Horace, lithium batteries will explode in a high temperatures of ecat,
especially if batterypack is thermally isolated. Only chemically plausible
idea is to hide a bucketful of thermite or some other oxygen containing
mixture of chemical compounds and an apparatus for controlled or catalyzed
burning. Just ten liters would be enough for explaining the ecat.
But even with the thermite, there will be not just the myriads of
engineering difficulties, but also physical limitations that the density of
thermite is too low compared to measured 100 kg weight. Of course if there
is stuffed some depleted uranium few liters, then we have no problems with
the weight.
—Jouni
On Dec 27, 2011 11:11 AM, "Horace Heffner" <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>
>>
>> Put it this way, if this isn't a nuclear reaction, it is some kind of
>> super-battery, probably worth billions just for that. Unfortunately for
>> this battery idea, ... helium.
>>
>
> A Lithium Thionyl Chloride battery works out OK. See post below (archive
> down at the moment):
>
> Resent-From: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> From: hheff...@mtaonline.net
> Subject: [Vo]:Duplicating Rossi is not worthwhile
> Date: December 10, 2011 6:20:12 PM AKST
> Resent-To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> Duplicating Rossi's setup is not worthwhile. If he is not a fraud it is
> likely Rossi has something extraordinary. If there is a reasonable chance
> of actually duplicating that, or something similar, then that is
> worthwhile. However success along those lines, developing a commercial
> quality LENR reactor without extensive research and good facilities is
> highly unlikely - even less likely than developing transistor technology in
> 1930 I would guess.
>
> The notion that Rossi's device is self delusion has looked to me less and
> less likely day by day.
>
> That leaves fraud as the remaining possibility to consider when designing
> such a test. Such a test is ridiculous. Of course the device can be
> faked, by numerous means.
>
> Despite the fact Rossi removed the outer cover on the E-cat, no one was
> permitted to see inside the 30x30x30 cm inner box, or the reactor box(es)
> inside the inner box. Four water tight conduits lead from the outside of
> the outer box to the inside of the inner box. Anything can be inside the
> inner box. No one has seen the inside of that box. The inner box has a
> volume of 27 liters. It can be water tight.
>
> What can be put inside the inner box? Lots of chemical things of course.
>
> The simplest might be to use a lithium battery, perhaps a Lithium Thionyl
> Chloride battery.
>
> http://www.allaboutbatteries.**com/Battery-Energy.html<http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html>
>
> "The specifications for Lithium Thionyl Chloride are $1.16 per watt-hour,
> 700 watts/kg, 2,000,000 Joules/kg, and 1100 watt-hours per liter. For more
> information of Lithium Thionyl Chloride please contact Tadiran Batteries."
>
> The total kWh output produced by the 6 Oct 2011 E-cat was about 27 kWh.
> See:
>
> http://www.mtaonline.net/%**7Ehheffner/**Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf<http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/Rossi6Oct2011noBias.pdf>
>
> Net output was about 18 kWh.
>
> At 1100 wh/liter that is 29.7 kWh capacity in the 27 liter inner box. That
> leaves a lot of room for electronic control devices. Might need to route
> some of the cold water input so as to cool the battery. Also, the battery
> could be pressurized to prevent boiling. I don't think this was actually
> done because in one photo, after some processing, I could make out the
> water entry port on the inside of the box. Cool water I think flows under
> the box through a thin gap, and along the sides, mostly under the flanges
> that bolt together the top and bottom halves of the 27 liter inner box. I
> suspect it sits slightly elevated on a few short legs, possibly bolts which
> penetrate the bottom of the box, but which are sealed.
>
> At 2 MJ/kg, or 00.56 kWH/kg, the 29.7 kWh represents 53 kg, right about
> what is needed inside the inner box to be credible.
>
> There are many ways to make a fake that can replicate the public tests
> Rossi has performed. Actually building one doe not prove very much.
> Better to to devote the time to experimenting with stuff that might
> actually work.
>
> For some specific examples of stuff that might actually work, see the
> posts and associated threads here:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44662.html>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg57397.html>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/**vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.**html<http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg21943.html>
>
> It might just be as simple as cycling the temperature about the Curie
> point in a mu-metal filament in high pressure hydrogen gas under the
> influence of an intense and slowly rotating magnetic field.
>
> I might be as simple as loading powdered zeolites with a mu-metal like
> compound and stimulating with microwaves, or high intensity laser.
>
> Despite the odds, there is a tiny possibility a useful and simple solution
> is available.
>
> Better to spend time seeking that than debating the ridiculous. The odds
> of success may be small, but the payoff is vastly greater.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/<http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/>
>
>
>
>
>
