Joshua, 1- I for one disagree with any experiment without measurements- perhaps later if/when the E-cats will be around in great number. Non negociable issue, i am a professional engineer nad I respect my profession and myself. Noblesse oblige- not experiment for popularization of some device. Plus please consider that common sense experiments are vulnerable; common sense is noot easily definiable please take a look to http://thinkexist.com/quotations/common_sense/
2- about enthalpy measurement- in industry mixing valves are used- a small three way metalic valve or a short say 7 cm pipe with some baffles, Raschig rings, sieves will be perfect to mix say 4 cu.cc/s water converted to steam with 40 cu.cc/s cooling water constantly. (I made a fixation for the 1:10 ratio but this can be adjusted. 3. Very good your idea to use the E-cat in a way analogous to a pressure cooker- you can adjust the pressure and the temperature of the steam Later this has to be done! 4.- Excuse me I don't get what you say with: "Or, you could measure the flow rate of the output fluid. That would be a very direct measure of the steam dryness" Which fluid- the volume of the steam by a flowmeter? 5.- what do you consider the energy equivalent of 1 kg weight gasoline? In principle if the E-cat is burning it also disappears? What is the logic of this idea? Isn't it exaggerated? OK, the weight is 32 kg the E-cat has to produce how many Kwh? Please tell exactly and finally. It has no logic but any possible doubts have to be eliminated. 6. a lot of water ius not something unusual or to be scared of it has tio be measured not to visioned or scared. On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > Joshua- this will need some discussions but I think eventually we can > establish a Perfect Experience Protocol for Indiviual E-Cats- that is > satisfactory both from the points of view of engineering and of the sane > bureaucracy of standardization. i am opting for fully quantitative and not > for "common sense" experiments. > > > They are not exclusive. Quantitative measurements can always be made, but > making it common sense would be the most effective, because it wouldn't > involve trusting experts. So if it is only quantitative, then the people who > make the measurements must be verifiably arms-length. The problem with this > might be finding respectable people who would stoop to this sort of a > carnival show. > > > > For your information ( I don't know if you read my Ego Out blog- anyway > here the following points were proposed: > > > > 1- in case of steam experiments NOT to measure the temperature or > dryness/wetness but the enthalpy- i.e total heat of the steam, > > > Sure, using a large tub of water I suppose. But it would also be a big > improvement to adjust the flow rate to get the steam to exceed the boiling > point by 10 or 20C. Then the dryness would be quite clear. > > > Or, you could measure the flow rate of the output fluid. That would be a > very direct measure of the steam dryness. > > > > 2- the minimum duration of the experiment 72 hours, > > > I'd prefer a minimum total energy that exceeds the weight of the device in > gasoline. Even better to exceed by a factor of 10 or more, but that would > take too long probably. > > > > 3- water heating experiments prefered > > > 2 problems: To get a lot of heat, this requires a lot of water. Using a > high flow rate like in the 18 hour experiment removes any visual > confirmation from the experiment. I think boiling water can still be useful > if it is boiled away from a reservoir through a stack say, so only dry steam > can escape. > > > > 4- as far it is possible, after startup to work with zero input > > > Yes. This is critical, in my view. > > > ** > > *> Now your ideas*:- > > > > > - Stirling Engine- I think not a practical idea- which commercial type > would yoiu buy/recommend?- > > > If the device can sustain itself on its own heat, and safety can be ensured > with cooling water, then a Stirling engine would not be needed. > > > But if Rossi insists he needs input electricity for reasons he cannot > divulge, then he needs to generate the electricity with the device for an > ideal demonstration. > > > If it is not practical to do so, then I would argue, as I have elsewhere, > the device will never be significantly more useful than a heat pump. It > might be difficult to design, and I haven't looked in to existing commercial > engines. But this is old and well understood technology. An efficiency of > 10% should not be difficult to achieve. Compared to the potential of > replacing fossil fuels, this is a trivial thing. > > > > -Your Point 3. is common sense experiment, rather qualitative and using > ice water is an useless complication, the ice-water ratio cannot be > established and maintained- please do not insist!. > > > Not a complication at all. You only need a little ice to make the water > temperature clearly near the freezing point. In the power demonstration, the > ice would not be melted by the ecat, but only float in the input reservoir. > The additional 20C also increases the temperature difference and therefore > the power needed. > > > > Experiment made by engineeers NOT by Hausfrauen > > > But observed by journalists and people on the internet via youtube. > Icewater is harder to fake (not impossible of course) and easier to read > than thermometers. > > > > I protest angrily- a f....g experimrent done without thermo-, flow-, > volume- meters is not serious, sorry! > > > A demonstration of an atomic bomb would be serious and effective without > any quantitive measurements. Of course quantitative measurements are more > useful, and I have no objection to using them as well. But this is a > demonstration of a factor of a million above chemical energy density. Like > the bomb, it should be possible to make it obvious without meters. > > > > -Chemical vs nuclear vs some ZPE- unanswerable without a complete chemicl > isotopic analysis of the spent Ni fuel or exhausted Catalyst. We can > speculate a lot but without data it si just am intellectual exercise (Rossi > has used a more precise expression) > > > > I don't understand the use of the E-cat in a mode analoguous with a > heater immersed in a hot tube/reservoir. > > > Look up hot tub on wikipedia, and check out the second picture. The water > circulates through a wood-fired heater, and it is gravity driven. No > external power is needed even to pump the water. Likewise, the water from > the hot tub would circulate through the ecat. This is in the first place a > water-heating experiment with no steam complication. But could be taken to > the next level to boil the water to get a 6-fold increase in demonstrated > energy. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
