Erratum: The parenthetic comment "(or in a negative feedback with its temperature)" should read "(or in a negative feedback with its temperature about a constant temperature)". An example of the latter is the purported stability of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:05 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > This doesn't apply to the reaction chamber itself if we presume Rossi's > temperature-enhanced reaction rate is in play there. Regardless of how the > pressure changes or what the phase mixture is, the temperature will > continue to rise and the power level continues to rise. Indeed, the only > thing that I can think of that is consistent with a constant temperature at > a constant heat transport mass flow rate is a constant power source that > operates without regard to its temperature (or in a negative feedback with > its temperature). > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Rich Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> skeptical viewpoints re Rossi: John Pasquarette: Rich Murray 2011.11.11 >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? >>> >>> I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated >>> temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around >>> feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't >>> have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of >>> temperatures during self-sustained mode...... >>> >> >> >> Any mixture of water and steam self-regulates at a temperature set by the >> current pressure at each place in the system -- just like any boiling pot >> of water on a stove -- in Santa Fe at 7,000 feet altitude, the pressure is >> lower, while in a pressure cooker the increased pressure inside the sealed >> container causes the self-regulated boiling temperature to be be higher... >> >> Once the water is all turned into steam, then the steam temperature rises >> much more for each added unit of heat input, inside a pressurized system -- >> so in the Rossi device self-sustain mode, the fact that the temperature is >> so stable for hours proves conclusively that the coolant flow is still a >> mixture of water, mist, and steam gas... >> >> >> megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- cup >> of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 2011.11.10 >> >> from Rich Murray [email protected] reply-to [email protected] >> to [email protected], >> Rich Murray <[email protected]>, >> Rich Murray <[email protected]> >> date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:54 AM subject [Vo]:megawatt ecat produces 70 >> kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray >> 2011.10.31 >> >> megawatt ecat produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water -- >> cup of tea, anyone?]: Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.10.31 >> >> [ Rich Murray: this nail in the coffin goes right to the point... >> using Rossi's own data... ] >> >> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/H-Ni_Fusion/message/791 >> >> [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW >> >> from joshua.cude [email protected] >> to [email protected] >> date Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:02 AM >> subject [H-Ni_Fusion] megawatt ecat produces 70 kW >> mailing list >> <H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.com<http://h-ni_fusion.yahoogroups.com/> >> > >> 4:02 AM (1 hour ago) >> >> The presented evidence from the megawatt demo does not support output >> power above 70 kW in the "1 MW reactor". >> >> The calculation used by Rossi and Fioravanti to claim 470 kW assumes >> that essentially all the water pumped through the system is vaporized. >> >> However, there is no evidence presented in the report to support that >> assumption. >> >> Rossi collects liquid water at the exit of the reactor, but there is >> no evidence presented that liquid cannot be carried past this >> collector, entrained in the fast flowing steam, and into the heat >> exchanger. >> >> The only measurement reported is the temperature of the fluid as it exits. >> >> This is on average about 105 C, which probably corresponds to the >> boiling point inside the conduit at an elevated pressure due to the >> formation of some steam. >> >> The fact that no independent measurement was reported of pressure or >> steam quality indicates that Fioravanti is no more competent than >> Essen and Kallunder were. >> >> If one accepts the notion that above 100 C, the steam is dry, then the >> total power transfer is proportional to: >> >> T2-T1 if T2 <= 100 >> >> T2-T1 + 540 + (T2-100)(.5) if T2 > 100 >> >> By this calculation, at 100 C, the power transfer is about 65 kW, and >> at 100.1 C it is about 470 kW. >> >> The blue line in the attached figure (PowerTransfer.jpg) represents >> the result of this calculation for Rossi's latest data in arbitrary >> units. (The plateau would be about 470 kW.) >> >> Or even if you want to claim that the steam is only dry when it >> reaches 105 C a few minutes later, then the power would follow the >> dashed line. >> >> So Rossi and Fioravanti want us to believe that although it takes 2 >> hours for the power transfer to reach 65 kW (100 C), it takes only a >> few minutes to go from 65 kW to 470 kW. >> >> The power transfer to the water is proportional to the temperature >> difference between the water and the heating elements. >> >> So this amounts to a claim that the temperature of the heating >> elements changes essentially discontinuously by a huge amount, and >> exactly when the water begins to boil. >> >> How does it know? >> >> And how does it know to stop increasing essentially as soon as all the >> water is vaporized? >> >> If the power increased by another 10%, the steam temperature would >> increase to more than 200 C. >> >> Yet it settles in nicely to a fairly constant temperature just above >> 100 C, just as if regulated by a mixture of phases at the boiling >> point, which fluctuates a little because of irregular internal >> pressure. >> >> Such a discontinuous change in the temperature is simply not plausible. >> >> A few minutes after it reaches 100 C, the power transfer must still be >> quite close to the 65 kW, even as the temperature reaches 105 C. >> >> That means that the temperature is no indication of dry steam, and so >> the most we can say from the data presented, if it is accepted, is >> that the power output is higher than about 70 kW. >> >> No data is presented to determine how much higher. >> >> >> >> From: Rich Murray >> To: [email protected] >> dateMon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM subject Re: [Vo]:megawatt ecat >> produces 70 kW [very little steam, mixed with water]: Joshua Cude: Rich >> Murray 2011.10.31 >> * >> * >> >> >> http://www.nyteknik.se//template/ver03/fragments/comment/commentsFetch.jsp?articleId=3303682&endPosition=25 >> >> [ Comment by Joshua Cude, after his comment very similar to the post >> quoted here. ] >> >> It's the old steam trick again >> >> In the first place, the report comes from Rossi, with no >> identification of the "customer", so it's just his word. We had >> Rossi's word yesterday, so there's nothing new today. And the >> amateurish quality of the report is amazing. >> >> In the second place, if you accept the data as given, there is no >> verification that the units weren't pre-heated for any number of hours >> through the night. Again, we have only Rossi's word. >> >> In the 3rd place, he's back to his old tricks of claiming all the >> water is converted to steam, without any measurement provided to >> verify it. That gives him a big factor of 8 in the output power. >> >> Remove the factor of 8 for claiming dry steam without evidence, add in >> 3 or 4 hours of heating during the night, and once again, there is no >> evidence for excess heat, let alone heat from nuclear reactions. >> That's if you accept the data that is given. >> >> Rossi has succeeded in prolonging uncertainty again; probably because >> certainty would not further his goals. >> >> Joshua Cude 29 Oct 2011 02:59 >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 6:24 AM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> What controls the temperature in the E-Cat's self-sustained mode? >>> >>> I had presumed that all the work Rossi did to go from resistivity heated >>> temperature control to self-sustained temperature control was geared around >>> feedback of the temperature to the heat transport mass flow rate. I didn't >>> have direct evidence of this, other than the relatively narrow range of >>> temperatures during self-sustained mode. >>> >>> Keep in mind that Rossi has stated on numerous occasions that his >>> reaction rate is an increasing function of temperature, and that therefore >>> his system can go into a runaway feedback loop thus destroying itself if it >>> is not carefully controlled. If the resistivity power can be varied during >>> the run, and the heat transport mass flow rate is constant, but high enough >>> to quench the reaction in the absence of resistivity heating, the >>> temperature control system is obvious. But if there is no resistivity >>> heating control there has to be control of the heat transport mass flow >>> rate, does there not? >>> >>> >> >
