Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Oct 9, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote: When you zoom in on the end of the sensor lead wire, where the frayed insulation is, you clearly see the bare metal thermocouple wires. And from the length of that section of lead wire (~1.5 to 2 inches), the most likely location for the actual TC was on one of the flat surfaces on the shiny steel nut. They probably laid it on one of the flats, and wrapped black tape around the circumference of that shiny nut, more or less covering the entire shiny surface. Horace, I doubt if they would have just assumed the insulation would hold the TC against the nut; I vaguely remember reading that ...the TCs were held tightly against the outer metal surface by tape. But then, that would be one less thing for us to get frustrated about! Can't have that, now can we... -Mark Well we can always figure out more to worry about! 8^) Putting a metal thermocouple up against a metal surface sounds like a prescription for variable but systematic error, depending on vibrations, touching the wire, humidity, etc. The steel nut can short out at least some some of the potential. This means requiring a high bias. However, if the short is removed or reduced, then the bias is too high. When playing with the bias in my spreadsheet I settled on 0.8°C. However, it looked as if only one bias was not sufficient to fit the numbers. In any case, it seems to me to be just bad technique. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Professor Rossi- the New Columbus
Greetings All, A thought: Professor Rossi as the New Columbus- the New World of LENR Reactions. or is he the New Coulomb-us? Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex Happy Columbus Day
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: No the band heater is at 900C but that metal block talk was only for illustrative purposes. Newtons LAw is irrelevant. Newton's law governs passive heat loss, which is what this has to be if there is not energy input and the flow rate does change. An insulated metal block that loses heat at a rate of 1W loses heat at the rate of 1W. You mention lack of monotonicity but what's the example (be specific, post link). Right here: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg The temperature rises several times after the power is turned off. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here? - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Excuse me I meant to say that the cooling rate must obey Newton's law if there is NO energy generation and the flow rate does NOT change. In other words, if it passive cooling in unchanging conditions. Lewan's observations and report show that the flow rate and other essential parameters did not change. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was loaded and then unloaded, the temperature would have to drop! -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what loading or storing heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were stored in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about stored heat that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: A ton of water went through the heat exchanger -- but we don't know whether it heated up AT ALL. Oh give me a break Alan! Seriously, get real. There was STEAM going in one side and TAP WATER going in the other. How could it not be heated up AT ALL?!? What the hell do you think a heat exchanger does, anyway? If it does not get heated up AT ALL Rossi needs to get his money back from the heat exchanger company. All we know is that SOME water was boiled, that the internal eCat thermistor measured SOMETHING to be 120C, and that SOME water and/or steam made it to the heat exchanger and was able to affect the output thermocouple. But we don't have ANY idea how much water went through the eCat. You can see the hoses going from the sink to the eCat and the heat exchanger. Lewan measured the flow in both. Besides, it makes no difference how much went through the eCat; there was enough steam to make the inlet 120 deg C. You can quibble about how much boiling water there was, but it had to be enough for Lewan to hear it, and to make the insulated reactor surface. It wasn't 50 ml, that's for sure. It had to be a substantial amount. You know how much cooling power 10 L/min water has. A box of that size cannot produce heat for 4 hours and remain boiling and heating the heat-exchanger water with no input power. You could put the thermocouples anywhere you like in that heat exchanger box, and I guarantee that after an hour they will all register 25 deg C. The loading power could have heated a 90 kg chunk of metal to well over 100C But it didn't. The metal was 80 deg C. And it stayed at 80 deg C. Four hours after the power was cut, it was still at 80 deg C. If it was loaded and then unloaded, the temperature would have to drop! -- and that could have been used to heat a small flow of water to any desired temperature-vs-time pattern -- and would explain why there was the sound of boiling and why the surface of the eCat was hot. For crying out loud, look up the specific heat of metal. Read Heffner's analysis, p. 1, stored heat. Think about what loading or storing heat means. It means heating up the material. When you store, the temperature goes up. When you release the heat, the temperature goes down. When the temperature does not go up or down, there is no storage or release -- by definition. When the temperature is steady over 4 hours ago, no heat has been stored or released during that time. This reminds me of Krivit's latest hypothesis that 33 MJ were stored in the reactor. Before they turned off the power, the reactor and heat exchanger got hot, the heat balanced and then went exothermic so obviously all 33 MJ came out, plus some more. Not stored, right? Then, I suppose, the same 33 MJ did an about face, went back in, and came out again after they turned off the power. Zounds! Heat that appears twice! Call Vienna! -- as Howland Owl put it. I fear that in this test we have a cornucopia of experimental PROBLEMS. Yes there are many problems. I pointed out many of them. However, despite these problems, the first-principle proof is still obvious. You need to stop looking at the problems, and look at the proof instead. Stop inventing ad hoc nonsense about stored heat that does not change the temperature, or heat exchangers that do not exchange heat. Look at the facts, and do not be blinded or distracted by the problems. Those problems cannot change the conclusions this test forces upon the observer. Forget about those thermocouples if you like, and think only about the fact that the water was still boiling and the reactor was still hot 4 hours after the power was turned off. That fact, all by itself, is all the proof you can ask for. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT - Sunday's Sermon: Peace-Of-MInd
You guys need to get a room. ;-) T
[Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewhttp://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 topic.php?f=4t=285http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 The technological breakthrough of LENR (or CANR) is no longer speculation. It is a fact that will eventually change the world’s energy problems and its sociopolitical divides through cheap, clean and green energy. The world needs LENR as a new energy source. Although change will not happen over-night, LENR will help reduce CO2 emissions, lower the cost of energy, and provide longevity to our planet’s energy needs. Defkalion sees its role with responsibility and asks the community at large to continue its support. Defkalion has: • Enhanced technology and engineering on Rossi’s invention or similar inventions • Prepared business models for international expansion • Established a strong network of global contacts • Prepared legislative and certification procedures • Ensured national, regional and international network in politics and business • Prepared global financing Defkalion has worked in close partnership with Andrea Rossi for a very long time to prepare a commercially viable and industrially applicable product using his invention. Defkalion invested a lot of money to evolve Rossi’s E-Cat lab prototype into its Hyperion product. Defkalion is now at the stage where its industrial prototype is ready for production. Defkalion has held direct business discussions with 62 interested companies who visited our offices in Greece and witnessed our work. Small industry and large energy players internationally were all impressed by our progress in technology and engineering. More are still coming. Despite this phenomenal progress, Defkalion never made promises. Our aim has always been to inform and demonstrate to public our progress when the final product is ready for use, thereby avoiding any speculations. Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work. The plethora of positive and negative comments is not helpful, as pointed out recently on the Vortex mail archive: (http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52357.htmlhttp://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg52357.html ). Defkalion fully supports and endorses this technology. Our mission is to introduce this technology on a global scale, responsibly. To date, we have self-financed all RD and business development phases without asking for a single penny from anyone (private or public). We will soon be ready to announce the results of our extensive RD with Hyperion final products. Athens, October 10th, 2011 *Defkalion GT S.A.*
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
On 11-10-09 09:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Here are some charts of possible interest. ... It appears the RF power was ramped up at 16:38 (326 min)and down at 18:53 (461 min). The T2 curve mysteriously responds, despite the input RF power being nominal. The thermal mass of the metal and water is huge. This response of T2 to RF Pin should not be possible unless the T2 thermocouple reading is directly affected by the RF. Mysterious RF oscillators with undocumented connections and functions add so much interest to the question of How It Works Has Rossi become the New Ron Stiffler?
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
Deflalion indicates that they are ready for production. http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 And it sounds like Rossi was using an older Defkalion design: Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work. The plethora of positive and negative comments is not helpful, as pointed out recently on the Vortex mail archive: (http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52357.html). Could that 'confidential special instrument' be the frequency generator? Didn't Rossi bring it out only when he wasn't seeing an 'ignition'. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On Oct 9, 2011, at 7:05 PM, Robert Leguillon wrote: Alright, if it's conclusive without the thermocouples Does anyone have a decent water capacity for the E-Cat? I see that H.H. calculated 14.2 liters, but has there been any confirmed number out of the Rossi camp? I only ask, because multiple references have been made to tons of cooling water to quench the reaction during H.A.D. In reality, the water flowing through the E-Cat (as the heat exchanger primary-side output) was measured twice: The first time, it was .91 grams/sec and the second time it was just shy of 2 g/s. If the E-Cat were indeed 14.2liters (14.2 kg), the entire contents of the E-Cat would take 2-4 hours to be completely replaced. All the while, a device that generates frequencies is still running. When it is turned off, the E-Cat temp begins declining. S many questions. Somewhere I think I saw a statement that the new E-cat has 30 liters water volume. I don't see how that is possible if the dimensions provided in the NyTeknik report are correct. I have made changes to my data review in this area. It is located at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf Following are the related sections. VOLUME CALCULATIONS The Lewan report says: The E-cat model used in this test was enclosed in a casing measuring about 50 x 60 x 35 centimeters. After cooling down the E-cat, the insulation was eliminated and the casing was opened. Inside the casing metal flanges of a heat exchanger could be seen, an object measuring about 30 x 30 x 30 centimeters. The rest of the volume was empty space where water could be heated, entering through a valve at the bottom, and with a valve at the top where steam could come out. This gives an external volume of (50 x 60 x 35) cm^3 = 105000 cm^3 = 105 liters. The heat exchanger etc. is (30 x 30 x 30) cm^3 = 27 liters. This should give an internal volume of 105 liters - 27 liters = 78 liters. The prior similar E-cat weighed in at 85 kg. Looking at the open E-cat photo it looks like about (1/9)*30 cm = 3.3 cm is cooling fins. About 50% of the 3.3 cm x 30 cm x 30 = 2.97 liters should be water, giving a total water volume of 78 liters + 3 liters = 81 liters. NO HEAT TRANSFER TO HEAT EXCHANGER UNTIL 13:22 19:22: Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. This indicates the pump primary circuit flow is probably about 1.92 ml/s, as it was in the Krivit demo. The heat showed up in the exchanger at about 130 minutes, or 7800 seconds into the run. See appended graph, or see spreadsheet at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf This means the flow filled a void of (7800 s)*(1.92 ml/s) = 15 liters before hot water began to either overflow or percolate out of the device, and thus make it to the heat exchanger. If overflow started after 15 liters then it would appear 81 - 15 = 66 liters were already present. The device weighed in at 98 kg before the test and 99 kg after, when the water was drained, making this impossible. If the E-cat cold water input is 24°C and 15 liters were input, it takes (4.2 J/(gm K)) *(15,000 gm))*(76K) = 4.79 MJ to heat the water to boiling. Looking at the spread sheet this input energy Ein was indeed reached at about 13:22. This means steam probably reached the heat exchanger at this time, about 130 minutes into the test. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature. It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In other words, you could replace the vertical axis power numbers with the corresponding temperatures and it would look exactly the same. ** If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here? You claim the heat comes from heat storage with no input power. That would mean it is passive cooling, by definition. It has to follow Newton's law of cooling. That is how heat storage and release works. You keep talking about thermal inertia. I suggest you learn what that is, how it works, and what laws of physics govern it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
On 2011-10-10 16:02, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/view http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285topic.php?f=4t=285 http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 It would be interesting to read Rossi's comments on this. Maybe it's not necessary, but please somebody forward this announcement to him. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
Another pot of snakes ? 2011/10/10 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2011-10-10 16:02, Daniel Rocha wrote: http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/forum/viewhttp://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/view http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=**285http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 topic.php?f=4t=285 http://www.defkalion-energy.**com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=**285http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4t=285 It would be interesting to read Rossi's comments on this. Maybe it's not necessary, but please somebody forward this announcement to him. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The rapid overfilling was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s was for quenching) The rapid overfill I refer to is the quenching, at 1.92 g/s. I believe 0.91 was the rate during the test when Lewan checked it. 1.92 isn't very rapid, is it? Apparently it worked though. With Pd-D I have heard of researchers taking the cathode out and plunged into a cold bath. It can be difficult to quench the reaction. An additional 2,056 watts is required for the phase-change, but, of course, we have no idea how much is boiling away. Greater than 2,437 watts would completely vaporize the input water. Since the temperature is 120°C I believe it has to be completely vaporized. I do not think there can be any hot water at that temperature in the system. Of course, this means that the water in the E-Cat would be running dry and getting super-heated if there were prolonged excursions over 2.5 kW. But, of course, this didn't happen, did it? No, it means that Rossi has to keep an eye on the water level. He has to adjust it to keep the reactor full but not overflowing. This is no more difficult than it is for me to keep an eye on the level of pinot noir when I simmer a pot roast for 5 hours. (The trick to a good pot roast is keep the water level low so that it forms at thick brown sauce, but not so low that it burns.) Of course I can open the pot and look, but I can also tell from the sound and smell. With my miniature steam engine I can tell the boiler level from the sound as well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: ** Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises? Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the heck do you think heat storage is, anyway? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
From Defkkalion, of particular interest: Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work. Holy Matzo-Balls! What a mouth-full of carefully crafted diplomacy. Looks to me as if Defkalion is trying it's best to remain diplomatic and respectful to the interests of the original parties while at the same time making it very clear to all potential investors that their own engineering efforts have now exceeded the inventor's specs by several generations. So, hurry, hurry, hurry on up to the podium and plunk your money down. Time's-a-waisting! As has been speculated here before, it should not be considered a surprise that Rossi's original work could soon be improved upon, particularly when you get a lot more engineers together working on the project. But of course the fruits of Defkalion's alleged improvements (Version 7) has yet to demonstrated out in public. Perhaps by the end of October? This could get interesting. Well... I sure hope it gets interesting soon. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
From Stephen: Mysterious RF oscillators with undocumented connections and functions add so much interest to the question of How It Works Has Rossi become the New Ron Stiffler? I'm inclined to think that Stephen's speculation is probably unwarranted in this particular case. As I understand it Stiffler worked pretty much in a self-imposed vacuum. I don't think Stiffler wanted help, assistance, and/or suggestions from anyone. This means Stiffler worked on his own which resulted in very little feed-back from anyone who might be able to offer up a few reality checks. Working excessively in a vacuum is a very bad idea when it comes to in'ventun stuff. I don't think that's the case with Rossi. ...and probably even less the case for Defkalion. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature law the e-cat obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not relevant to the dubunking of the CF myth. Cf is not being assumed and since it hasn't been shown we are correct in not assuming it. You still aren't able to show me the temperature data you say exists and is increasing. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature. It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In other words, you could replace the vertical axis power numbers with the corresponding temperatures and it would look exactly the same. If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here? You claim the heat comes from heat storage with no input power. That would mean it is passive cooling, by definition. It has to follow Newton's law of cooling. That is how heat storage and release works. You keep talking about thermal inertia. I suggest you learn what that is, how it works, and what laws of physics govern it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I already said there was heat storage. We are not contesting me here Jed and that's what is clear. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises? Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the heck do you think heat storage is, anyway? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature law the e-cat obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not relevant to the dubunking of the CF myth. Cf is not being assumed and since it hasn't been shown we are correct in not assuming it. You still aren't able to show me the temperature data you say exists and is increasing. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: That appears to be a graph of power noy yemperature. It is derived from Lewan's temperature readings. The flow rate was unchanged so correspondence to the temperature is unchanged for the entire dataset. In other words, you could replace the vertical axis power numbers with the corresponding temperatures and it would look exactly the same. If its passive cooling? Excuse me but are we discussing something here? You claim the heat comes from heat storage with no input power. That would mean it is passive cooling, by definition. It has to follow Newton's law of cooling. That is how heat storage and release works. You keep talking about thermal inertia. I suggest you learn what that is, how it works, and what laws of physics govern it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com wrote: Jed I'm not going to bother to comment on your very flawed analysis. It dosen't seem you want us to agree. You don't believe that heat storage means the temperature rises? Forget about me. You do not agree with Newton; that's your problem. What the heck do you think heat storage is, anyway? - Jed If heat is energy, then it follows that heat storage is like any other form of energy storage. This is a false conclusion, but it engenders simple mathematical arguments to prove the eCat is not OU. Harry
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
-Original Message- From: Craig Haynie Defkalion: We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. CH: Could that 'confidential special instrument' be the frequency generator? Didn't Rossi bring it out only when he wasn't seeing an 'ignition'. Thanks for posting this. For those who may be wondering what this instrument really is, look at the low current draw. This can point to a high voltage, low current device. Of course, it could also point to a dedicated frequency generator as well, but I doubt seriously if that is what it is. My guess is that the mystery box could be a neon light type of transformer, or else another kind of HV device like a small Tesla coil (air core). As to 'why' high voltage could help with nickel nanopowder, specifically, we are back to the issue of isotope enrichment. I should mention the Barker patents in the context of a particular Nickel isotope - Ni-64. He is an old post on the Barker patents: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg17550.html Here is my take on Ni-64: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg39326.html Ok - the first objection (to my suggestion that what we are seeing is the high-voltage enhanced decay of an unusual isotope) is that Ni-64 is technically a stable isotope, and the element nickel is the second most stable element. But the answer to that objection is that Ni-64 is unlike the other isotopes of nickel, and could be the most unstable of all stable isotopes in the periodic table - in terms of its mass deviation as a percentage of the mass of the most stable isotope of that particular element. Sorry for the confusing wording, but this is not an easy concept to verbalize in a short posting. Second objection - assumed high cost. Many of us have noted, myself included, that despite Rossi having said in the past that he is enriching the nickel powder with a particular (unidentified) isotope - it seemed that the cost of doing this would be excessive. Most enriched isotopes are extremely expensive. Having checked with suppliers, I now stand corrected on that point. As it turns out, Ni-64 enrichment is available at a cost which is not cheap, but is at least a factor of 20 times less than expected ... for whatever reason. This could relate to the source of the nickel. Conclusion: The new advance here, which was apparently instigated by Defkalion and could have been based on the Barker patents - and then picked up by Rossi, is the use of a high voltage low current power supply. This voltage input somehow stimulates the decay of Ni-64, in the way that Barker was able to do with pitchblende (an increased decay rate of 10^6) possibly to Cu-64 which is itself unstable and there could be some kind of see-saw instability. Note: of course this is not standard physics, so yes... if it is accurate or even close to what is happening, then it is new physics in two different ways (or more) - but rather close to what is expected of similar isotopes. Nickel is known to favor beta decay for some reason. Obviously, if the device works at all it is new physics so the only question for us moving forward to a more complete understanding is: how deep is this rabbit hole (and/or did you take the red pill?) Jones Morpheus: You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill ...
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
From Joe Catania: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who believes that since there's an Ohms LAw every conductor obeys it. The temperature law the e-cat obeys is ostensibly written in the temperature data if we can consider that valid. Whether that confirms its Newton's Law or notr is not relevant to the dubunking of the CF myth. Cf is not being assumed and since it hasn't been shown we are correct in not assuming it. You still aren't able to show me the temperature data you say exists and is increasing. Ok, Mr. Catania, TIME OUT Starting to call other people derogatory names is only going to come back and bite you in the parte posteriore. Keep this up and your rhetoric will eventually come to the attention of the benevolent vortex-l dictator, Mr. Beaty, and he will most likely deal with you in any what he sees fit. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT - Sunday's Sermon: Peace-Of-MInd
Terry sez: You guys need to get a room. ;-) Sorry. I guess I'm too much of an exhibitionist. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
On Oct 10, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-10-09 09:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Here are some charts of possible interest. ... It appears the RF power was ramped up at 16:38 (326 min)and down at 18:53 (461 min). The T2 curve mysteriously responds, despite the input RF power being nominal. The thermal mass of the metal and water is huge. This response of T2 to RF Pin should not be possible unless the T2 thermocouple reading is directly affected by the RF. Mysterious RF oscillators with undocumented connections and functions add so much interest to the question of How It Works Has Rossi become the New Ron Stiffler? Uhh.. I think that is Dr. Stiffler to us. Rossi is a mere engineer. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
On Oct 10, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-10-09 09:39 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: Here are some charts of possible interest. ... It appears the RF power was ramped up at 16:38 (326 min)and down at 18:53 (461 min). The T2 curve mysteriously responds, despite the input RF power being nominal. The thermal mass of the metal and water is huge. This response of T2 to RF Pin should not be possible unless the T2 thermocouple reading is directly affected by the RF. Mysterious RF oscillators with undocumented connections and functions add so much interest to the question of How It Works Say, maybe the oscillations are from a digital recording of boiling sounds, sent to an underwater transducer. 8^) Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:1st peer reviewed paper out-finally
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211006092 Frank Znidarsic
RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Jed, I said: An additional 2,056 watts is required for the phase-change, but, of course, we have no idea how much is boiling away. Greater than 2,437 watts would completely vaporize the input water. You said: Since the temperature is 120°C I believe it has to be completely vaporized. I do not think there can be any hot water at that temperature in the system. The 120 degrees C must be boiling with back pressure or an incorrect reading from thermal wicking of the metal. If it were truly superheated steam, you would see large variances, especially when it allegedly surpassed 6 or 8 kW. It is at boiling. I said: Of course, this means that the water in the E-Cat would be running dry and getting super-heated if there were prolonged excursions over 2.5 kW. But, of course, this didn't happen, did it? You said: No, it means that Rossi has to keep an eye on the water level. He has to adjust it to keep the reactor full but not overflowing. This is no more difficult than it is for me to keep an eye on the level of pinot noir when I simmer a pot roast for 5 hours. Anything over 2.5 kW would have been boiling more water than was being introduced into the E-Cat. But, you're saying that Rossi was constantly adjusting flow from the paristaltic pump to ensure that all of the input water was being evaporated, but no more? When the E-Cat power allegedly teiples, he also triples the input water, so as to maintain exact 120 degree temperature of the above-boiling-temperature steam? I didn't see this anywhere in the reports. This wasn't worth mentioning? I'm just saying that the calorimetry does not jive. I find the comments from Defkalion to be refreshing, though. I am optimistic towards Ni-H research, but I have not seen convincing data from any of Rossi's public tests. We can argue the points of each until the cows come home, but I assure you that I want nothing more than to be convinced. His actions would lead us to believe that he has seen it work, and other reports indicate that he is not alone. But, in my own opinion, this was certainly not a conclusive test. I think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; it's just not here. This could have very easily been a conclusive test, but it went just as predicted. Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:39:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The rapid overfilling was at .91 grams/second (It turns out the 1.92 g/s was for quenching) The rapid overfill I refer to is the quenching, at 1.92 g/s. I believe 0.91 was the rate during the test when Lewan checked it. 1.92 isn't very rapid, is it? Apparently it worked though. With Pd-D I have heard of researchers taking the cathode out and plunged into a cold bath. It can be difficult to quench the reaction. An additional 2,056 watts is required for the phase-change, but, of course, we have no idea how much is boiling away. Greater than 2,437 watts would completely vaporize the input water. Since the temperature is 120°C I believe it has to be completely vaporized. I do not think there can be any hot water at that temperature in the system. Of course, this means that the water in the E-Cat would be running dry and getting super-heated if there were prolonged excursions over 2.5 kW. But, of course, this didn't happen, did it? No, it means that Rossi has to keep an eye on the water level. He has to adjust it to keep the reactor full but not overflowing. This is no more difficult than it is for me to keep an eye on the level of pinot noir when I simmer a pot roast for 5 hours. (The trick to a good pot roast is keep the water level low so that it forms at thick brown sauce, but not so low that it burns.) Of course I can open the pot and look, but I can also tell from the sound and smell. With my miniature steam engine I can tell the boiler level from the sound as well. - Jed
[Vo]:Let's revisit the October 6th Predictions...
Predictions: 1) This test has the potential to be quite conclusive. It won't be. *Check 2) It will take a LONG time for the e-Cat to come up to temperature. Only after it's stable, Rossi will begin circulating water in the secondary, and the e-Cat temperature will drop a little, and then have to stabilize again. *It took 4 hours, but the secondary was flowing from the start. Thanks, Jed for pre-empting this. 3) Secondary water flow will be properly measured and regularly recorded, but input primary power measurements will still be inconclusive. i would REALLY like to see Voltage and Current (Thru-Line , not clamp-on, measured from an eCat equivalent of mains distribution) *Still a clamp-on meter that was only looked at occasionally. 4) Power gains will be relatively small and will be reliant on calculations using a no input value during the supposed self-sustaining mode of operation to exist at all. As a result, we will all be cursing the self-sustaining mode as an unnecessary invention that only muddies the results. Many will say that the hours of warm up time should correlate to hours of cool down time, and that residual heat can explain away the maintained temperature. *Check. The E-Cat side never showed greater than 2.5 kW output (using water flow and temperature), and we had to rely on self-sustaining mode to see gains, here. The secondary side of the heat-exchanger was very, very erratic, and did not track the E-Cat temperature in any meaningful way. 5) Rossi and Jed will say that the test was conclusive (Sorry, Jed) *Check **Note: All that we NEED here for a conclusive test is: 1) Input power properly and completely measured, time-stamped, and flagged with any Rossi-enduced duty-cycle changes during operation. *Didn't get it 2) Secondary circuit water flow with flowmeter measurements, continually recorded and time stamped *Didn't get continual recording, but we did get a check and elapsed total 3) Secondary circuit water flow input temperature, continually recorded and time stamped *Didn't get it, just occasional checks (and it didn't match E-Cat water input) 4) Secondary circuit water flow output temperature, continually recorded and time stamped *Didn't get it, just occasional checks. It was measured WAY too close to the steam input of the heat exchanger, making this data really, really suspicious 5) Sufficient operation time to rule out a conventional reaction *Didn't get it Extraneous data will only serve to complicate what should be very straightforward calculations. *Got it Donating to the World; Two Cents at a Time, R.L.
RE: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
DGT wrote: We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. and We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. I feel a lawsuit coming on! -mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
I continue to update the review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I found out I need to make the graphs small to not lose font readability in the report pdf. I made the separate graphs much larger now: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiGraph.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png I hope they are not too large. I noticed I had to reduce size to print them. The letters come out small. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
From Mark: DGT wrote: We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. and We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. I feel a lawsuit coming on! Yeah, perhaps so. Personally, I interpret the statements as an attempt by DGT to issue a friendly suggestion to Rossi that he ought to back off. ... IOW, there will be plenty of pie for everyone, so quit yer'bellyaching. Trust us Yeah, right. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
Regarding the condensed steam outlet temp - don't think you can or should read much into it, 5-10°C on 2g/s is only 40-80W, not important for overall calorimetry. It could have been a typo (eg 23.2 instead of 28.2), and was likely to have been measured in the container Lewan used to collect 3 minutes worth of water after if flowed through the long outlet tube, or by holding the thermocouple agains the tube itself. A little evaporation of water in a low humidity room could cool it down below room temp. Also don't know where the room temp was being measured - near a heat source? bright lights? On 10 October 2011 16:56, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I continue to update the review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I found out I need to make the graphs small to not lose font readability in the report pdf. I made the separate graphs much larger now: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiGraph.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png I hope they are not too large. I noticed I had to reduce size to print them. The letters come out small. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
More like a gun to the head - ie we think we can extract legal remedies for your revelation of our confidential materials unless you come to an agreement with us, (and we know you are running out of money and time while we can pay for lots of lawyers that will waste all of your time), but let's just keep it friendly for now. There will have been non disclosure agreements and contracts stating who owned what. On 10 October 2011 17:16, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: From Mark: DGT wrote: We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. and We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. I feel a lawsuit coming on! Yeah, perhaps so. Personally, I interpret the statements as an attempt by DGT to issue a friendly suggestion to Rossi that he ought to back off. ... IOW, there will be plenty of pie for everyone, so quit yer'bellyaching. Trust us Yeah, right. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ... And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly enough to get his point across. Jed's may be a lot of things, possibly even including wrong, but he's no buffoon. And you, /Mister/ Catania, are plonked. I don't need to see this kind of stuff on Vortex. (You are also apparently the type of poster who can't be bothered to proof read his posts for obvious typos before sending them, which also contributes needlessly to the annoyance level of this list.)
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
From Robert: More like a gun to the head - ie we think we can extract legal remedies for your revelation of our confidential materials unless you come to an agreement with us, (and we know you are running out of money and time while we can pay for lots of lawyers that will waste all of your time), but let's just keep it friendly for now. There will have been non disclosure agreements and contracts stating who owned what. I tend to agree, ...As Teddy once sed: Speak softly and carry a big stick. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-stick.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On 11-10-10 12:33 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ... And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly enough to get his point across. Jed's may be a lot of things, possibly even including wrong, but he's no buffoon. Jed's --- Jed [oops] And you, /Mister/ Catania, are plonked. I don't need to see this kind of stuff on Vortex. (You are also apparently the type of poster who can't be bothered to proof read his posts for obvious typos before sending them, which also contributes needlessly to the annoyance level of this list.)
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful, scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly. I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term pathological skeptic is as unworthy in public discourse as buffoon. within infinite patience, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
Sure looks like they are saying that Rossi has stolen their design with his eLion. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
On 11-10-10 11:56 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: I continue to update the review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf Thanks, Horace! There's a lot of light reading there, and I can't claim to have read all of it as yet -- very nice analysis. I found out I need to make the graphs small to not lose font readability in the report pdf. I made the separate graphs much larger now: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiGraph.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png I hope they are not too large. I noticed I had to reduce size to print them. The letters come out small. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
Am 10.10.2011 18:19, schrieb Robert Lynn: Regarding the condensed steam outlet temp - don't think you can or should read much into it, 5-10°C on 2g/s is only 40-80W, not important for overall calorimetry. According to Mr. Rossi, the flow rate adjusted at the peristaltic pump was 15 kg/h. This evaluates to 4.16 g/s. http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236 If this is correct, then Mr. Lewans output flow measurement is not representavive. It might be the primary circuit steamwater was coming out in chunks and not all vaporized. This would also explain discontinuities in temperature at the secondary circuit. It could have been a typo (eg 23.2 instead of 28.2), and was likely to have been measured in the container Lewan used to collect 3 minutes worth of water after if flowed through the long outlet tube, or by holding the thermocouple agains the tube itself. A little evaporation of water in a low humidity room could cool it down below room temp. Also don't know where the room temp was being measured - near a heat source? bright lights? On 10 October 2011 16:56, Horace Heffnerhheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: I continue to update the review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf I found out I need to make the graphs small to not lose font readability in the report pdf. I made the separate graphs much larger now: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiGraph.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2_RF.png I hope they are not too large. I noticed I had to reduce size to print them. The letters come out small. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
Am 10.10.2011 18:50, schrieb Terry Blanton: Sure looks like they are saying that Rossi has stolen their design with his eLion. Hard to imagine, because Professor Stremmenos (vice president and chief scientist @ Defkalion) was present and smiling.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi T2 and Pout Charts
On 11-10-10 10:58 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: From Stephen: Mysterious RF oscillators with undocumented connections and functions add so much interest to the question of How It Works Has Rossi become the New Ron Stiffler? I'm inclined to think that Stephen's speculation is probably unwarranted in this particular case. I expect you're right. That was a rather long logical leap I made there, based on some superficial similarities. And the breathtaking scale of Rossi's project is totally out of Stiffler's league. If Rossi isn't for real then this whole thing has got to set some kind of record for scientific breakthroughs that weren't. I'm not sure but I think it's bigger than the Korean human cloning scandal of a few years ago, which is the only unreal breakthrough I can think of that might have been comparable. As I understand it Stiffler worked pretty much in a self-imposed vacuum. I don't think Stiffler wanted help, assistance, and/or suggestions from anyone. This means Stiffler worked on his own which resulted in very little feed-back from anyone who might be able to offer up a few reality checks. Working excessively in a vacuum is a very bad idea when it comes to in'ventun stuff. I don't think that's the case with Rossi. ...and probably even less the case for Defkalion. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
The question was not posted, but I guess he is calling of clowns the people of Defkalion: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94489 Dear Martin: These are just clowns. No other comment is opportune. I want not to dirt this blog with that shit. My attorneys are taking care of them. Warm Regards, A.R. 2011/10/10 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de Am 10.10.2011 18:50, schrieb Terry Blanton: Sure looks like they are saying that Rossi has stolen their design with his eLion. Hard to imagine, because Professor Stremmenos (vice president and chief scientist @ Defkalion) was present and smiling.
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Quit picking on Catania who does not know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. He passed away some time ago as is evidenced by this piccy of him surrounded by flowers. RIP JOE! http://www.theeestory.com/posts/199540 T
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
Interesting! He deleted the message! 2011/10/10 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com The question was not posted, but I guess he is calling of clowns the people of Defkalion: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94489 Dear Martin: These are just clowns. No other comment is opportune. I want not to dirt this blog with that shit. My attorneys are taking care of them. Warm Regards, A.R. 2011/10/10 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de Am 10.10.2011 18:50, schrieb Terry Blanton: Sure looks like they are saying that Rossi has stolen their design with his eLion. Hard to imagine, because Professor Stremmenos (vice president and chief scientist @ Defkalion) was present and smiling.
Re: [Vo]:No Control
Experiments require controls. Demonstrations only require observers. I don't think AR is experimenting. I do think that we are soon to see either a legal feeding frenzy or a Greek and an Italian back having a romance. Unfortunately, I think the former is more likely due to pride (as in a lot of eLions). T
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
That is hilarious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting! He deleted the message! He said 'shit'. His mom probably made him erase it and eat soap. T
Re: [Vo]:No Control
When you have a black box, controls are valid when there is a double blind, that is, the experimenter and the subject don't know which one is true. In the case of humans, it is to filter the placebo effect. In the case of the e-cat, it is to avoid fraud, that is, slightly different designs to make the more efficient e-cat look as if it were true. 2011/10/10 OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com I'm reminded of something recently stated over at the PESN web site, author, Hank Mills: See: http://pesn.com/2011/10/08/9501929_E-Cat_Test_Validates_Cold_Fusion_Despite_Challenges/ http://tinyurl.com/6a7zcw2 Specifically: No Control One of the most useful tools in the scientific method is a control. A control is an object or thing that you do not try to change during the experiment. For example, if you were giving an experimental drug to a hundred people, you might want to have a number of additional people who do not receive the drug. You would compare how the drug effects the people who consumed it, to those who did not receive the drug at all. By comparing the two sets of people, those who consumed the drug and those who did not, you could more easily see the effectiveness of the drug -- or if it was doing harm. In Rossi's test, a control system would have been an E-Cat module that was setup in the exact same way, except it would have not been filled with hydrogen gas. It would have had the same flow of water going through it, the same electrical input, and it would have operated for the same length of time as the E-Cat unit with hydrogen. By comparing the two, you could easily see the difference between the control E-Cat (that was not having nuclear reactions take place), and the real E-Cat (that was producing excess heat). If a control had been used in the experiment, the excess heat would be even more obvious. It would have been so obvious, that it could have made the test go from a major success (with some flaws), to the most spectacular scientific test in the last hundred years. Couldn't agree more. Hope someone suggests this to Rossi. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10 -- Only 1 eCat
1. For the 6 Oct test, only one of the three modules in the E-Cat was active. Oct 6 for the test, only one of the three modules in the E-Cat was active. By what means were the other two made inoperative? By what means-Were the other two made inoperative? They don't seem to have separate heaters or hydrogen inputs. They Do not Seem to have separate heaters or hydrogen inputs. Was the nickel powder left out of them? The nickel powder was left out of them? AR: 1 - only one reactor has-been inserted in the wafer
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
On 2011-10-10 19:43, Daniel Rocha wrote: Interesting! He deleted the message! Unfortunately I think it's too late now for him. The message has been already cited in several forums and blogs. Also, people with RSS feeds should still have it in their email clients. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
I just received a couple of iphone photos from an attendee (but I don't have permission to post them) which clearly shows that the thermocouple was attached to the nut near the center of the manifold. As best as I can tell, this lines up with the center of the connection to the heat exchanger. http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg I don't know whether the hole C penetrates the chamber. In any event, this puts the thermocouple only 2 cm away from the center-line, and the thickness of the top of the manifold looks to be about 1 cm. Of course, rulers haven't been invented yet, so these distances are estimates. (Sorry, Jed ... this problem won't go away.)
Re: [Vo]:No Control
On 11-10-10 01:14 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: I'm reminded of something recently stated over at the PESN web site, author, Hank Mills: See: http://pesn.com/2011/10/08/9501929_E-Cat_Test_Validates_Cold_Fusion_Despite_Challenges/ http://tinyurl.com/6a7zcw2 Specifically: No Control ... In Rossi's test, a control system would have been an E-Cat module that was setup in the exact same way, except it would have not been filled with hydrogen gas. Rossi's well aware of this, I'm sure, and also well aware that it would either prove or disprove the excess energy claim PDQ. Note, however, that hydrogen adsorbing onto nickel is exothermic, so your control without hydrogen has issues. It's too different from the real thing. In particular, conventional chemistry presumably says the live Ecat would produce (some increment of) heat, while the control would not. You'd want something a little more subtle, I think -- like, an Ecat with all parts in place including the hydrogen gas, except the catalyst is left out; that should show all conventional chemical effects, but no fusion. That would be somewhat analogous to the use of hydrogen oxide in place of deuterium oxide as a control in a wet palladium CF cell.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan J Fletcher wrote: In any event, this puts the thermocouple only 2 cm away from the center-line, and the thickness of the top of the manifold looks to be about 1 cm. Of course, rulers haven't been invented yet, so these distances are estimates. (Sorry, Jed ... this problem won't go away.) I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. Just throw away the thermocouple values, and look at it strictly as a record of performance. Assume the thermocouples recorded the average temperature between the cooling water and the steam pipe. That is approximation, but it is good enough. Based on the increases and decreases alone you can be sure there was anomalous heat. It might have been less than calculated from the temperature values but there was definitely anomalous heat lasting for hours and it was definitely boiling in the cell, so the details don't matter. At least, they don't matter to someone with Rossi's outlook. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
At 06:50 PM 10/9/2011, Alan Fletcher wrote: This analysis presumes that there is similar coupling of heat from the two streams. On the output (water) side the coupling is from water to brass, which is efficient. On the input (steam) side we have an unknown selection of any/all a) Superheated 120C (1 bar) steam (efficient) b) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) vapour (inefficient) c) 100C (1 bar) or 120C (2 bar) fluid (efficient) which have a different coupling coefficient to brass (I can't think of the technical term),which limits the heat transfer from one side to the other. In a circuit simulation like Spice I could use a current source (= heat) rather than a voltage source (= temperature). The coupling coefficient term is convection heat transfer coefficient http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/overall-heat-transfer-coefficient-d_434.html 1 / U A = 1 / h1 A1 + dxw / k A + 1 / h2 A2 (1)
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Looks to me as if Defkalion is trying it's best to remain diplomatic and respectful to the interests of the original parties while at the same time making it very clear to all potential investors that their own engineering efforts have now exceeded the inventor's specs by several generations. Yup. That's how I read it. It doesn't cost anything to remain diplomatic. In business it is usually best to be as diplomatic as you can bring yourself to be. I think the people at Defkalion are sincerely respectful of Rossi, as am I. He is a genius. He invented this device. He deserves barrels of money and a dozen Nobel prizes for it. Unfortunately he is not very good at doing demonstrations. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10
I think the people at Defkalion are sincerely respectful of Rossi, as am I. He is a genius. He invented this device. He deserves barrels of money and a dozen Nobel prizes for it. Unfortunately he is not very good at doing demonstrations. - Jed I am not sure if that is an irony or not...
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10 -- Only 1 eCat
Hi, On 10-10-2011 19:56, Alan J Fletcher wrote: 1. For the 6 Oct test, only one of the three modules in the E-Cat was active. Oct 6 for the test, only one of the three modules in the E-Cat was active. By what means were the other two made inoperative? By what means-Were the other two made inoperative? They don't seem to have separate heaters or hydrogen inputs. They Do not Seem to have separate heaters or hydrogen inputs. Was the nickel powder left out of them? The nickel powder was left out of them? AR: 1 - only one reactor has-been inserted in the wafer It looks to me Rossi refers to the box as a wafer and not as what is common in wafer production to silicon wafers. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
LOL. That's hypocritical. - Original Message - From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful, scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly. I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term pathological skeptic is as unworthy in public discourse as buffoon. within infinite patience, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
LOL. That's hypocritical. - Original Message - From: Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com; Rich Murray rmfor...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Jed Rothwell is a serious, intelligent, dedicated, honorable, careful, scientific layman with the highest motives to benefit our world -- he always acknowledges his bias clearly and openly. I think it would be much to his credit to agree that the term pathological skeptic is as unworthy in public discourse as buffoon. within infinite patience, Rich Murray
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Funny, you don't seem annoyed. All Jed is capable with regard to this matter is condescension. - Original Message - From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof On 11-10-10 11:04 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Newton's Law is irrelevant. Your the type of buffoon who ... And you, /Mister/ Catania, are apparently the type of poster who resorts to ad hominems when he's having trouble expressing himself clearly enough to get his point across. Jed's may be a lot of things, possibly even including wrong, but he's no buffoon. And you, /Mister/ Catania, are plonked. I don't need to see this kind of stuff on Vortex. (You are also apparently the type of poster who can't be bothered to proof read his posts for obvious typos before sending them, which also contributes needlessly to the annoyance level of this list.)
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
No that was part of the decor in a restaurant in Taormina. Its nice to know that the only thing that counts here is spelling (and self-affected narcissists). - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Quit picking on Catania who does not know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'. He passed away some time ago as is evidenced by this piccy of him surrounded by flowers. RIP JOE! http://www.theeestory.com/posts/199540 T
[Vo]:Thermocouples work fine on pipes
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: Putting a metal thermocouple up against a metal surface sounds like a prescription for variable but systematic error, depending on vibrations, touching the wire, humidity, etc. The steel nut can short out at least some some of the potential. This means requiring a high bias. However, if the short is removed or reduced, then the bias is too high. When playing with the bias in my spreadsheet I settled on 0.8°C. However, it looked as if only one bias was not sufficient to fit the numbers. Let me again suggest that you borrow or purchase a thermocouple and test it yourself. I expect you will find this is not a problem. I have put my Omega HH12B thermocouples against pipes, dry surfaces, wet surfaces, under water and in various other places. They seem to work fine. I myself am well grounded, and I have used the thermocouples as a fever thermometer under my tongue. It shows the same temperature as the fever thermometer. It works a lot faster. Omega and the others who sell these things realize that the instruments will be used in a wide variety of environments for many purposes. I expect they realize that if the standard thermocouple probe they ship with the instrument did not work on pipes, that would be a problem for many customers, since this is a recommended configuration, widely used. So they would provide another kind of probe. I got an extra sheathed probe which I use to check the temperature of roasting turkeys in the oven. Probably the off-the-shelf probe that came with it would not be good for that. Mallove and I used to dump the probes directly into a chemical cells which is probably not a good idea. There are many problems with Rossi's test. You need not invent any more problems such as the notion that thermocouple probes do not work on pipes or that thermocouples routinely have errors of 1 or 2°C in the range of 0 to 100°C. If you will try using a laboratory grade meter you will find they do not have the problems you imagine they might. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Congratulations, Mr. Catania. Further posts from you will be routed to my block list. I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
What do my posts matter anyway? Yes please block me. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Congratulations, Mr. Catania. Further posts from you will be routed to my block list. I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10 -- Only 1 eCat
At 11:33 AM 10/10/2011, Man on Bridges wrote: AR: 1 - only one reactor has-been inserted in the wafer It looks to me Rossi refers to the box as a wafer and not as what is common in wafer production to silicon wafers. Nor its religious (catholic, at least) use. Anyway, a single eCat means . ... more room for mice
[Vo]:These problems could have been, and were, anticipated
In a private discussion, someone suggested that it can be difficult to anticipate objections. He said that even if a test convinces the experts at the time it is done, they may later come up with possible errors that did not occur to them at first. Naturally I agree there is some truth to that, but I do not think it applies to this case. I wrote a strong response, below. Note that Rossi himself was a member of this discussion and I sent this to him. He was not pleased. He objected in capital letters. It would not be good form to quote him. I mention this only to illustrate the fact that I never write a technical critique that I would be unwilling to share with the author himself. In my opinion, if you are not willing to say what you think about an experiment directly to the author, you should not say it at all. That only applies to technical debates. Not your opinion of someone's clothing, religion, politics, or his wife. - - - - - - - - MESSAGE . . . Several days before this test, I sent Rossi a short list of suggestions. For example, I said that all data should be recorded on a single computer with time stamped records. I said that the outlet water from the heat exchanger should be made available to observers so they could independently test the temperature with their own equipment. It would have taken an hour or two to implement these changes. My suggestions would have answered every one of the objections that has been raised against this test so far. Every single one. It is true that a person cannot anticipate all objections. A skeptic can always come up with another reason to doubt something. But many objections can be anticipated and precluded. Other people on Vortex predicted that this test would have a list of specific problems, which were all easily fixed. The test did indeed have every single one of these problems. The instrumentation and set up were sloppy, thoughtless and unprofessional. To me, this expressed contempt for the audience. It said: I will not make any effort to convince you. You may have traveled for hundreds of miles, but I will not bother to spend a few minutes arranging this equipment, zeroing out the thermocouples, or placing the probes in a way that will give you confidence in the results. You can take it or leave it. The test would have convinced a far larger number of people if it had only been done right. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10 -- Only 1 eCat
Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: It looks to me Rossi refers to the box as a wafer and not as what is common in wafer production to silicon wafers. I thought he meant that crinkly heat exchanger-like thing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well.
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations, Mr. Catania. Further posts from you will be routed to my block list. I'm sure you could care less. I guess the feeling is mutual. whisper: . . . not care less g, d r -the narcissist
[Vo]:Rossi on the placement of the thermocouple and other issues.
David Roberson October 8th, 2011 at 10:52 PM Dear Mr. Rossi, Your LENR test on October 6, 2011 should be listed as a historical event. I wonder if I might ask you to clarify one issue that the skeptics continue to bring up which you can settle quickly. My personal opinion is that the location you selected for the thermocouple that measures the output water temperature of the heat exchanger is entirely reasonable, but they are not convinced. Could you make a statement that you have verified that the water temperature in the exhaust stream under operating conditions has been measured and matches the reading seen on the test thermocouple? I would assume that you performed such a test during your ECAT verifications. If this has not been done, is it possible for you to perform this test? Please let me know if you have already responded to an earlier post regarding this issue as I reviewed a large multitude of them and did not see a direct statement to this effect. Thank you and keep up the grand effort. D.R. Andrea Rossi October 9th, 2011 at 2:26 AM David Roberson, Good question, and opportune indeed. NOT ONLY I CONFIRM THAT I VERIFIED THAT THE WATER TEMPERATURE IN THE EXHAUST STREAM UNDER OPERATING CONDITIONS HAS BEEN MEASURED AND MATCHES THE READING SEEN ON THE TEST THERMOCOUPLES, BUT EVERYBODY CAN EASILY CHECK IT EVERYWHERE WITH FEW DOLLARS , WITHOUT ANY RISK: IN THE REPORT MADE BY NYTEKNIK THERE ARE THE PHOTOS OF THE CONNECTORS WHERE WE PUT THE THERMOCOUPLE; JUST GO IN ANY SHOP FOR PLUMBERS AND BUY THE SAME ARTICLE ( IT COSTS LESS THAN 10 $). ONCE YOU GOT IT, GO IN YOUR BATHROOM , CONNECT THE TOY WITH RUBBER HOSES ( ANY RUBBER HOSE) AND MAKE HOT WATER FLOW IN ONE ROW, AND COLD WATER FLOW IN THE OTHER, PUT AT THE OPPOSITE SIDE. ONCE YOU DID THIS, TAKE A THERMOMETER AND MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE IN THE EXACT PLACE WHERE WE PUT THE THERMOCOUPLE, THEN MEASURE THE TEMPERATURE AT A DISTANCE OF A COUPLE OF INCHES AFTER SUCH POSITION, ALONG THE WATER FLOW. IF YOU FIND ANY DIFFERENCE, LET ME KNOW: I NEVER DID . OF COURSE, THE MORE DISTANT YOU GO, THE MORE THE TEMPERATURE DECREASES, SO IT IS LOGIC THAT TO MEASURE THE POWER WE HAVE TO STAY IN PROXIMITY OF THE WATER FLOW EXIT. I WANT TO ADD THAT, TO ANSWER TO THE FRAUDOLENT STATEMENTS MADE FROM THE SNAKES PAID BY THE USUAL WELL KNOWN TO DISCREDIT AND BLACKMAIL US (YES, I REPEAT: BLACKMAIL US): 1- THE CALCULATION OF ENERGY MADE BY THE SNAKES ARE EMBARASSINGLY WRONG, JUST ANALYZE THE RATIO BETWEEN THE ENERGY INPUT AND THE ENERGY OUTPUT IN THE PUBLISHED REPORTS. BY HTE WAY: TO BE HONEST, THE REAL EFFICIENCY SHOULD BE CALCULATED AFTER 3 P.M., WHEN THE E-CAT WAS STABILIZED, BUT, NEVERTHELESS, ALSO BEFORE IT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY PRODUCED HAS BEEN MORE THAN THE CONSUMED…READ CAREFULLY THE PERIODS OF RESISTANCE SWITCH ON/SWITCH OFF DURING THE FIRST HOURS, BEFORE 3 P.M.: THE RESISTANCE HAS A POWER OF 2.5 Kw AT FULL LOAD, SO IF YOU MAKE IT GO 10 MINUTES YES AND 10 MINUTES NO YOU CONSUME 1.25 kWh/h, WHILE THE PRODUCTION WAS WELL ABOVE…AND WE WERE IN THE START UP UNSTABILIZED PHASE !!! AFTER THAT, WE WORKED WITH THE RESISTANCE FOR FEW MINUTES AND 3 AND A HALF HOURS WITHOUT RESISISTANCE TURNED ON. EVERYBODY CAN READ IT VERY CLEARLY IN THE NYTEKNIK REPORT. 2- IT HAS BEEN FRAUDOLENTLY WRITTEN IN THE BLOGS OF THE SNAKES THAT THE DEVICE HAS BEEN NOT WEIGHTED: FALSE, THE E-CAT AND ALSO THE CALORIMETRIC ASSEMBLY HAVE BEEN WEIGHTED BEFORE AND AFTER THE TEST, AND THIS IS CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE SAME REPORT OF NYTEKNIK: CLEARLY, THE SNAKES THINK THAT THEIR READERS ARE SO STUPID NOT TO BE ABLE TO READ THE REPORT, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY FOR THEM, IT IS NOT SO. I WANT TO UNDERLINE THAT NOT ONLY ALL HAS BEEN WEIGHTED, BUT ALSO THAT AT THE END OF THE TEST I HAVE DISASSEMBLED IN FRONT OF ALL THE ATTENDANTS ALL THE PIECES, AND TAKEN OFF THE INSUILATION TO MAKE WELL CLEAR THAT EVERY COMPONENT WAS CLEAN, THAT THERE WERE NOT BATTERIES, OR ANY KIND OF POTENTIAL ENERGY SUPPLY INSIDE THE E-CAT AND INSIDE ALL THE OTHER COMPONENTS; FOR THIS REASON WE HAD TO STOP THE E-CAT, (WE FINISHED AROUND MIDNIGHT) OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO WORK ALONG THE SAME EFFICIENCY REACHED AFTER THE STABILIZATION. ALL THESE OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN FRONT OF HIGH LEVEL SCIENTISTS ARRIVED FROM: UNIVERSITY OF UPPSALA, UNIVERSITY OF PARIS, UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA, US NAVY, RESEARCH CENTER OG CHINA, HIGH LEVEL INDUSTRIAL CONCERNS, UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS, AND I AM SURE I AM FORGETTING SOME: I ALLOWED ALL THIS PEOPLE TO BE PRESENT AN LOOK AT ALL THE OPERATIONS MADE DURING THE TEST: WEIGHTING, DISASSEMBLING, OPERATION, EVERYTHING! BESIDES: WEIGHTING ETC HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY US, TEMPERATURES HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROLLED BY US, BUT BY THE ATTENDANTS. A SNAKE HAS WRITTEN THAT INSEDE THE E-CAT THERE WAS DIESEL OIL TO BE BURNT………JUST LOOK AT THE WEIGHTS: AT THE END OF THE OPERATION THE E-CAT WEIGHTED SOME GRAM MORE THAT BEFORE THE OPERATION…. Thank you for your question, very useful. Warm Regards, A.R.
RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
From one narcissist to another... Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us... http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts# 80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can tell by the recent conversion of vortex members and Krivit. Joe Catania states, The band heater temp is ~900C. In September test my calculations show that boiling could be produced for many hours. There is certainly a massive amount of metal in the e-cat. Joe: So your reasoning is based on the band heater being 900C, and therefore the majority of the massive amount of metal in the E-Cat is at or near that same temperature. You sincerely think that everything underneath the insulation is anywhere near that temp? The melting point of lead is 327C, so we certainly know that the lead is no more than one-third 900C, or else we'd have a mass of molten lead on the table. In addition, with the irregularity of the shape of the plumbing, at least with the old, tubular design, it is unlikely that there is much physical contact between the lead shielding and the plumbing (water jacket), ergo, poor heat conduction between the plumbing and the lead, ergo, not much heat storage in the lead. Finally, the only thing that could be anywhere near 900C is the (stainless steel) core container that is the transfer medium between the reaction material (Ni-powder-hydrogen-catalyst) and the water outside the core container. Conclusion: Being that the only mass that could possibly be anywhere near 900C is the reactor core container, which might be a few kilograms, would you care to revise your ... not on the level of a discussion heat storage estimate??? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion Press Release 10/10 -- Only 1 eCat
Hi, On 10-10-2011 21:02, Alan J Fletcher wrote: Nor its religious (catholic, at least) use. Yeah, I know; it's a long time ago I had one of these. Anyway, a single eCat means . ... more room for mice And you know what they say about cat and mice: NL: Als de kat van huis is dansen de muizen op tafel ;-) It seems, this translates fairly well in many languages. EN / US: when the cat's away the mice will play IT: quando il gatto non c'è, i topi ballano DE: Ist die Katze aus dem Haus, tanzen die Mäuse auf dem Tisch SE: När katten är borta, dansar råttorna på bordet RO: Când pisica nu-i acasă, joacă şoarecii pe masă And especially for the Mexicans: ¡Andale! ¡Andale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba! ¡Yii-hah!, Hola, uno pussy gato. tú tienes uno problemente? ;-) Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
If that were the approach you would use graphite inductively heated to 3500 deg C in a graphite foil/foam insulated vacuum flask, add hydrogen to start convective heat transfer. Stores about 1.3kWh/kg and about 2.7kWh/liter, so would need about 10 liters for 80MJ of latest demo. Note I am sure this wasn't done, but would work better than iron On 10 October 2011 20:44, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote: From one narcissist to another... Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us... http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts# 80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can tell by the recent conversion of vortex members and Krivit. Joe Catania states, The band heater temp is ~900C. In September test my calculations show that boiling could be produced for many hours. There is certainly a massive amount of metal in the e-cat. Joe: So your reasoning is based on the band heater being 900C, and therefore the majority of the massive amount of metal in the E-Cat is at or near that same temperature. You sincerely think that everything underneath the insulation is anywhere near that temp? The melting point of lead is 327C, so we certainly know that the lead is no more than one-third 900C, or else we'd have a mass of molten lead on the table. In addition, with the irregularity of the shape of the plumbing, at least with the old, tubular design, it is unlikely that there is much physical contact between the lead shielding and the plumbing (water jacket), ergo, poor heat conduction between the plumbing and the lead, ergo, not much heat storage in the lead. Finally, the only thing that could be anywhere near 900C is the (stainless steel) core container that is the transfer medium between the reaction material (Ni-powder-hydrogen-catalyst) and the water outside the core container. Conclusion: Being that the only mass that could possibly be anywhere near 900C is the reactor core container, which might be a few kilograms, would you care to revise your ... not on the level of a discussion heat storage estimate??? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. Well, mainly qualitative. However, you can make a reasonable minimum or worst-case estimate of the power. You can draw some lines and be sure the heat did not go below them. Look at things such as the surface temperature of the reactor, the fact that the boiling could be heard, in the worst-case scenario about where the temperature probe might be placed. There is no doubt that the reactor was producing kilowatts during the four-hour heat after death event. If that had only been 150 W of excess heat, let's say, there is no way the surface of the reactor would be palpably hot, given all the heat that the flow of water can remove. Also look at the response during the initial phase when there was 2.8 kW of electric power being input. I think it is almost certain there was excess power during this segment. Maybe not as much as shown here, given the low likely recovery rate, but there must have been some. If there was no excess power Rossi would never have turned off the input power, and the reactor would not have taken off like a rocket with heat after death. If there had been a balance of input and output during that segment, that would mean no reaction is taking place. In that case, the moment they turned off the input power the temperature would have dropped straight down monotonically. In the worst case you can assume there was close to a balance during the initial segment, so output was ~2.8 kW * ~70% recovery rate, or roughly 2 kW, instead of ~3 kW. You can see that output went much higher during the first two hours of heat after death. The graph shows it was around 5.5 kW. Adjusting for the no-heat-during-startup scenario fudge factor that would be ~3.3 kW. That is still very substantial. There is no way that is not anomalous. As I said, I'm sure there was excess heat during the startup phase, meaning it had to be over 2.8 kW. You never have H.A.D. without excess beforehand. What I do not know is the recovery rate and the fudge factor that may be needed because the outlet TC may have been too close to the steam pipe. That is a lot of uncertainty, but not unlimited total uncertainty. You can make a reasonable estimate of these things. You know that a recovery rate of 30% would be ridiculous, as would 95%. 70% is a reasonable estimate. If you look carefully you can probably find some data to estimate it with more confidence. You know what the average temperature of the heat exchanger should be given the volume of steam and cold tap water. I do not think the outlet thermocouple could be any higher than the average temperature. I expect it is lower. Even though the TC is close to the steam pipe, mostly it is picking up the water pipe temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
For what it's worth, here are crops of the thermistors, heat exchanger and manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg Diagram : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg
[Vo]:Another attempt to estimate based on likely heat before heat after death
H . . . I screwed up this analysis, I think. Let me try again. First, I refer to this graph: http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg I confused the issue by thinking about where the output line should be, given the likely recovery rate and the problems with the TC placement: Also look at the response during the initial phase when there was 2.8 kW of electric power being input. I think it is almost certain there was excess power during this segment. Maybe not as much as shown here, given the low likely recovery rate, but there must have been some. . . . Forget all of those considerations. We know that excess heat always proceeds heat after death. We know that Rossi would not turn off the power unless there was clear excess power already. Let's take those to facts alone. Perhaps it is a coincidence that the recovery rate and the placement of the TC's and various other factors happen to compensate for one another, but for whatever reason the output power is shown here to be somewhat above input. Let us take this graph as a reasonable guess as to where it was. It was either a little above input or a lot above input. It could not have been below. This graph shows it being a little above, at around 3 kW. If that is correct, then after the power was cut, it went up to ~6 kW, as shown, later peaking at 8 kW. If that is an underestimate, it must have gone above 6 kW. It could not have been less than 3 kW, whatever it was, because as I said Rossi would not have turned off input power. The test would have been abandoned, as others have been in the past. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Terry sez: ... I'm sure you could care less. whisper: . . . not care less g, d r Really? I wuz never good at grammar. Grammatically speaking I always thought it is better form to avoid cluttering up one's literary intent with the use of double negatives. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
If someone Couldn't care less, it means that they care so little that it's impossible for them to care any less than they do right now. If someone Could care less, it means that they care enough that it's possible to care less. Irregardless, people will continue to use the phrase to the four corners of the earth. Supposably, it's commonplaced. Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:24:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof From: svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Terry sez: ... I'm sure you could care less. whisper: . . . not care less g, d r Really? I wuz never good at grammar. Grammatically speaking I always thought it is better form to avoid cluttering up one's literary intent with the use of double negatives. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi on the placement of the thermocouple and other issues.
Rossi sez: ... A SNAKE HAS WRITTEN THAT INSEDE THE E-CAT THERE WAS DIESEL OIL TO BE BURNT………JUST LOOK AT THE WEIGHTS: AT THE END OF THE OPERATION THE E-CAT WEIGHTED SOME GRAM MORE THAT BEFORE THE OPERATION…. Diesel oil??? Good grief! Who wuz suggesting that? BTW, I luv reading Rossi's broken English reports. It is to Rossi's credit that he doesn't let a little bit of inexperience in writing in a foreign language of English get in the way. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 12:16 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:08 Hydrogen pressure was eliminated. Flow from peristaltic pump increased. All electric power switched off. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg 18:57 0.91 g/sec correlates with a minimum of the power -- 3500 W 19:22 1.92 g/sec correlates to a peak of power -- nearly 6000 W
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
Rossi could give us the answer as to how much the secondary outlet thermocouple was biased in 1/2 hour with a jug of boiling water and a cold water supply. But his ego would never allow him to. On 10 October 2011 20:58, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: For what it's worth, here are crops of the thermistors, heat exchanger and manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_1_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_2_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_2_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_3_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_3_crop.jpg http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**pics/111010_4_crop.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_4_crop.jpg Diagram : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_**manifold_001_h1200.jpghttp://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). Better than that, Lewan reports the cumulative flow, which is easier to read with confidence from this meter. He wrote: *Calibration water flow, secondary circuit:* Water flow was started about 11:00. Water was filled into a one liter measure, time was measured and the water weighed. 1035 g in 6.06 seconds gives 171 g/s. 1007 g in 5.97 seconds gives 169 g/s. Similar measurements during the test confirmed these values Using the flow meter attached to the heat exchanger the time for 10 liters was measured several times during the test and found to be between 58.1 and 54.4 seconds, giving a flow between 183 and 172 g/s. The total flow from 11:57 until 19:03 was 4554.3 liters, giving an average flow of 178 g/s or 641 liters/h. I am confident the flow rate was stable and it was at the reported rates. The inlet temperature is also firmly established, and it was stable. The only open question is the outlet temperature. Was it affected by the steam pipe, and if so how much? When I said you will never get to the bottom of this I meant you cannot answer those two questions with confidence. There is probably not enough information in the report to determine these things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Look closer at this one: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png Let me give you a scenario. There is some back pressure on the E-Cat, so boiling temperature rises as high as 124 degrees. Note: This is in the believer's favor. If atmospheric pressure is lower, then the boiling point is lower, and even less power is required for 124 degree steam (because the specific heat of steam is lower). In 6 hours of operation, 19.656 kg of water flows through the E-Cat. (.91 g/s x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 6 hours) To raise all of the water from 24 degrees to 124 degrees, would take 1,965.6 kcal (19.656 kg x 100C) To vaporize all of the incoming water, 10,614.24 kcal (540 cal/g x 19.656 kg) This is 12,579.84 kcal over 6 hours, or 2,096,640 cal/hr, which is 2,436 Watts 2,436 Watts would completely vaporize the input water, and over that would deplete the water collected in the E-Cat. If we could actually rely on the E-Cat performance data, before this test was over, the E-Cat would have been bone-dry, and the steam should have been climbing to ever-higher temperatures. Please, anyone, tell me where this logic is flawed. Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:58:16 -0700 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data At 12:16 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying. You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative demonstration. Ah well. It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). 18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C. 19:08 Hydrogen pressure was eliminated. Flow from peristaltic pump increased. All electric power switched off. 19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/s. Temperature 23.2 °C. http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/304196_10150844451570375_818270374_20774905_1010742682_n.jpg 18:57 0.91 g/sec correlates with a minimum of the power -- 3500 W 19:22 1.92 g/sec correlates to a peak of power -- nearly 6000 W
Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Since you know nothing of the e-cat your remarks have been dismissed. Yes it was prooveable in the September e-cat that the effects were purely based on thermal inertia. I suspect the same here. Rothwwell has not been able to substantiate his position which seems to be a blind acceptance of CF before aanyone heard of Rossi. I never made the claims you say I made. Yes there has been conversion and elaborate journalism on this point. You seem to confuse your total ignorance with lack of merit. You will regret that. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof From one narcissist to another... Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us... http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts# 80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can tell by the recent conversion of vortex members and Krivit. Joe Catania states, The band heater temp is ~900C. In September test my calculations show that boiling could be produced for many hours. There is certainly a massive amount of metal in the e-cat. Joe: So your reasoning is based on the band heater being 900C, and therefore the majority of the massive amount of metal in the E-Cat is at or near that same temperature. You sincerely think that everything underneath the insulation is anywhere near that temp? The melting point of lead is 327C, so we certainly know that the lead is no more than one-third 900C, or else we'd have a mass of molten lead on the table. In addition, with the irregularity of the shape of the plumbing, at least with the old, tubular design, it is unlikely that there is much physical contact between the lead shielding and the plumbing (water jacket), ergo, poor heat conduction between the plumbing and the lead, ergo, not much heat storage in the lead. Finally, the only thing that could be anywhere near 900C is the (stainless steel) core container that is the transfer medium between the reaction material (Ni-powder-hydrogen-catalyst) and the water outside the core container. Conclusion: Being that the only mass that could possibly be anywhere near 900C is the reactor core container, which might be a few kilograms, would you care to revise your ... not on the level of a discussion heat storage estimate??? -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 02:15 PM 10/10/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Look closer at this one: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png Let me give you a scenario. There is some back pressure on the E-Cat, so boiling temperature rises as high as 124 degrees. Note: This is in the believer's favor. If atmospheric pressure is lower, then the boiling point is lower, and even less power is required for 124 degree steam (because the specific heat of steam is lower). In 6 hours of operation, 19.656 kg of water flows through the E-Cat. (.91 g/s x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 6 hours) To raise all of the water from 24 degrees to 124 degrees, would take 1,965.6 kcal (19.656 kg x 100C) To vaporize all of the incoming water, 10,614.24 kcal (540 cal/g x 19.656 kg) This is 12,579.84 kcal over 6 hours, or 2,096,640 cal/hr, which is 2,436 Watts 2,436 Watts would completely vaporize the input water, and over that would deplete the water collected in the E-Cat. If we could actually rely on the E-Cat performance data, before this test was over, the E-Cat would have been bone-dry, and the steam should have been climbing to ever-higher temperatures. Please, anyone, tell me where this logic is flawed. I've set this calculation up for 1 hour : http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plotever=cefzx0=0efzy0=0efzx9=9efzy9=9esl=1epbr=1enm=Oct+6++--+Input+Power+onlyedh=1edm=0eds=0eif=3.27eip=2.5ecp=0.06eop=2.5eoxr=1et0=20ep0=1et1=15ep2=1er2=2 For the input-power-only phase, 1 bar, with 0.9 g/sec and 2.5kW -- should get 170 C superheated steam ! (Doesn't make much difference if it's 1 bar or 2) If you double the flow, at 2 bars then you get quality 0.5 120 C steam from input power only. http://lenr.qumbu.com/ecatcalc.php?plot=Plotever=cefzx0=0efzy0=0efzx9=9efzy9=9esl=1epbr=1enm=Oct+6++--+Input+Power+onlyedh=1edm=0eds=0eif=6.5eip=2.5ecp=0.06eop=2.5eoxr=1et0=20ep0=1et1=15et2=120er2=1
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Alan J Fletcher wrote: The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. Oh yes. You are right. I was confused. Of course the secondary flow is the important one in this case. Although it sure would have been nice to know the primary one. Do you know what would have been nice? If he has recorded all the damn flow rates and temperatures electronically on a single computer, with uniform time stamps. You know what I mean? The way anyone else would have after 1980 for crying out loud. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
The double flow was recorded after they began trying to quench the reaction. Increasing the flow rate was specifically mentioned before that second measurement, and everyone previously lauded the pump for it's accuracy during previous demonstrations. Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
Re: [Vo]:No Control
May people have made this comment. Some, like Jed, directly to Rossi. Use of experimental controls is such a basic science concept it is taught in grade school science. Still, Rossi rejects the approach. I've made similar statements about controls myself: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50706.html Meaningful data can be obtained through the performance of well calibrated, and preferably dual method, calorimetry on the device, as a black box, that establishes a complete energy balance for each run. Use of control runs is also a standard method, and useful for calibrating the calorimetry. A thermal pulse method is also a useful check on calorimetry functions during run times. Anything less than this kind of professional calorimetry can not be relied upon. Anyone who has actually done calorimetry is keenly aware of the difficulty of getting it right. The format of the data spread sheet I provided is useful to evaluate control runs: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf You run the experiment protocol, and fix problems, until the control run COP is 1. Then when you run live you know a COP not 1 is a sign of excess energy. Without a control run, the data is meaningless. Calorimetry is subject to many kinds of artifacts - about as many as there are specific calorimeters. On Oct 10, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I made nearly the same post about a week ago. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:14 PM Subject: [Vo]:No Control I'm reminded of something recently stated over at the PESN web site, author, Hank Mills: See: http://pesn.com/2011/10/08/9501929_E- Cat_Test_Validates_Cold_Fusion_Despite_Challenges/ http://tinyurl.com/6a7zcw2 Specifically: No Control One of the most useful tools in the scientific method is a control. A control is an object or thing that you do not try to change during the experiment. For example, if you were giving an experimental drug to a hundred people, you might want to have a number of additional people who do not receive the drug. You would compare how the drug effects the people who consumed it, to those who did not receive the drug at all. By comparing the two sets of people, those who consumed the drug and those who did not, you could more easily see the effectiveness of the drug -- or if it was doing harm. In Rossi's test, a control system would have been an E-Cat module that was setup in the exact same way, except it would have not been filled with hydrogen gas. It would have had the same flow of water going through it, the same electrical input, and it would have operated for the same length of time as the E-Cat unit with hydrogen. By comparing the two, you could easily see the difference between the control E-Cat (that was not having nuclear reactions take place), and the real E-Cat (that was producing excess heat). If a control had been used in the experiment, the excess heat would be even more obvious. It would have been so obvious, that it could have made the test go from a major success (with some flaws), to the most spectacular scientific test in the last hundred years. Couldn't agree more. Hope someone suggests this to Rossi. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting
At 12:58 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: For what it's worth, here are crops of the thermistors, heat exchanger and manifold: http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1_crop.jpg Diagram : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_manifold_001_h1200.jpg I just heard back from my source ... NO, the thermistor was NOT attached to that nut. It was where we agreed http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/111010_1B_crop.jpg
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Let's now take this to its logical conclusion. At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in higher E-Cat temps than its 124C peak. So, 2.436 kW is our ceiling - maybe a little higher if you assume some loss through the thermal blankets. It begs the question, What's the floor?: Only 380.75 watts are required to raise the incoming water at 24C to 124C. We know some water was boiling, due to the sound, feel and relative temperature stability. But, as with every demonstration, we cannot determine how much. This leaves us wondering whether the average power was closer to 380 watts or 2.5 kw. Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18 pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making 124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar) http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at maximum 1.3g/s and probably less given close to maximum pressure. http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3284823.ece If so then the heat developed during walkthrough is not more than 3.6kw (1.3g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam) but might be less than 2.45kW (0.91g/s 24°C water to 124°C steam), unless the water level in the reactor was dropping. At same point in the walk through Mat shows delta T on secondary of 6.5°C and says that it is flowing 600l/hr (167g/s), that would give a power output of 4.5kW. So the secondary is putting out more heat than the primary could be delivering. This shows that the calorimetry is almost certainly overestimating output by at least 20% (prime candidates are bad outlet thermocouple positon, poor calibration of thermocouples), though it could be a lot more. On 10 October 2011 22:24, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual drain). He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter. The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature. He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the peristaltic pump was increased. We DO have the click-rate of the primary pump recorded during Lewan's walk-through. Not time-stamped, but he says about 1 hour ago we went into self-sustaining mode.
[Vo]:rcdc.it web tv video of Oct 6 Rossi test
In Italian. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5cFOsisAo Some segments of this, such as around 2:00, show people outside at the end of the 20 m cooling water outlet hose. I believe some of them are trying to measure the temperature. Lewan told me the hose was so long, temperature measurements outside were inconsistent and inconclusive. That sounds plausible. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof
Joe: Is that the way to rebut someone who has only questioned some of your reasoning regarding the heat storage capacity of the E-Cat? Your rebuttal is to claim they know nothing about the E-Cat and dismiss their points with no facts or explanation! Then you go on continuing to claim that all your conclusions are right... hmmm, that sounds a bit, dare I say, narsissistic. Welcome to the club! :-) Rothwell has not been able to substantiate his position which seems to be a blind acceptance of CF before anyone heard of Rossi. What the F* does Jed's strong opinions on CF have to do with my questions to you??? 1) My reasoning has nothing to do with Rothwell or anything other than your insistence that the E-Cat's performance can be entirely explained by heat storage by the massive amounts of metal in the E-Cat and the band heater being 900C. 2) You say, I never made the claims you say I made. There are only two quotes which I attribute to you: 80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can tell by the recent conversion of vortex members and Krivit. And, The band heater temp is ~900C. In September test my calculations show that boiling could be produced for many hours. There is certainly a massive amount of metal in the e-cat. Well, I just saved the webpage at TheEEStory.com where I COPIED these quotes from... I would be happy to email it to you. I'd attach the JPEG of the screen capture I made but it's too big and the vortex-l server will not allow the posting. I suppose that someone could have hacked into the EEStory.com website and changed the wording on your forum postings... but who would bother, if it's even possible. Finally, you resort to attacking and threatening me... You seem to confuse your total ignorance with lack of merit. You will regret that. Bring it on Joe... Having been in several small to medium sized startups, and on the Board of Directors for two of them, I've been threatened numerous times with jail and lawsuits and other nasty and unpleasant things. What would really be nice is for you to simply answer my question from the original posting, and I'll repeat it here: So your reasoning is based on the band heater being 900C, and therefore the majority of the massive amount of metal in the E-Cat is at or near that same temperature. You sincerely think that everything underneath the insulation is anywhere near that temp? Being that the only mass that could possibly be anywhere near 900C is the reactor core container, which might be a few kilograms, would you care to revise your ... not on the level of a discussion heat storage estimate??? Well, I guess there are two questions in that... Clearly, these are NOT statements attributed to you, but legitimate, reasonable QUESTIONS to you. All I expect is for you to clear up your reasoning regarding HOW MUCH of all that massive metal is at the very high temperatures that you constantly use in your examples to prove that metal can store megajoules of heat! -Mark -Original Message- From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 12:56 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof Since you know nothing of the e-cat your remarks have been dismissed. Yes it was provable in the September e-cat that the effects were purely based on thermal inertia. I suspect the same here. Rothwell has not been able to substantiate his position which seems to be a blind acceptance of CF before anyone heard of Rossi. I never made the claims you say I made. Yes there has been conversion and elaborate journalism on this point. You seem to confuse your total ignorance with lack of merit. You will regret that. - Original Message - From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof From one narcissist to another... Seems ol Joe thinks he's converted the lot of us... http://www.theeestory.com/users/1681/posts# 80kgs of metal can easily store over 40MJ. It's not on the level of a discussion. My arguments have been extremely convincing as I think you can tell by the recent conversion of vortex members and Krivit. Joe Catania states, The band heater temp is ~900C. In September test my calculations show that boiling could be produced for many hours. There is certainly a massive amount of metal in the e-cat. Joe: So your reasoning is based on the band heater being 900C, and therefore the majority of the massive amount of metal in the E-Cat is at or near that same temperature. You sincerely think that everything underneath the insulation is anywhere near that temp? The melting point of lead is 327C, so we certainly know that the lead is no more than
[Vo]:Considering errors in enthalpy calculations
I have not had time to read all the messages today, but I was thinking about the known error sources. 1) The heat exchanger efficiency cannot be no more than 90%. That is because, the surface area of E-Cat and hose to heat exchanger was in total about 1.3 m². We do not know the surface temperature but if it was 60-85°C, that would be some 300-800 watt heat loss. Therefore 80-90% is reasonable quess for efficiency and in joules this takes 15-20 MJ. We still need to assume that heat were not escaped from the primary loop into drain. 2) Most of the energy of electricity went into preheating E-Cat (ΔT=75°C). 100 kg metal and 25-30 kg water takes about 18 MJ energy that does not show as output, because none of that heat energy makes it into the heat exchanger. Therefore this heat must be added to the total heat output of E-Cat. These are quite significant errors and both are known. Therefore they add up to 40 MJ to the total output that was estimated to be 100-120 MJ. Therefore total output was perhaps as high as 160 MJ. This means that if excess heat was provided by chemical energy, it is required 10 liters of thermite to be burned inside E-Cat. I think that this is significant to consider these rather well known error sources. At least they offer decent buffer, if there are errors in heat exchanger's ΔT due to too high water flow rate in secondary loop. Also, does Mats have good guesses, what was the reasonable water inflow rate into device? Was it the same as in September (11-13 kg/h)? If water inflow rate is known, this gives certain limits how well E-Cat can support boiling. And is there anyway to estimate the surface temperature of E-Cat? —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
The Italian rcde.it video shows that the primary loop water came out of a large plastic garbage can parked next to the pump. It is a shame they did not weigh the garbage can before and after. That would have given the total amount pumped through. It may not all have been vaporized . . . That video may allow you to count the strokes of the pump. It is 14:38 long. - Jed
