RE: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
From Catania, ... As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah, I know, they tell us it was late in the evening and they needed their beauty rest. For true skeptics, the abrupt ending is nothing more than further proof that something fishy is going on. I'm suspect many skeptics probably feel vindicated... again. I supposed for true believers the recorded anomalous heat is just more evidence that proof is in the pudd'in... but, oh, what a shame they didn't run it a while longer, perhaps for a couple of hours, but oh well... I guess I'm currently in the camp that feels frustrated by the abrupt ending. Such abruptness tends to make me feel less confident as to the outcome. In the continued vacuum of solid rock-hard evidence such abruptness tends to make me personally want to conjure up unfounded assumptions - to manufacture conjecture based primarily on my emotionally laced suspicions: That the termination was done deliberately, with forethought. I don't know why they terminated it so abruptly. They tell us it was late in the evening, but Hell! Who really knows why. All I know is that basing my conclusions on emotionally based conjecture that neither proves or disproves an extraordinary claim is a fools game. Therefore, I will endeavor to do what I have done in the past: Wait and see. IOW I remain ignorant. Under the current circumstances there is no shame in that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
I saw the termination as a resignation that there is no anomalous heat. It showed there is no self-sustaining reaction since the temperature drop is correlated with power off. The write-up that Lewan gives shoes his lack of general physics knowledge and that he is most likely a paid biased spokesperson. A continuation of the demo would have borne out the continuation of temperature drop from the cooling of the thermal mass. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The September E-Cat From Catania, ... As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah, I know, they tell us it was late in the evening and they needed their beauty rest. For true skeptics, the abrupt ending is nothing more than further proof that something fishy is going on. I'm suspect many skeptics probably feel vindicated... again. I supposed for true believers the recorded anomalous heat is just more evidence that proof is in the pudd'in... but, oh, what a shame they didn't run it a while longer, perhaps for a couple of hours, but oh well... I guess I'm currently in the camp that feels frustrated by the abrupt ending. Such abruptness tends to make me feel less confident as to the outcome. In the continued vacuum of solid rock-hard evidence such abruptness tends to make me personally want to conjure up unfounded assumptions - to manufacture conjecture based primarily on my emotionally laced suspicions: That the termination was done deliberately, with forethought. I don't know why they terminated it so abruptly. They tell us it was late in the evening, but Hell! Who really knows why. All I know is that basing my conclusions on emotionally based conjecture that neither proves or disproves an extraordinary claim is a fools game. Therefore, I will endeavor to do what I have done in the past: Wait and see. IOW I remain ignorant. Under the current circumstances there is no shame in that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 18.09.2011 17:25, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson: From Catania, ... As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah, I know, they tell us it was late in the evening and they needed their beauty rest. Yes, it was foreseeable that it will become late when they started ;-) So this was planned. Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended. Otherwise they could have go to sleep and look next morning what happened and what the computers had recorded. Video recording over night or webcam would be fine... Peter
RE: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
From Catania: ... The write-up that Lewan gives shoes his lack of general physics knowledge and that he is most likely a paid biased spokesperson. That is your speculation. However, since you seem convinced of such speculation, how do you plan on going about convincing... let me rephrase that, PROVING to the rest of the world that Lewan is indeed nothing more than a carnival barker? ...or are you just speculat'n, here? It leads me to wonder: Are the rest of your speculations based on the same caliber of personal conjecture? From Peter: ... Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended. As far as speculation goes, I find myself in sympathy with such speculation. What I find interesting about such speculation is that it suggests to me the distinct possibility that somewhere within the contraption anomalous heat may indeed be generated when input power is turned off. However, controlling and measuring these anomalous conditions isn't as predictable as Rossi might like us to believe. Actually, alluding to such speculation is a no-brainer. Rossi has pretty much alluded to it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 18.09.2011 19:03, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson: From Peter: ... Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended. As far as speculation goes, I find myself in sympathy with such speculation. What I find interesting about such speculation is that it suggests to me the distinct possibility that somewhere within the contraption anomalous heat may indeed be generated when input power is turned off. However, controlling and measuring these anomalous conditions isn't as predictable as Rossi might like us to believe. Actually, alluding to such speculation is a no-brainer. Rossi has pretty much alluded to it. Yes, Rossi repeatedly said selfsustained mode is unstable it can runaway. Therefore now he runs it selfsustained only for 50% of time now. Thats what he says. He must have done experiments for this. He has Labview on his computer. So I would think he has created a Labview programm to run it unattended in 50%-50% mode and to study the behaviour, but this seems not to be the case, or if, then it is not reliable enough. Best wishes, Peter
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 18.09.2011 19:26, schrieb Peter Heckert: Yes, Rossi repeatedly said selfsustained mode is unstable it can runaway. Therefore now he runs it selfsustained only for 50% of time now. Thats what he says. He must have done experiments for this. He has Labview on his computer. So I would think he has created a Labview programm to run it unattended in 50%-50% mode and to study the behaviour, but this seems not to be the case, or if, then it is not reliable enough. On the other side he claims he has heated a building years ago and saved 90% electricity. Honestly, that all is hard to believe. His plumber could easily get some old used radiators without cost from trash or from a building that is on demontage and connect them for free and a old heater pump then he could demonstrate this ;-) Best wishes, Peter
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Here are some band heater specs. Notice the max temps, http://www.omega.com/heaters/pdf/HEATER_INTRO_BAND_REF.pdf, As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. Although there is a slight rise in temp after power off its hard to believe that CF knows when we switch the power off and then puts in such a poor showing. Its more likely an anomaly or perhaps due to diffusion time. The amount of energy pumped into the E-Cat before even the first water overflow is quite large as I have said. It would also appear that a band heater can get hot enough to heat the E-Cat metal to the proper temp. The possible amount of steam produced would seem to be less than 3.0 - 1.8= 1.2 g/s (maybe less since overflow and pump inlet are known or checked very well). If I recall correctly it takes about 2250J/g to vaporize. So only 2700W would be necessary to vaporize 1.2g. There may also be other liquid besides overflow entrained in the steam. Too bad no one measured the heat of the overflow. In all there seems to be some heat unaccounted for if you take the overflow and inlet measurements at face value and assume steam is dry. But there is too much inaccuracy in these to seriously conclude. Also thermal inertia would seem to explain everything nicely. Why dosen't someone do a run without hydrogen for comparison? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: [snip] As metal content of the E-Cat is at the same temperature as water content, This is an assumption with no (apparent) foundation. All 80 kg of E- at will not be at the water temperature. If the new E-cat is heated by a band heater, then the outside metal blanket will be *much* hotter than the water. We need to know the structure of the new E-cat. it does not matter where the probe is installed. It matters where the probe is installed. It might not even be in the steam or water. Here is a poser. If the temperature probe is in the steam/water, why is it that when the internal pressure is a couple atmospheres that there is no leakage around the probe. I recall seeing in a video the probe being easily removed from one of the early E-cat demo machines. Even if they do not exactly match, there is still a correlation because heat conduction speed is somewhat constant. We only look for the correlation. Do we actually know what the input flow was, or the water outflow was, after the power was shut off? Yes. Peristaltic pumps are quite predictive. –Jouni So, what then do you predict the flow from the pump would be if a water inlet valve in the machine were closed? It is a good thing to have measurements instead of estimates. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On Sep 14, 2011, at 8:59 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/9/15 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: The claims made for months that all the water was being converted to steam has been utterly crushed! Krivit was clearly right on his seven points. True, but his seven points had nothing to do with Rossi,... [snip] I did not say it had anything to do with Rossi - other than the obvious implication that there was no other public evidence there was *anything* unusual going on in the E-cat, other than the unreliable estimate of heat out. Rossi himself is a side issue, but it would be interesting to see what he actually said about the steam quality. Here is some homework for you to do: . I don't accept homework. Also, I don't work for you. [snip] If you can answer these questions, please do. If you cannot answer these question, please do not claim that your criticism is anyway rational. . These questions are irrelevant to my point, merely diversions from the embarrassing fact no one bothered to even look at the E-cat output port flow, much less perform calorimetry on it. The people who said all the water was turned to steam were obviously wrong, as I already demonstrated through reasonable calculations, even if there *is* anomalous heat. It seems to me more worthwhile to spend my time to go back and look at who said what than to waste time on yet another experiment report where we know nothing of the internal structure and where meaningful energy balances were not measured. More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. This is Mats Lewan's and only Mats Lewan's idea. . Well, I think looking back at the lists and blogs might prove informative with regards to who said all the water was converted to steam. Rossi does not think so. And it would not make any sense to ANY engineer anyway, because such a state where all water is converted into steam is not physically stable state of the system. System is no in equilibrium. This only shows that you do not understand much about engineering. . What nonsense. If you flow water at 1 ml a second into a 1500W coffee pot you will see all of it emerge as steam and at atmospheric pressure. It will come to a heat flow equilibrium. The steam will not be at 100°C however. Frankly I am disappointed your ad hominem filled and extremely insulting message, as it is only based on your lack of understanding what was happening in the Bologna. But one hint for you that do not look what Mats Lewan said, but look only raw data what he provided. Then calculate yourself, if you can. Of course you need to be creative, what might be problem for you, because no-one has has not cooked the data so that it is easy to digest. . It seems to me more worthwhile to spend time to go back and look at who said what than to waste time on yet another experiment where we know nothing of the internal structure and where meaningful energy balances were not measured. The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer than the water that pulses out with it is irrelevant. True but, this just shows, that you and Krivit does no nothing about the steam physics, because you are misusing concepts and you are inventing new definitions for physical concepts. . . At least I did not invent the idea that only dry vapor is emerging from the E-cat ports. That is pure fantasy. Not even taking the time to look is even worse than fantasy, especially after large amounts of water exiting the port is pointed out as a logical necessity, based on conservation of energy. Investing in something with the poor level of evidence provided publically, and expecting good results, is fantasy. Or, as Jed put it, insane. Admittedly, I did use the term percolator effect to describe what I expected to see happening at the E-cat exit port, and in the hose exit as well, where it rises from the floor to the drain, when the E- cat was operating within the early demo power ranges. That is not misusing a concept, however. Meanwhile, I thin you should keep in mind: The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates 100% steam. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality Steam quality chi is given by: chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total) Mass total clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality of 0 indicates 100% water by mass. The important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being converted to steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. That is true. However, in the Krivit test and other previous tests, the flow rate was lower, so I do not think you can compare them. Also if they had put a probe into this stream of steam and water and withdrawn it, it would have come out wet, whereas in previous tests it was dry. In general I agree that a non-steady state mixture of water and steam is difficult to measure. I wish that Lewan had sparged the steam and water. Before this test, I sent messages to Lewan, Rossi and others urging them to do this, but they did not. They had a perfect opportunity to do this, with that large plastic trashcan. It will easily hold enough water to condense all of the steam. By the way, flow rate was almost exactly 3 g per second. Input power will be enough to vaporize 0.7 g assuming no heat radiated from the device. That is extremely unrealistic. So the fact that about half the water was vaporized does indicate there was excess heat. More to the point, during the 35 min. heat after death event, the temperature did not decline much. This is proof that there was anomalous heat. Stored heat can only produce a temperature that declines rapidly at first and then gradually. After the power went off the temperature did not decline rapidly. Therefore the input power of 2.5 kW was only a fraction of the total power. If the total power was around 5 kW where 2.5 kW was half, the temperature would've fallen a lot faster and sooner. Lewan estimates the water volume of the cell at 22 to 30 L. If there had been no anomalous heat the temperature would have fallen sharply within minutes. You can boil a pot of 22 L of hot water and observe this easily. Turn off the heat, and it stops boiling instantly. It starts to cool a few degrees in minutes. The temperature never rises and never stabilizes, unless you change the insulation (or the flow rate, in this case). In this case the temperature will certainly fall quickly because during the 35 min. 6 kg of cold water was added to the cell. The heat capacity of this water far exceeds the total heat capacity of all the metal in the cell. Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self deception. That is true, but there is no doubt it was boiling for 35 minutes with no input power. Anyone who ignores this fact is engaged in the worst kind of self-deception imaginable. Further, the E-cat mass has been greatly increased, and the max input power increased. The heat after death from mundane causes will now obviously be much longer. This cannot sustain boiling for more than a few seconds, at this flow rate. Metal cannot store much heat, and this cell was producing excess heat the whole time, so there was no possible storage at all. With 2.5 kW input only, it would have transitioned from boiling about one third of the water to boiling none of it, and that would have taken a few seconds at most. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
You're understanding of thermal inertia is incorrect. We don't expect a rapid decline. With Megajoules in storage a 1000W draw will change the temperature but little. Its like your telling me you can slow down a Mack tuck by shooting peas at it. It'll decelerate quickly at first but as it comes to a halt it will be more difficult to slow it dowm. Even a cursory glance at the data will show that enormous energy is being pumped into the E-Cat with very little coming out. In 10 Minutes about 1.5MJ goes in at full power. Nothing comes out until overflow at 20:16. At 20:50 there's 3.7 g overflow at 90C. That's about 1`/3 of what's going in.From 19:00 to 19:40, i.e 40 minutes, the power is increasd from 1/2 to full. I'll count that as 20 min. at full which is 3MJ. From 19:40 to 22:40, 3 hrs @ full gives 27MJ for a total of 30MJ. There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored in the E-Cat. It takes ~5MJ to heat 17L of water from 30C to 100C. So it would appear that there are 25MJ stored elsewhere at this point. That's enough to produce 1000W for over 7 hrs. And there is probably additional heating. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. That is true. However, in the Krivit test and other previous tests, the flow rate was lower, so I do not think you can compare them. Also if they had put a probe into this stream of steam and water and withdrawn it, it would have come out wet, whereas in previous tests it was dry. In general I agree that a non-steady state mixture of water and steam is difficult to measure. I wish that Lewan had sparged the steam and water. Before this test, I sent messages to Lewan, Rossi and others urging them to do this, but they did not. They had a perfect opportunity to do this, with that large plastic trashcan. It will easily hold enough water to condense all of the steam. By the way, flow rate was almost exactly 3 g per second. Input power will be enough to vaporize 0.7 g assuming no heat radiated from the device. That is extremely unrealistic. So the fact that about half the water was vaporized does indicate there was excess heat. More to the point, during the 35 min. heat after death event, the temperature did not decline much. This is proof that there was anomalous heat. Stored heat can only produce a temperature that declines rapidly at first and then gradually. After the power went off the temperature did not decline rapidly. Therefore the input power of 2.5 kW was only a fraction of the total power. If the total power was around 5 kW where 2.5 kW was half, the temperature would've fallen a lot faster and sooner. Lewan estimates the water volume of the cell at 22 to 30 L. If there had been no anomalous heat the temperature would have fallen sharply within minutes. You can boil a pot of 22 L of hot water and observe this easily. Turn off the heat, and it stops boiling instantly. It starts to cool a few degrees in minutes. The temperature never rises and never stabilizes, unless you change the insulation (or the flow rate, in this case). In this case the temperature will certainly fall quickly because during the 35 min. 6 kg of cold water was added to the cell. The heat capacity of this water far exceeds the total heat capacity of all the metal in the cell. Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self deception. That is true, but there is no doubt it was boiling for 35 minutes with no input power. Anyone who ignores this fact is engaged in the worst kind of self-deception imaginable. Further, the E-cat mass has been greatly increased, and the max input power increased. The heat after death from mundane causes will now obviously be much longer. This cannot sustain boiling for more than a few seconds, at this flow rate. Metal cannot store much heat, and this cell was producing excess heat the whole time, so there was no possible storage at all. With 2.5 kW input only, it would have transitioned from boiling about one third of the water to boiling none of it, and that would have taken a few seconds at most. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
You can lead a mule to a barrel full of hot water from an Ecat, but you can't make him think... Well, actually, having just ragged the Pros here, I owe them an apology, as they offer politely and clearly expressed views in this forthright, fair debate in dialogue with the convincing comments of the Cons, which I find persuasive -- where is Joshua Cude ? -- we need you! within mutual service, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat Volume
At 08:25 AM 9/15/2011, Joe Catania wrote: There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored in the E-Cat. Rossi said the reactor volume is 30L -- but this includes space for water and for steam. Taking the time from when the pump was started to when overflow started -- 1.77 hrs x The input flow of 13.76 L/hr = 24L
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On 11-09-15 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. That is true. However, in the Krivit test and other previous tests, the flow rate was lower, so I do not think you can compare them. Also if they had put a probe into this stream of steam and water and withdrawn it, it would have come out wet, whereas in previous tests it was dry. And we know the probe came out dry because Galantini said so. Right? Galantini, the man who claimed to have tested the steam and determined that it was dry, for sure, believe it, Jack, it's *dry*. Galantini, the guy who got testy and less than clear when pressed for details of exactly how he tested the steam, what he measured, and what the measured value was. Galantini, whose testimony is worth exactly as much as your /faith/ tells you it's worth.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post into sneering. The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing. Ever since I put together what I knew about the early results with the statements made by Rossi, Levi, and Galantini it's been obvious to me that something stinks in E-cat land. Unfortunately some of the folks on this list, including some I admire, have apparently been totally taken in, and are in the process of riding the train right off the cliff, with behavior worthy of any True Believer including accusations of unreason, nonsense, and taking the easy way out directed at anyone who questions the conclusions. I don't like food fights and I certainly don't like food fights with people I'm used to agreeing with. So now I'll shut up again, and go back to doing something sort of useful, while we all wait to see what Rossi's exit strategy is going to be, and wait to see whether he can throw enough dust into the air to leave some people permanently convinced that he really had something before ... whatever ... happened. On 11-09-15 01:11 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-09-15 10:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. That is true. However, in the Krivit test and other previous tests, the flow rate was lower, so I do not think you can compare them. Also if they had put a probe into this stream of steam and water and withdrawn it, it would have come out wet, whereas in previous tests it was dry. And we know the probe came out dry because Galantini said so. Right? Galantini, the man who claimed to have tested the steam and determined that it was dry, for sure, believe it, Jack, it's *dry*. Galantini, the guy who got testy and less than clear when pressed for details of exactly how he tested the steam, what he measured, and what the measured value was. Galantini, whose testimony is worth exactly as much as your /faith/ tells you it's worth.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
WTH?!?! http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/15/collected-comments-on-sept-7-afternoon-rossi-test/ Krivit posted an Horace's post without the context, that is, Jouni's post and answer to that! It looks like Krivit is trying to smear someone he disagrees with an aggression! That's unethical!
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: And we know the probe came out dry because Galantini said so. Right? Yes, of course. It is very easy for a person to observe that a probe is wet or dry. A small child could do this. Galantini, the man who claimed to have tested the steam and determined that it was dry, for sure, believe it, Jack, it's *dry*. Some people -- including you apparently -- believe he was mistaken. Others, including some experts, believe he was not. They say the documentation for his probe says it measures enthalpy and it works at high temperature. I tend to believe the manufacturer's specs myself. If it did not work I suppose the manual would say does not work with steam. Since steam is one of the most common substances I suppose the instrument would be useless. In any case: 1. This does appear to be an open and shut case, despite your assurance. 2. It is much easier to observe that a probe is wet than it is to read enthalpy. Galantini, the guy who got testy and less than clear when pressed for details of exactly how he tested the steam, what he measured, and what the measured value was. I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit out on his ear before that interview was over, when he went on and on about how suspicious it is to tell a reporter about results that you do not consider worthy of a peer-reviewed journal paper. I would have said: you heard me the first time; this interview is over. Galantini, whose testimony is worth exactly as much as your /faith/ tells you it's worth. You seem to be suggesting that because he and the manufacturer disagree with you, their judgement is worthless. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
At 10:45 AM 9/15/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote: WTH?!?! http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/09/15/collected-comments-on-sept-7-afternoon-rossi-test/ Krivit posted an Horace's post without the context, that is, Jouni's post and answer to that! It looks like Krivit is trying to smear someone he disagrees with an aggression! That's unethical! Indeed. He might have called it SELECTED Quotes, since he's only collecting negative comments.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On 11-09-15 01:49 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit... I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I haven't read. I was thinking in particular of a response from Galantini I've seen online in which he attempted to explain and/or defend his conclusion. It was informative, but not in the way I'd hoped. You seem to be suggesting that because he and the manufacturer disagree with you, their judgement is worthless. I've seen nothing to indicate that any manufacturer agrees with Galantini's conclusions about steam quality. And as to my opinion regarding Galantini, when someone makes a measurement from which he draws a conclusion which is obviously incorrect, and then refuses to either explain how he did it or back down on the conclusion, yup, IMO that makes his testimony (about *anything*) worthless. I realize you deny that his measurements and conclusions were incorrect, and I realize I won't convince you otherwise, regardless of how much time I care to spend detailing my reasoning. So it goes. (I won't hire you to evaluate steam quality in the future, so there!) Galantini's *judgement* I know nothing about. All I know about is his *testimony*, which I have gleaned from a handful of public statements, which may or may not reflect his true opinions.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat Volume
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored in the E-Cat. Rossi said the reactor volume is 30L -- but this includes space for water and for steam. I asked Lewan about this. He said: The volume of the cell was at least 22.5 liters, as shown by the amount of water collected at emptying. Probably closer to 30 liters altogether. I also asked him: During the 35-minute heat after death event, did you observe steam production? He has not had a chance to respond yet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: ** Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post into sneering. The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing. Don't fret about it. Forget it. Ever since I put together what I knew about the early results with the statements made by Rossi, Levi, and Galantini it's been obvious to me that something stinks in E-cat land. Obvious to you perhaps, but bear in mind that many experts disagree with you. You could be wrong. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit... I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I haven't read. I was thinking in particular of a response from Galantini I've seen online in which he attempted to explain and/or defend his conclusion. It was informative, but not in the way I'd hoped. I think it is a mistake to judge someone's arguments by whether he is testy or not, or by some other aspect of his personality. Arata is one of most cranky, testy people I have ever met but with regard to cold fusion is completely right and he has made some of the most important contributions to the field, second only to Fleischmann and Pons. I've seen nothing to indicate that any manufacturer agrees with Galantini's conclusions about steam quality. See: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 It says it measures enthalpy. The only way to do that is to measure dryness. And as to my opinion regarding Galantini, when someone makes a measurement from which he draws a conclusion which is obviously incorrect, and then refuses to either explain how he did it or back down on the conclusion, yup, IMO that makes his testimony (about *anything*) worthless. Anything? Would you not trust him to tell you whether it is raining outside? Just because you disagree with his measurement that does not strike me as a reason to condemn him as a person unable to recognize drops of water when he sees them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On 11-09-15 02:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: Sorry -- I'm afraid I crossed over the line in my previous post into sneering. The truth is I feel kind of bitter about this whole thing. Don't fret about it. Forget it. Ever since I put together what I knew about the early results with the statements made by Rossi, Levi, and Galantini it's been obvious to me that something stinks in E-cat land. Obvious to you perhaps, but bear in mind that many experts disagree with you. You could be wrong. :-) Of course I could be wrong! And I'll applaud, and apologize profusely, if it turns out that I am wrong about this. But my opinion is the only one I've got, so naturally, I believe it.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On 11-09-15 02:23 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: I would get testy if people addressed me the way they have addressed him. Also, if I were Levi I would have tossed Krivit... I wasn't talking about the Krivit interview, which I haven't read. I was thinking in particular of a response from Galantini I've seen online in which he attempted to explain and/or defend his conclusion. It was informative, but not in the way I'd hoped. I think it is a mistake to judge someone's arguments by whether he is testy or not, or by some other aspect of his personality. Arata is one of most cranky, testy people I have ever met but with regard to cold fusion is completely right and he has made some of the most important contributions to the field, second only to Fleischmann and Pons. I've seen nothing to indicate that any manufacturer agrees with Galantini's conclusions about steam quality. See: http://www.deltaohm.com/ver2010/uk/st_airQ.php?str=HD37AB1347 It says it measures enthalpy. The only way to do that is to measure dryness. Thank you for the reference. Unfortunately I'm no longer pursuing this and don't have the time to dig into the probe specs. (I'm really sorry about that.) If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; my conclusions are based on analysis done months ago (when I had more time to spend). At this point I'm just waiting for October, to see whether Rossi is a miracle worker or just a man digging himself into a hole. And as to my opinion regarding Galantini, when someone makes a measurement from which he draws a conclusion which is obviously incorrect, and then refuses to either explain how he did it or back down on the conclusion, yup, IMO that makes his testimony (about *anything*) worthless. Anything? Would you not trust him to tell you whether it is raining outside? It would depend on whether there was any money riding on the result. Just because you disagree with his measurement that does not strike me as a reason to condemn him as a person unable to recognize drops of water when he sees them. My concern is actually rather different. My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry. And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: But my opinion is the only one I've got, so naturally, I believe it. You have no choice. Belief is not voluntary. A person cannot persuade himself that 2+2 does not equal 4. That is the problem with some arguments in favor of religion such as Pascal's wager. Pascal cannot choose to believe or not believe. But when you are aware that other people who appear to be experts disagree, it should give you pause. Of course experts are sometimes wrong. Also, you have to watch out for a logical fallacy, Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Some people think that citing any authority is an invalid argument. They confuse a fallacious appeal to an actual, valid appeal. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: My concern is actually rather different. My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry. And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini. You have made a high pile of unproven suppositions here! You assume: 1. You are right, and he and the other experts are wrong. 2. You *suspect* he knows he is wrong. 3. This suspicion leads you to further suspect he secretly agrees with you. Not that he is confused or ambivalent but that he secretly agrees with you. 4. He does not wish to admit this, so he responds in a cranky fashion when people question his authority. This is a far-fetched hypothesis. I would stop at the suspicion rather than erecting more beliefs and assumptions on top of it. Academic scientists often self-assured and as a rule they do not like it when people from outside their field question their authority. That is true of scientists were nearly always right such as Fleischmann and Arata, and also of the ones who are usually wrong. The point is, being self-assured and standing by your claim is not evidence that you secretly have doubts. As I said I think is a bad idea to try to judge the truth or falsity of a technical argument with reference to your opponent's behavior or personality. I also think is a bad idea to speculate about other people's state of mind or what they truly believe. It is impossible to know what anyone truly believes. People often themselves do not know what it is they believe, since the mind is not a single unified entity but rather a decentralized massively parallel set of cognitive processes, some of them in opposition to one another. You do not think one thing at a time. A brain engages in millions or billions of trains of thought. You may be paying attention to only one at a given moment but that's another story. I think you should try to explain how 30 L of water in a 40 kg metal vessel can remain boiling at a high temperature for 35 minutes while 6 L of tap water is added. I do not think that is possible unless there is a source of energy in the vessel. I think this is indisputable proof that the eCat produces anomalous heat. Arguments about Galantini's personality and motivations are trivial in comparison. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 15.09.2011 21:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: My concern is actually rather different. My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry. It doesnt matter if the steam was dry or not. Look to the new system and new measuring method. All input conditions and all output conditions are known and the system and the hose have thermic isolation. Therefore it doesnt matter what is between input and output. The COP can be calculated. It also doesnt matter to me if there are batteries inside or not. This question is impossible to solve via Internet. This is not my problem this is Rossis problem and without doubt time or NASA researchers or the customers will resolve this problem. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On 11-09-15 03:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote: My concern is actually rather different. My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry. And that, in turn, leads me to question any testimony from Galantini. You have made a high pile of unproven suppositions here! Yes, I sure have. Reasoning by pattern-matching against other known quantities is, of course, not deductively valid, but in this case I find it convincing. I haven't gone into all the details, just one small piece of the picture I see. It'll be interesting to see if who's right.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Joe Catania wrote: There would appear to be from 17 to 20L of water stored in the E-Cat. It takes ~5MJ to heat 17L of water from 30C to 100C. So it would appear that there are 25MJ stored elsewhere at this point. Stored somewhere, you say. Where? The metal? There are 80 kg of metal, mainly steel. The specific heat of steel is 0.49 kJ/kg K, so the temperature would have to rise by 638°C. Thing would be radiating heat into the room and burning the insulation and pipes. It is not possible to heat metal this hot with ordinary resistance heaters. The wires would burn. The people in the room would be aware of the fact that the thing was incandescent. That is ignoring heat losses -- which is preposterous. In reality it would have to be well over 1000°C. Furthermore, it cannot be storing up heat because the overall reaction is exothermic before the 35 minute heat after death event. If as you say the heat does not balance no doubt that is because the machine radiates a great deal and this is not accounted for. The machine is insulated but no insulation is perfect. Your hypothesis ruled out. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On Sep 15, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. That is true. However, in the Krivit test and other previous tests, the flow rate was lower, so I do not think you can compare them. I provided the numbers Jed. As I showed numerically, it was not reasonable that no water was ejected in the prior demonstration tests unless the tests were run at precisely the right input power (from electric plus LENR) at all times to just boil all the water yet not raise the steam temperature. Not likely! Further, I showed that at the flow rates and input power, with no LENR power, the results of prior demonstration runs could be replicated *provided no one looked* to see if water was flowing out of the E-cat. Now we have the fortunate case that *someone actually looked*. The emperor has no clothes! No one will be making the assertion (at least with any credibility) that all the water has been converted to steam, without some good level of actual physical observation. The prior assertions, that all the water has been converted to steam, made without actually looking, now clearly have no credibility whatsoever. Those prior assertions actually never did have any credibility. That is the relevant comparison. Also if they had put a probe into this stream of steam and water and withdrawn it, it would have come out wet, whereas in previous tests it was dry. This depends on where the probe was located inside the device. It was located where the temperature was above 102°C. It therefore was in a well away from the water flow. In general I agree that a non-steady state mixture of water and steam is difficult to measure. I wish that Lewan had sparged the steam and water. Before this test, I sent messages to Lewan, Rossi and others urging them to do this, but they did not. They had a perfect opportunity to do this, with that large plastic trashcan. It will easily hold enough water to condense all of the steam. This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the barrel. Also, better to run the output through a heat exchanger first and do flow calorimetry on the cooling water, and isoperibolic calorimetry on the cooling water source and water out. Most high school kids could probably build a heat exchanger suitable for this. By the way, flow rate was almost exactly 3 g per second. This is not known. It is only known for the period of time for which flow measurements were actually made. The new E-cat obviously has some means to restrict output flow rate (and thus input flow rate) and to drive pressure way up. The pump likely does not pump at the same volume against all pressure heads. It would be interesting to know how such a pump reacts to a complete output flow blockage at the E-cat end of the input hose. It appears that such a flow blockage occurred prior to the venting of the water plus steam at the bottom of the device at the end of the test. Input power will be enough to vaporize 0.7 g assuming no heat radiated from the device. That is extremely unrealistic. So the fact that about half the water was vaporized does indicate there was excess heat. More to the point, during the 35 min. heat after death event, the temperature did not decline much. This is proof that there was anomalous heat. Stored heat can only produce a temperature that declines rapidly at first and then gradually. This is false. There is thermal storage on the outside of the device, in the form of lead. The thermal resistance between this material is much higher than the thermal resistance between the heater and the water. The test documented was highly dynamic. It is entirely feasible and in fact predictable that a thermal pulse would arrive from the lead thermal storage layer in a delayed fashion. In the arctic, where water pipes are often buried 10 ft deep or more, it sometimes takes hours for a thermal pulse to freeze the pipes. If one cold night occurs, followed by a warm day, the pipes can freeze during the warm day because the cold thermal pulse is just arriving at the pipes. After the power went off the temperature did not decline rapidly. Therefore the input power of 2.5 kW was only a fraction of the total power. If the total power was around 5 kW where 2.5 kW was half, the temperature would've fallen a lot faster and sooner. We do not know that. We do not know the interior construction.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 15.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jed Rothwell: If as you say the heat does not balance no doubt that is because the machine radiates a great deal and this is not accounted for. The machine is insulated but no insulation is perfect. The insulation is more perfect than this insulation that I have here in my gasboiler heating system. Most insulated water pipes are outside of the wall and are exposed to cold unheated air and have no better insulation. And all insulated water pipes that connect the radiators are longer and made from copper. Therefore, given the amount of thermal energy, I know that the insulation is perfectly good in Rossis system. Sorry, I cannot calculate it. But I know it by experience and example. Also, a bad insulation cannot produce false overunity effects. It would reduce the resulting COP and therefore this is not important. Peter
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Horace Heffner wrote: As I showed numerically, it was not reasonable that no water was ejected in the prior demonstration tests unless the tests were run at precisely the right input power (from electric plus LENR) at all times to just boil all the water yet not raise the steam temperature. Not likely! Quite likely. Any cook knows how to keep a pot from boiling over. This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the barrel. That is not necessary. Just use a lot of water and keep the test limited to around 5 min. As long as the overall water temperature does not go much above ambient you don't have to worry about heat losses. Of course the thermal mass could possibly be mostly lead (at 0.14 kJ/(kg K)), but on the other hand it could be mostly Mg ((at 1.05 kJ/(kg K)). We don't really know. Even if it is mostly lead, and driven to 200°C, it will still hold more than required to bring the 6 kg to boiling. Since the amount of steam was not actually measured not much more energy has to be supplied to provide some steam. At least half of it was boiled. Lewan tells me the the boiling did not decrease noticeably during the heat-after-death event. Furthermore, the entire experimental run before that heat-after-death event was highly exothermic. There was no time during the run when heat might have been stored up. On the contrary the machine should have cooled down several hundred degrees. It should have been covered with frost, like a canister of butane firing a grill. (Boyle's law is readily apparent in Atlanta outdoor grilling weather.) The heat came out as quickly as it went in. With 2.5 kW going in it would have been barely boiling, less than 0.7 g out of 3 g for the overall run. After the power went off, the metal would have quickly cooled down to stop all boiling. I doubt it would have boiled at all with only 2.5 kW. Even with insulation the box, the pipes and other components would have radiated so much heat, only hot water would have come out. Anyway the major heat loss path was from the fluid, not through the insulation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On Sep 15, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: But my opinion is the only one I've got, so naturally, I believe it. You have no choice. Belief is not voluntary. A person cannot persuade himself that 2+2 does not equal 4. That is the problem with some arguments in favor of religion such as Pascal's wager. Pascal cannot choose to believe or not believe. But when you are aware that other people who appear to be experts disagree, it should give you pause. Of course experts are sometimes wrong. Also, you have to watch out for a logical fallacy, Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Some people think that citing any authority is an invalid argument. They confuse a fallacious appeal to an actual, valid appeal. - Jed An appeal to authority can only affect one's judgement of the probability of truth. It is non-Aristotelian. It is a sales tool. It is not a logical argument, and thus can not be either valid or invalid. It is not possible to take a set of true premises, apply only an appeal to authority argument, and from that determine a new premise that is known to be true or false. There are plenty of examples of a single scientist being considered wrong when no authority agreed, only to have time pass until most authorities agreed .The validity or invalidity of logical argument is forever. The perception of truth can be fleeting. That's my personal opinion anyway. Maybe a reference to an expert opinion on that can be found. 8^))) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
2011/9/15 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the barrel. Also, better to run the output through a heat exchanger first and do flow calorimetry on the cooling water, and isoperibolic calorimetry on the cooling water source and water out. This is too complex. It is enough that take a cup of ice tea and sparge steam into that. It will absorb all steam. If you do not believe try it. I already did when I sparged high pressure steam into 200 ml 17°C water. And not even single drop of water escaped. (ok, to refine accuracy, perhaps bucket is more suitable.) You are thinking too complex methods, because you try to apply some complex expert knowledge into trivial problem. The best accuracy is however obtained, when things are done by the most simple and uniquely tailored methods. By the way, flow rate was almost exactly 3 g per second. This is not known. It is only known for the period of time for which flow measurements were actually made. The new E-cat obviously has some means to restrict output flow rate (and thus input flow rate) and to drive pressure way up. The pump likely does not pump at the same volume against all pressure heads. It would be interesting to know how such a pump reacts to a complete output flow blockage at the E-cat end of the input hose. It appears that such a flow blockage occurred prior to the venting of the water plus steam at the bottom of the device at the end of the test. The peristaltic pump pumps 15.8 kg/h without backpressure as it was calibrated. It pumped ca.13 kg/h when water was sub-boiling. After pressure build up started, it pumped from ca. 11 kg/h, but here we do not know yet, against what pressure this was. From manual we can see, that pump is certified to pump 12 kg/h water against 150 kPa pressure. This would imply, that pressure was more than 250 kPa when the water pumping rate was measured. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: As I showed numerically, it was not reasonable that no water was ejected in the prior demonstration tests unless the tests were run at precisely the right input power (from electric plus LENR) at all times to just boil all the water yet not raise the steam temperature. Not likely! Quite likely. Any cook knows how to keep a pot from boiling over. Not a good analogy because cooks don't have a constant inflow of water. They don't have to regulate heat with long duty cycle regulators. It is not boiling over but rather water overflow that is the issue. This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the barrel. That is not necessary. Just use a lot of water and keep the test limited to around 5 min. As long as the overall water temperature does not go much above ambient you don't have to worry about heat losses. Five minutes is not enough to run a complete test. Momentary power measurements are highly flawed for determining total energy in vs total energy out for a dynamic system. Of course the thermal mass could possibly be mostly lead (at 0.14 kJ/(kg K)), but on the other hand it could be mostly Mg ((at 1.05 kJ/(kg K)). We don't really know. Even if it is mostly lead, and driven to 200°C, it will still hold more than required to bring the 6 kg to boiling. Since the amount of steam was not actually measured not much more energy has to be supplied to provide some steam. At least half of it was boiled. Well there is enough energy storage to boil the 6 k of water you specified. You seem to be presenting a moving target, bobbing and weaving. 8^) Lewan tells me the the boiling did not decrease noticeably during the heat-after-death event. Well, an unknown quantity of steam generation did not change noticeably. How very scientific! Furthermore, the entire experimental run before that heat-after- death event was highly exothermic. There was no time during the run when heat might have been stored up. That depends on the actual water flow. On the contrary the machine should have cooled down several hundred degrees. It should have been covered with frost, like a canister of butane firing a grill. (Boyle's law is readily apparent in Atlanta outdoor grilling weather.) The heat came out as quickly as it went in. It is very likely that stored heat will not come out as quickly as it went in. The thermal resistance to the bulk of the storage is likely higher than from the heating element to the water. It takes a dynamic model to understand the heat flow when input conditions occur. With 2.5 kW going in it would have been barely boiling, less than 0.7 g out of 3 g for the overall run. Hard to say, not knowing how much water ran out of the machine directly, or what the flow rates were. After the power went off, the metal would have quickly cooled down to stop all boiling. Calculation please! I doubt it would have boiled at all with only 2.5 kW. Even with insulation the box, the pipes and other components would have radiated so much heat, only hot water would have come out. Anyway the major heat loss path was from the fluid, not through the insulation. - Jed Do we actually know what the input flow was, or the water outflow was, after the power was shut off? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
I must say that there is significant amount of metallic thermal inertia, what is perhaps mostly in the thick metal boiler that can withstand the steam pressures of several megapascals. 25 kg water contains the most of the thermal mass, but in both respect this type of E-Cat is different to others what were lightweight and did not contain any stored liquid water due to percolator effect. I made some calculations, we can assume that most of the metal is at the same temperature as water. Also we know that there is liquid water some 25 kg inside E-Cat. This means that liquid water stores the most of the thermal mass, by 10 fold more than metallic materials. We also know that when temperature was cut off, temperature declined 10°C in 35 minutes. This would indicate, becsuse temperature conducts very fast through metals and in water there are fast convection due to boiling, we can assume that there is no significant temperature gradient inside E-Cat. Therefore the amount of heat what ΔT 10°C held is straight forward to calculate to be 1.3 MJ. There should not be too much room for margin of errors, if it is assumed metal mass to be 70 kg and water mass 25 kg. However as we know that at 118°C about half of the water was boiled and during the cool down phase temperature was always above 123, this means that more than half of the inlet water was vaporized. That is because only the steam backpressure does keep up the internal pressure of E-Cat. If assumed conservatively that half of the water was evaporated, then we need 7.5 MJ energy to explain slow decline of temperature. As there is is no temperature gradients due to high thermal conductivity of metals, therefore we can assume that 6.1 MJ was definitive minimum requirement for excess heat production. But as I have previously estimated that 60-80% of inlet water was needed to vaporize in the temperatures above 123 to explain over 100 kPa steam pressure, therefore proper estimation for required excess energy during 35 minutes self-sustaining is 6.1MJ – 9.5MJ or 2.9kW – 4.5kW. Indeed, excess heat during power cut off was required and thermal inertia cannot explain it, because it can only provide ca. 1.3 MJ energy and that cannot explain any steam production at all to support .However high thermal inertia can explain, why there was not observable bump in the graph when input power was cut off, but temperature decline was smooth. However more tricky question is when did cold fusion or fuel cell process begin? We cannot find any kinks from the thermal graph that would explain the temporal point when the excess heat kicked in and overtook the electric resistor as primary heating source. This is very baffling. Here is the accurate temperature graph from input power and temperature made by Akira Shirakawa from the data: http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png Some corrections to my original message: This shows that Rossi can control and understands his reactor very well, because he can push E-Cat to the limits of the cooling power of water. If there had been any more heat production, it would have vaporized all the water and that means that there is nothing that cools down the reactor core. This is not exactly true. Because new E-Cat operates in self-sustaining cycles and there is large liquid water reservoir, peak power can exceed well the water inflow rate. As Rossi suggested that this cycle is electronically controlled that it probably means that if water temperature rises above specific level, input power is cut off and reactor cools down as long as it takes. And again when temperature drops below certain temperature threshold, input power is activated again, to boost cold fusion reactions. Therefore unlike I assumed, we cannot keep total vaporization of inlet water as a ultimate limit that cannot exceed, because this E-Cat version has large water boiler and it is conventional BWR. Therefore 133 °C temperature may tell us, that more than 100% of inlet water was vaporized. We do not know this, since there was not done water trap experiment and steam sparging calorimetry, in 130°C temperatures. This will also mean that I need to extent upper limit for heating power from 7kW up to 9 kW that exceeds water inflow rate. More uncertainty, but this this time into good end, because lower limit stays the same. That is because the pump pumps water with overpressure of 300 kPa (IIRC). If it needs to do work against up to 200 kPa steam overpressure, then flow rate should decrease inversely proportional to the heating power of E-Cat. Peristaltic pump does pump water against 150 kPa pressure with 12 kg/h. This is very well in line with my analysis as when steam pressure was high up to 200 kPa water inflow rate drop below 12 kg/h. And was above 12 kg/h when there was not excess steam pressure. As we do not know when water inflow rate was measured, therefore we cannot establish exact relationship between water inflow rate and pressure. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Horace Heffner wrote: This would have been far superior to doing nothing. Better to insulate the barrel. On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: That is not necessary. Just use a lot of water and keep the test limited to around 5 min. As long as the overall water temperature does not go much above ambient you don't have to worry about heat losses. 2011/9/16 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: Five minutes is not enough to run a complete test. Momentary power measurements are highly flawed for determining total energy in vs total energy out for a dynamic system. We do not need complete test. Only thing what is require is to establish the relationship between steam temperature and total enthalpy. Once this relationship is established, we can just look the temperature graph: http://i.imgur.com/lU42G.png As metal content of the E-Cat is at the same temperature as water content, it does not matter where the probe is installed. Even if they do not exactly match, there is still a correlation because heat conduction speed is somewhat constant. We only look for the correlation. Do we actually know what the input flow was, or the water outflow was, after the power was shut off? Yes. Peristaltic pumps are quite predictive. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: [snip] As metal content of the E-Cat is at the same temperature as water content, This is an assumption with no (apparent) foundation. All 80 kg of E- at will not be at the water temperature. If the new E-cat is heated by a band heater, then the outside metal blanket will be *much* hotter than the water. We need to know the structure of the new E-cat. it does not matter where the probe is installed. It matters where the probe is installed. It might not even be in the steam or water. Here is a poser. If the temperature probe is in the steam/water, why is it that when the internal pressure is a couple atmospheres that there is no leakage around the probe. I recall seeing in a video the probe being easily removed from one of the early E-cat demo machines. Even if they do not exactly match, there is still a correlation because heat conduction speed is somewhat constant. We only look for the correlation. Do we actually know what the input flow was, or the water outflow was, after the power was shut off? Yes. Peristaltic pumps are quite predictive. –Jouni So, what then do you predict the flow from the pump would be if a water inlet valve in the machine were closed? It is a good thing to have measurements instead of estimates. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
2011/9/16 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com: But as I have previously estimated that 60-80% of inlet water was needed to vaporize in the temperatures above 123 to explain over 100 kPa steam pressure, therefore proper estimation for required excess energy during 35 minutes self-sustaining is 6.1MJ – 9.5MJ or 2.9kW – 4.5kW. Here was error in calculations... As I refined that perhaps 60-120% estimation is more accurate, here is also proper upper limit considered: proper values for excess heat are: 3.7kW – 6.8 kW. –Jouni Ps. Horace, it does not matter where the temperature probe is installed as soon as it is in contact with steam or water and not too close to the core/heating element. Also Rossi has build the damn thing, for sure he knows the proper place for thermocouple. If he has misplaced it then it means that he is cheating, and as we have already shown that we cannot assume fake, because if we do assume fake, then we must assume that there is hidden fuel cell. Also metal conducts heat very well and it is just matter of minutes when the power is cut as E-Cat is settled into thermal equilibrium that is dominated by the boiling point of water.
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
The following post seems to be utterly out of touch with reality, a total fantasy. It is shocking to read. I don't know whether to respond or not. The claims made for months that all the water was being converted to steam has been utterly crushed! Krivit was clearly right on his seven points. More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. The hose was taken off. Water pulsed out of the outlet right at the exit of the E-cat in large quantity. It obviously did not condense there. The water trap was clearly undersized by more than two orders of magnitude! It was less than useless! That I assume was because it was never dreamed the flow of water would be so large. What an embarrassment that must be. The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer than the water that pulses out with it is irrelevant. It is a red herring issue, a distraction from the glaring truth, a distraction from attention on the months of wrong headed excuses for not doing calorimetry on the output, and failure to *do* anything useful, other than talk, to see if the claims being made were true. So is the issue of the definition of steam quality. The important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being converted to steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the prior calorimetry claims were. Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self deception. Further, the E-cat mass has been greatly increased, and the max input power increased. The heat after death from mundane causes will now obviously be much longer. The thermal mass is larger, and the thermal resistance from the outside of the lead to the water is much larger. It will make for a dandy magic show, and much more discussion, but will make actual evaluation of the value of the device much more difficult. None of this indicates for sure whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. Since the public is being kept in the dark, the months of fluffy bluster does, however, tip the scales more strongly toward a negative verdict. What a pity and waste of valuable time this is for Rossi if there really is something extraordinary going on in the E-cat. Hopefully the 1 MW unit test will provide economical steam for a very long period. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote: New self-sustaining test was far superior to previous E-Cat tests. It gave us very good quality data and also the steam quality issue was finally resolved hopefully even for the most hard headed critics. Test clearly shows that steam quality was ca. 99-98% as it is the case with all water boilers. There is no such thing as low quality steam relevant with E-Cat, because it does not exist in close to normal pressures. But steam and hot water are separate entities. This is shown very clearly when the outlet hose was removed and hot water was collected into bucket. High quality steam (ca. 99-98%) escaped, but liquid water content was flown gently into bucket. This was also very good reminder how easy it is to do calorimetry from steam. Just separate hot water content and steam from each other. Total enthalpy can be measured easily just by sparging steam/hot water into cool water bucket and measure the temperature change. This gives the enthalpy nice and cleanly. As steam temperature is directly proportional with total enthalpy, we can then find out easily the proper relationship of steam temperature and enthalpy, thus we see the heating power of E-Cat directly from the temperature of steam. And Rossi knows this this relationship exactly. In the recent test, we can find out that water inflow rate was ca. 11 kg/h and there was hot water collected 5-6 kg/h. Too bad that we have only one data point here and we have some uncertainty with water flow rate, because it was not constant but was perhaps correlated with internal steam pressure of E-Cat. However we can safely say that approximately half of the water was evaporated and half was in liquid form. This was only the case when the boiling temperature was ca. 118°C and pressure thus 190 kPa. Later steam temperature rose into 133.7°C and thus pressure exceeded 300 kPa. This indicates that more than 80% of inlet water was evaporated. This shows that Rossi can control and understands his reactor very well, because he can push E-Cat to the limits of the cooling power of water. If there had been any more heat production, it would have
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
2011/9/15 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: The claims made for months that all the water was being converted to steam has been utterly crushed! Krivit was clearly right on his seven points. True, but his seven points had nothing to do with Rossi, but it was all to do with Levi and Galantini, who measured completely irrelevant variables, because they did not understand what was necessary to measure. Rossi knew exactly how much energy E-Cat was producing. And as I have studied it, I also know quite accurately total energy produced by all demonstrations. Here is some homework for you to do: Here are two graphs. Just from these graphs (ignore Test2), could you please work out the numbers and calculate what is the total heating power of E-Cat within these time intervals. Assume that 16:55 E-Cat is full of cool water, and water inflow rate is ca. 15 kg/h. A) from 16:55 (power turned on) 17:25 (first kink in the graph) B) from 17:25 to 17:35 (diminishing derivative) C) from 17:35 to 17:50 (second kink in the graph) D) from 17:50 to 18:00 (the beginning of flat temperature) E) from 18:00 to 18:05 (kink in the flat temperature line, power off) F) from 18:05 to 18:20 (sudden temperature drop) Some questions to ponder. Why temperature rise was constant during the A-period? Why temperature graph was saw like during timeperiod C? What was the temperature during period E? And why did temperature drop drastically after the end of time perioid F? Power graph (Test1) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwEjduFixI/E1M/lv4Osmoyro4/s1600/report5.png and corresponding steam/water temperature graph http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/E1E/TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg If you can answer these questions, please do. If you cannot answer these question, please do not claim that your criticism is anyway rational. More importantly, the claim that all the water was being converted to steam, the repeated, defended, and heralded basis for thinking something practical has been created, the basis for the calorimetry of the public demos, is now shown to be without basis in fact. This is Mats Lewan's and only Mats Lewan's idea. Rossi does not think so. And it would not make any sense to ANY engineer anyway, because such a state where all water is converted into steam is not physically stable state of the system. System is no in equilibrium. This only shows that you do not understand much about engineering. Frankly I am disappointed your ad hominem filled and extremely insulting message, as it is only based on your lack of understanding what was happening in the Bologna. But one hint for you that do not look what Mats Lewan said, but look only raw data what he provided. Then calculate yourself, if you can. Of course you need to be creative, what might be problem for you, because no-one has has not cooked the data so that it is easy to digest. The fact that the steam that comes out with the water is dryer than the water that pulses out with it is irrelevant. True but, this just shows, that you and Krivit does no nothing about the steam physics, because you are misusing concepts and you are inventing new definitions for physical concepts. The important fact, that all the water is clearly *not* being converted to steam, clearly demonstrates just how bad the prior calorimetry claims were. That does not have nothing to do with Rossi, because those silly claims were made by Galantini, Levi, et al. scientists, who did not know anything what they were doing. Galantini even misread his instrument as he thought that it measured the pressure where the probe is inside. This clearly shows, that he did not know anything what he was doing. You are mixing the claims made by Rossi and the claims made by independent scientists. Rossi has not done any claims, but he has just left independent scientists to measurements as they please. Too bad that they did not have much idea about calorimetry. But as I am looking you, Horace, they were not in bad company because neither does you have much creative ideas how to make calorimetry. E.g. your criticism about steam sparging test, was clearly shown to you that it is not from this world, but it was your misunderstanding of proper methods. Now the new E-cat never reaches equilibrium. This is a far more difficult regime in which to do accurate calorimetry, and a far better regime for self deception. What do you mean by equilibrium? If you are referring that all water is evaporated, there is no such thing. Only stable state of equilibrium is when E-Cat is producing less heat than cooling water can absorb. If you know anything about boiling water reactor technology (you may make a case study with Fukushima BWRs) then you should know, that there is always liquid water present. This is the basics of any steam technology and this has been always the case with E-Cats. The fact that you do not know too much about BWRs and calorimetry does not
