second part: sorry, Joshua I clicked on send Just to add that atomic bomb is a sadistic example of convincing common sense experiment. More realistic- the cottage in the middle of the old forest where the 7 dwarves and Snow Wkhte live is heated an entire winter with an Ecat and even the Queen is enchanted ho w warm the house is despite the fact that the dwrves have solf]d alll the wood for the stoves .on the black market I hope to discuss more documented next year this time. But a paefect experiment is very useful for progress.
Peter On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Joshua Cude <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Cude>> 1. First and foremost, the device must be completely and obviously > standalone. So, disconnect the hydrogen bottle, and the mains power input. > > > >> - The hydrogen bottle should be easy > > > Lomax> Yes. This one is easy. Not so the electricity. As Joshua notes, it > could be done. But this is the problem, and it's an engineering and economic > problem. To design and build and test the demonstration device would take > months, perhaps many months. > > > Many months is nothing in the scheme of things. CF has been pursued for 22 > years. > > > > Engineering isn't free. > > > But it's chicken feed compared to the payoff if it's real. > > > > So what's the value in this? If Rossi doesn't need it to accomplish > selling the 1 MW plant to Defkalion, it's a fish bicycle. > > > The sale to Defkalion is pocket change compared to the offers he would get > if he could demonstrate a device like I described. There is great value in > this. Of course, if he failed, he'd lose the Defkalion deal, which is why he > doesn't do it. > > > > You want to build this, you pay for it. > > > I don't believe it's possible, so why would I pay for it. People who > believe the effect is real should pay to prove it. > > > Anyway, I was asked what would convince me, and I answered. > > > > There is *nothing* in this for him. > > > Nothing but fame, glory, and limitless wealth. > > > > There could be something in it, if for some reason Defkalion falls > through. If he needs to raise more capital, then he might need such a > bulletproof demonstration. However, assuming that he's not a fraud, he has > no reason to do this at this time, and it would actually harm his plans. > > > Only failure would harm his plans. That's what he is afraid of. > > > > One more point: > > > > >> Rossi claims the thing has run without power, but that it's dangerous, > although he doesn't explain why. The speculation is that an input control is > needed to prevent some sort of runaway condition, but it seems > counter-intuitive to use additional heat input to prevent runaway. > > > > That depends on how the device is operating. Let's assume that the only > control variable is the temperature of the reaction chamber. There are two > controls on that chamber, heating by resistor(s) and cooling by water and > boiling water. > > > Right. So, use the cooling water. > > > >> In particular, it is implausible that cutting the power by 10% or less > would stop a runaway condition, when the variation in claimed output levels > is far greater than 10%. > > > > This is merely an idea of what Rossi might be doing. The device, if water > is present in the cooling jacket, and with no power, will cool below the > temperature at which the heat effect appears. Thus turning off the power > will turn off the reaction. The power raises the temperature to the point > where the heat effect starts up and becomes reasonably strong, but only to > that point. Water will still quench it. > > > > What has been done in designing the E-Cat is to engineer the reaction > chamber so that it heats and cools in this way. If the operating temperature > is 450 C, then the thermal resistance must be such as to allow this heat, > only if there is supplemental heat from electrical heating. > > > Sure but if cutting the input power drops the power by 10% and kills the > reaction, then reducing the cooling by 10% would allow the reaction to > sustain itself. > > > > Still, the heat might vary, and how this thing is engineered could get > quite tricky, but, yes, it's possible that heat could be controlled by heat, > as long as you understand that this is extra heat added to keep the > temperature to a value above what the reaction itself would sustain, if > there is no extra heat. > > > I understand that heat can be used to sustain the reaction, and be designed > to just keep it going. My problem was with the use of extra heat to prevent > runaway. If the supplemental heat is 10% of the total, and the reactor > begins to produce 10% more heat, then shutting off the input will not stop > the reaction. Then if a runaway condition starts, how does the input heat > stop it? And from the 18 hour experiment, evidently much more than a 10% > increase is possible. > > > > There is a bottom line here: wait for Rossi's E-Cats to appear on sale, > look at the performance specifications and costs, and *then* make a decision > about this. > > > Sure. If that ever happens. But I predict it won't. There will be delays, > maybe some explosions, and he'll need more investment. There may be some > claimed sales or contracts, a MW reactor sold to a trusted customer, and > great claims, but no devices will be generally available, and no true > independent testing. Rossi will milk this as long as investors are > available. Mills has shown it can be done for decades without ever actually > generating power. > > > > Or, if he gets his full patent protection, try independent replication. > If the E-Cats work, even most of the time, this is real, I assume, unless > the specifications have evaporated to practically nothing. I think he's only > guaranteeing 6 to 1. Given the high initial numbers, what's going on? > > > Good question. The 6-fold happens to be the roughly difference between > heating water to boiling, and boiling it to vapour. A COP of 6 also nicely > sidesteps the embarrassing question of why he doesn't supply the input with > the output. For a 100C output temperature, the Carnot efficiency of a heat > engine is only 20% or so. In practice, the efficiency would be below 1/6, so > he has an excuse for the input power. With a COP of 30, as claimed in > January, there should be no reason he couldn't close the loop. > > > The problem with a COP of 6 is that it's only a little better than a ground > source heat pump, which for hot water and space heating at 45C, commercial > units can approach a COP of 5. No one ever suggests heat pumps will > revolutionize energy because they can't in principle close the loop. Until > Rossi's device can, it's just a slightly improved heat pump. > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
