Hi Bob, thanks for the great exposition on Qcond. Vorticians should know that Mills is taking questions under comments at his You Tube channel presenting the July demo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxuoMzm2HNE You might be able to condense your Qcond concern into a brief question and get an answer from Mills himself
On Wednesday, July 30, 2014, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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 <[email protected]> >> 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. >>> >>> >
