more or less what happens. But with public funding for cold fusion 
heavily whacked, we get what we have, a mess. Slow development. 
Plenty of research results that are not available. Trade secrets. Etc.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread Angela Kemmler

The electrical input was 750W

No, it was between 784 and 805 W (230x3.4 or 230x3.5). The tension is 230 V in 
Italy. This is called in Italy eurotensione, google it. I already posted the 
link to the italian wikipedia article abt mains tension in Italy. Must I repeat 
it? It was 220 V there until the end of the 90ies. When I was a child, it was 
110 V in some areas, I remember it very well.

Lewan measured the tension in the Rossi showroom in april, and the tension was 
even above 230 V: on 19th and 28th of april it was 236 V AC. I dont know why 
Rossi talks about 220 V.
-- 
NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren!  
Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


Joshua Cude wrote:


In Krivit's visit, Rossi said he had weighed the water and he
would do it again after the test.


But he quoted the flow rate in the middle of the test, before he 
weighed it at the end.


Anyone can measure the flow rate, at any time. You do not have to wait 
until the end of the test. Just capture the flowing water before you 
turn on the heat, or put the reservoir on the scale midway through the 
test. Rossi or I could estimate the flow by glancing at the reservoir 
water level.



That's not the reason to doubt him though. I should think you can set 
the pump to give a desired flow rate. That's what it's designed for. 
Krivit didn't read the pump settings, so all we have is Rossi's word...


You miss the point. They confirmed the flow rate with the weight scale, 
not with the pump setting. You don't read pump settings anyway, except 
for medical IV pump. If Krivit watched Rossi weight the reservoir, and 
he noted the numbers, that confirms the flow rate. The flow rate does 
not change over the course of the test. Krivit would notice if Rossi 
changed the pump speed. Krivit is not reticent about reporting such 
things. He would not keep things secret.




 Other such as Piantelli have seen heat from Ni systems.


Even you didn't believe his results a couple of years ago.


I didn't _not_ believe either. I wasn't sure. I am not sure of many cold 
fusion results. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind about 
thousands of results you have never heard of.



A large number of inconclusive results make them less believable to 
me, not more. There are hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings, and 
that totality of results does not make them more believable.


That would be true if these results were inconclusive, but many of them 
are as conclusive as any laboratory experiment can be. You say they are 
not. You would describe heat after death at 20 W lasting for hours from 
a fraction of a gram of metal as inconclusive. That is preposterous. 
That's like saying we cannot be sure if the Fukushima reactor buildings 
really exploded because TEPCO denied it at first, and NHK still refuses 
to broadcast the video. Maybe that video showed a cloud and flock of 
birds, and someone in the foreground struck a kettle drum to make a 
boom sound. Sure! Maybe the buildings were falling apart years ago. 
That's what TEPCO would like you to believe. Your head-in-the-sand deny, 
deny, deny song-and-dance routine makes TEPCO look reasonable in comparison.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 11:56 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the 
end, is that what seems to be marginal at the 
end is an indication that more power is being 
generated than the input electrical power, but 
I'd not want to claim that this demo shows that, it's way too shaky.


No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or 
less in most of these tests if there was no 
anomalous heat. There would be no trace of 
steam. The only question is: Is there a lot of 
anomalous heat, or only a little? Who cares?!?


This appears to be taken from a probable error in 
the Kullander/Essen report. They claimed that the 
temperature would have not exceeded 60 degrees 
without excess heat. In fact, I think that what 
they intended to say was that the rate of change 
would not have exceeded the rate up to 60 degrees if not for excess heat.


My guess is that it would still reach boiling 
point, at roughly the time predicting by 
extrapolation of the rate of temperature rise, 
because the device is insulated and most heat 
will not leave unless the water starts boiling. 
It's a 600 watt steam kettle, I'd expect such to 
boil water. Just not as quickly as seen. The 
interesting thing about that test was the 
increase in heating rate, that indicates higher 
energy being generated than was present before. 
That's the real and immediate evidence for excess heat.


They just mis-stated it.

The sad thing about this is that a convincing 
demo -- absent true and serious fraud -- could be easily done.


That is true. But it would not matter how 
convincing the test is. Some people would find 
reasons to disbelieve it, and many would say it 
has to be fraud. For example, many people would 
say the thing has to be self-powered or in heat 
after death or they will not believe it. This is 
irrational, but that is what they would say.


Yes. I think we agree here. However, there are a 
lot of people unconvinced, even increasing in 
skepticism, because of the weakness of the demos. 
You think that's stupidity or eccentricity, 
whatever, I think it might be, or, more likely, it might be planned.


It's like the reactor itself, Rossi would want 
the public response to be muted and somewhat 
suppressed, because he will not want funding 
poured into research by his competition. That's 
dangerous for him, economically.


If his interest were science, he'd have released 
the catalyst formula or other internal details. 
That's not a condemnation, he has the right to 
self-interest! It's just an apparent reality.


(He might actually be stronger as to patent 
protection if he'd applied with full details. 
This is part of this that I don't understand. It 
may be that he's infringing on prior art, such as 
Piantelli that could explain his strategy.)


Actually, this test is nowhere near as bad as 
portrayed here. All this discussion of wet and 
dry steam is bullshit. It is nitpicking. Any 
steam at all is proof there is cold fusion heat, 
and the amount of heat does not matter.


Jed, I think that is your conclusion from the 
textual error of Essen and Kullander, an error 
that is not supported by their actual data, which 
shows no decline of heating as temperature 
approached 60 C. The initial heating will produce 
steam, that's almost certain. So the issue is how much steam.


This is like watching the Wright brothers fly 
and arguing whether they are 10 feet in the air 
or 20 feet. People do argue about that! At ~10 
feet they had the advantage of ground effect. 
Some people say this is cheating, so they did 
not really fly at first. I say flying is flying and who cares.


Jed, you have fixed on this idea that it would 
not boil at the input power. Where did you get that idea?


Look, Rossi, attacking Krivit, looks like a 
complete nut case. Jed excuses this as an idiosyncracy of an inventor.


I do not excuse it. I explain it. There is world 
of difference. It is causing me no end of 
trouble, so I am in no mood to excuse it.


Okay, you explain it. But it need not cause you 
trouble. Stop defending the indefensible, 
particularly the use of an RH meter to report 
steam quality. The demonstrations are, such as 
I've seen, inconclusive, they are at most 
suggestive. The private Levi test at higher flow 
rate sounds good, but this was not repeated for 
the public, and there are many ways to make 
mistakes. More eyeballs means fewer possibilities for error.


Consider what Krivit saw. We know that the hose 
very likely has water in it. You know very well 
that how much water is a critical issue, as 
well as the heat radiated from the hose. It would 
be trivial to examine the steam coming from the 
reactor in such a way as to rule out a problem 
with water ejection, and that's what I see as the huge problem.


A little wet steam, piffle! You are right, unless 
this thing is really running very wet for some 
reason (it's possible), that would not explain 
the apparent excess heat. But

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...


At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still 
pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* 
dry is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of 
steam at the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid 
does not change phase.


Not actually. There will be reduction in steam output due to cooling 
in the hose. It's to be expected. The question is how much. And I'm 
suspicious of all the ad-hoc calculations. The whole point of a 
conclusive demo is to make such calculations as simple as possible


Basically, assume 750 W of input power, how much steam would be 
expected *at the end of a three meter hose* like that. My sense is, 
not a whole lot! My guess is that we might not see anything except a 
little mist.


But it's a guess.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

2011-06-23 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Joshua sed:

...

 A large number of inconclusive results make them less believable to me,
 not more. There are hundreds of thousands of ufo sightings, and that
 totality of results does not make them more believable.

Goodness gracious me! You actually said that? A UFO stands for
Unidentified Flying Object.You have essentially stated that UFOs don't
exist because in your opinion they are not believable. Isn't that a
bit circuitous?

You also seem to be implying that people who have seen UFOs
(whatever a UFO might  be) cannot be believed, and as such their
accounts should be dismissed, for having the misfortune of having seen
something they can't identify.

If that is your reasoning, and you have subsequently carried the same
level reasoning over to your analysis of CF, heaven help us!

No, heaven help you.

My two cents.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote:

 At 11:56 AM 6/23/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

  My sense, from the weak steam coming out of the end, is that what seems
 to be marginal at the end is an indication that more power is being
 generated than the input electrical power, but I'd not want to claim that
 this demo shows that, it's way too shaky.


 No, it isn't shaky. The water would be 60°C or less in most of these tests
 if there was no anomalous heat. There would be no trace of steam. The only
 question is: Is there a lot of anomalous heat, or only a little? Who
 cares?!?


 This appears to be taken from a probable error in the Kullander/Essen
 report. They claimed that the temperature would have not exceeded 60 degrees
 without excess heat. In fact, I think that what they intended to say was
 that the rate of change would not have exceeded the rate up to 60 degrees if
 not for excess heat.

 My guess is that it would still reach boiling point, at roughly the time
 predicting by extrapolation of the rate of temperature rise, because the
 device is insulated and most heat will not leave unless the water starts
 boiling. It's a 600 watt steam kettle, I'd expect such to boil water. Just
 not as quickly as seen.


Nooo. Not you, too. Now I find myself defending the Rossi crew against a
LENR advocate.

It's flowing water, not a kettle.  So the input power can only heat it so
much.

Power in = mass-flow-rate * specific heat * temperature difference

So,

temperature difference = 300W / (1.73 g/s * 4.2 J/K g) = 41 K

If the input temperature is 20C, then the maximum output is 61C. If you
accept the numbers as given.

It's not like a kettle. The reason the graph shows a gradual increase in the
temperature when the power is first applied, is that the reactor has to heat
up first, and that absorbs some of the power. When it reaches equilibrium
temperature, all the power goes in to heating the water.

RE: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

Out of that 9m of hose, at least half is lying flat on the floor. That results 
in:
1) condensation forming a layer of liquid water that runs the entire length of 
that segment of hose,
2) the vapor must travel over that lquid water for that entire length
3) the floor itself could be sinking a significant amt of heat from the hose

Its pretty much useless to try to use steam flow out the hose to estimate heat 
output...

-Mark


-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax [mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...

At 02:58 PM 6/23/2011, Joshua Cude wrote:
But still, you've identified a way the steam could be dry and still 
pinned to the boiling point. Unfortunately, evidence that it *is* dry 
is still absent. And in the Krivit video, the feeble puff of steam at 
the output is pretty good evidence that most of the liquid does not 
change phase.

Not actually. There will be reduction in steam output due to cooling in the 
hose. It's to be
expected. The question is how much. And I'm suspicious of all the ad-hoc 
calculations. The whole
point of a conclusive demo is to make such calculations as simple as possible

Basically, assume 750 W of input power, how much steam would be expected *at 
the end of a three
meter hose* like that. My sense is, not a whole lot! My guess is that we might 
not see anything
except a little mist.

But it's a guess.

Re: [Vo]:E-Cat vs. Water Heater for coffee/tea...