In this case, I am talking about the previous demonstration where the COP was only about 2. Were we supposed to forget about that one?
Because the calorimetry was not described, and how the conductor heat loss was considered was not spelled out, it is not fair to assume they were ignored. The difference could be a factor of 2, depending on how these losses were accounted. Calorimetry is frequently done by measuring temperature as a function of time - this provides no evidence that the Qcond was considered or ignored. I believe that Mills IS showing an overunity device. Others that preceded him with arc driven systems also showed overunity devices. Santilli shows that LENR is occurring in an arc driven system (unmistakable transmutation evidence). I think it is likely that Mills is seeing LENR. He would not want to say this because his patents only cover the f/h heat generation and if it were LENR, he wouldn't have any more protection than anyone else. This would affect investor response. Claims for COP being large are a big deal for Mills' company and investors. If the COP is less than about 5, he is going to have a hard time reaching electrical break-even. A COP of 5 is revolutionary, but it is not going to be a simple machine or cheap source of electrical power - this affects the business case and the investment. Claiming COPs of >10 at this point, without supporting data is just speculative propaganda, and reduces the credibility of all of the LENR field. Mills does have the advantage in working in a high enthalpy regime. The enthalpy of electrolytic LENR systems was really low - hard to convert to useful energy. Rossi really amped up the enthalpy by first going to steam temperatures, and now 400-600C operating temperatures. Mills' arc driven system is much hotter and higher enthalpy still - probably operating in the 1000C+ range. In this range, the enthalpy is high and the Carnot efficiency is high. Don't get me wrong. I have not ruled out Mills' f/h states or even a single DDL state as being possible. In fact, I like the idea and feel that if these states exist, they would be instrumental in LENR by providing a means for the energy to be removed from the input atoms before fusion occurs, eliminating the need for a big energy release after fusion occurs (which is not observed). Yeong Kim published a QM analysis that said these states basically do not exist. However, the existence (or not) could be pre-determined by the formulation of the problem. Mills formulated the problem in a different way and found these states to exist. So, I am still hopeful that these states exist. I applaud Mills for his steadfast research and getting the funding to do the work. What I hate is the unwarranted hype with big short term claims that just seem to disappear into the noise as their completion date approaches - when they fail and are discarded. It hurts the credibility of LENR research and the ability of others to get funding. Bob On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bob, if you view the video where the calorimetry was being demonstrated, > it appears that the heat was calculated from the temp rise. It seems to me > that if there was Qcond being conducted out of the conductor, it was > ignore. That means that the energy output was underestimated because Qcond > was not measured at all; only the temp rise in the calorimeter was > considered. > > Also, the COP was 4+ based on this specific single explosion, Mills did > not claim COP of 2. > > Jojo > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:28 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner? > > I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the > Mills demo calorimetry may be flawed. I hope the enclosed diagram will > come through to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I > tried to make this a small image file. If it doesn’t come through, I > apologize. Since I was not there to examine the calorimeter, I am > describing what I believe was used - and this is just reasonable > speculation. > > > > > If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one > would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal > to Ein. If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat > measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat. In the ideal calorimeter, all > heat generated inside gets measured, 100%. > > > Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large > electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the > detonation occurs inside. In general, the apparatus to provide the source > energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large). In > this simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the > calorimeter: 1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures > Qmeas), and 2) through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond. Since > there is a large current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to > insert something in the conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow > going through the conductor. So, what to do? Well, Ein is usually > measurable electrically. To find Qcond, then perform a reference (blind) > experiment. Don’t put anything inside the arc gap, fire it with energy, > Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate > > > Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1 > > > Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it. You think > Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output > as > > > Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1 > > > and you go on to calculate the COP as > > > COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein (presuming Ein is constant for now) > > > > So, where is the flaw in this? Consider (for a mental experiment) that > for the blind you evacuated the calorimeter. When the arc is fired, all of > its electrons will impact the positive electrode. Most of the energy will > be deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as > Qcond; very little will show up in Qmeas. In this case Qcond may be fairly > close to Ein. > > > Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t > short the electrodes), and you fire the arc. Most of the electrons will > impact the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature. There > will be some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very > hot. In this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as > Qmeas, and Qcond will be smaller than the vacuum case. > > > Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc. As the demonstration > showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter. This doesn’t > necessarily mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean > that there was more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon > radiation. All of the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy > away from the arc and Qcond is less still. > > > Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst > is used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind > calibration calculation. When the COP is calculated as > > > COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein > > > it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger > than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount. > Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in > all tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create > a similar, but slightly less error in the COP. > > > Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2. Because of this kind of error, > the COP could easily have been closer to 1. This is an extremely difficult > modified calorimeter to calibrate. Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source > small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny > capacitor charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate > measurement. > > Bob Higgins > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 2. I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry. Larger >> conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current >> is lower. Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal >> mass and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be >> lower. The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise. If there >> is a large thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower >> temperature rise inside. If any, the modifications you object to would >> "UNDER" estimate the output power. Besides, it matters not if there is a >> large conductor. You claim that these larger conductor carried heat. >> Yea??? heat from where to where. Everything is inside the calorimeter. >> So, unless there was a big heat source behind the bomb calorimeter >> "conducting" heat from the outside to the inside via the Large conductors >> ..... Besides, they characterized the temp chart due to room temperature >> effects. So, I find your objections illogical and unfounded. >> >>
