At 06:47 AM 7/21/2011, Damon Craig wrote:
OK. So no one has looked closely at the goofy temperature curve in
the Levi report of the December 16, 2010 demonstration which he
claimed was evidence of an exothermic reaction (and cold fusion).
There is a copy of the report at
http://freeenergydocs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Levi-and-Bianchini-Reports.pdf.
Here's an analysis I wrote a few weeks ago:
In his report Levi claimed the temperature curve of the output as
evidence of an exothermic reaction. This bold and bewildering
deduction lead many of us to believe he possessed inside information
he was not at the time sharing. At the same he did not share
information, if he had it, as to how the input heat may have been
varied over time.
Aw, c'mon. It's bold only because the very claim that the device
exists is bold. The chart does show evidence of two shifts in heat production.
A pot of water placed on the stove undergoes three phases: warming,
simmering and boiling. The temperature curve reported could be
described by more common physics in the following scenario.
We can identify at least 4 different modes of heating in the Rossi
device with different effects on a thermometer measuring liquid in the chimney.
1) The device is divided into two zones; vertical and horizontal.
The internal chamber within the horizontal zone restricts water flow
between these two zones.
An internal heater within the "reaction" chamber and an external
band heater supply heat to the horizontal zone.
While two heaters is possible, it's not what is reported. The
description here is a bit garbled. There are two chambers, the
reaction chamber and the cooling chamber. There may be a third
chamber, a closed coolant chamber that transfers heat from the
reaction chamber to the cooling chamber. I think it's been said that
this is a solution of water and some dissolved chemical that raises
the boiling point.
If I'm correct, the external band heater supplies heat to the
reaction chamber, which then implies that either the reaction chamber
is at one end, or the reaction chamber surrounds the cooling
chamber(s). I'm not looking at all the released information. But I've
seen nothing that would indicate a second heater, though it's
obviously not impossible.
2) As heat is initially supplied, there is a relatively small rate
of temperature increase in the vertical zone through convection of
water, and conduction through the metal parts.
At this point, the theory goes, the heat is not being efficiently
transferred to the chimney part of the cooling chamber.
3) During a second phase, in which the average water temperature is
below the boiling point, the water simmers on the heated surfaces.
The agitation provided by simmering increases the rate of convective
heat transfer from the horizontal to the vertical zone. dT/dt increase.
I'm a bit surprised to see a sharp knee if the cause of increased
dT/dt is "simmering." That would generally have slow onset, I'd
think, as bubble generating increases.
4) During a third phase, after the water temperature in the
horizontal member reaches its boiling point, a steam bubble collects
in the bulb of the horizontal member. Hot water is forced into the
vertical member, and dT/dt of the vertical zone increases once
again. The steam bubble quickly overflows and steam enters into the
vertical column.
Sure, it is possible to construct scenarios where shifts in rate of
temperature rise depends on something other than heat generation.
This much I'll agree with. It's an interesting idea.
The change in rate of change of temperature has been alleged -- by me
-- to be "evidence" of increased heat generation, but not to be, by
any means, proof of the same, because of less precisely-specified
possibilities like this. Whether or not the phenomena described by
Damon would actually happen would depend on details of design not
accessible to me, at least!
There are two kinks. The first kink is preceded by very linear rise
in temperature. The kink is abrupt. It does not look like something
that could be caused by simmering, which, as we all know, is
something that starts slowly, i.e., "A watched pot never boils."
The second kink is after a period where the chimney temperature is
levelling off, actually *has* levelled off. As I understand Damon's
idea, at this point heat transfer between the reaction chamber being
heated, and the cooling chamber, has been interrupted by a steam
bubble, so that while the reaction chamber increases in temperature,
the cooling chamber goes more or less flat. Perhaps there being some
leakage past the bubble explains the irregularity here. Then the
bubble escapes. However, the temperature rise at that point is back
to the original rate of increase. What happened to the accumulated
heat, if heating was actually constant.
No cigar, I'd say, but interesting. It points out how we can't be
sure about heat generated merely from temperature rise in a "remote"
part of the device, unless we make assumptions about evenness of heat transfer.
