Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny  
Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat  
the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all  
experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2.

This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter



I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the  
water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)   
Do you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the  
water flow to steam?


Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I  
recalculated it and can confirm.
Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because  
this is too simple to calculate.

Look here: 


.
At the time I read the original version that did not have the photos.  
I still have the copy. It seemed to me the data could not be relied  
on because the calorimetry was insufficient.  I don't think I  
commented on it on vortex.  I didn't take it seriously.  We have seen  
here on vortex what good calorimetry looks like, and that was not  
close to it.  Based on your comments I took the time to review the  
paper here:


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51632.html


.

At Page 2 they write:
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature,  
10:36 and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to  
raise the temperature of the flowing water from the inlet  
temperature of 17.6 °C to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no  
additional heat had been generated internally, the temperature  
would not exceed the 60 °C recorded at 10:36. Instead the  
temperature increases faster after 10:36,"


I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but  
reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations.

.
The calculations are correct.  However, the data does not look  
credible. It could be and could not be correct. It appears to me that  
the power measurements were not checked or at least recorded frequently.


.


I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not  
actually knowing the true flow rate at all times.  Mattia Rizzi  
observed pump rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s.

Essen & Kullander measured it with a carafe.

.
One measurement is of course not a good substitute for continued  
measurement and recording.

.


(See page 1, chapter "Calibrations").
In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle.
They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my  
life. ( I did electronics and computer servicing there)
They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when  
accurate flow is required.

This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible.

.
I have used peristaltic pumps. I own a couple that I have used for  
various purposes.  Their pump rate varies if frequency changes  
(usually only important for very accurate calorimetry, depending on  
the source of the electricity), and volume varies if pressure head  
varies.

.

If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94  
gm/s, input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the  
flow heated to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated.   All that is  
hard to know too because apparently Rossi touched the control  
panel.  Manual adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is  
changing duty factors.  This is one reason why a good kWh meter  
would be of use.
Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The  
heater should be on some seconds and off some seconds.

.
There was no mention of this in the report.
.
The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it  
corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater.

.
very strange that only the band heater would be used when the  
function of the auxiliary heater is to ignite the reaction.

.



A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats  
is so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much.
I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they  
watched carefully what was going on.
Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy  
source and that there are no tricks,

.
It is not necessary that there be any faking going on.  The  
calorimetry data is simply not good enough to tell what is happening.

.
but I think in the Kullander and Essen demo we can be sure there  
was more energy than 300W. 600W would have been required to heat  
the water flow to 100° and some additional 100 Watts are needed to  
get reasonable 

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
[snip]

 A proven COP of 2 is more important than a doubtful COP of 6.
[snip]
Best regards,

Peter


So very true.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Joe Catania wrote:


They state there is an auxillary heater.


Yes,the Essen reports states: "At the end of the horizontal section  
there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and  
also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of  
control.'


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 20.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:

2011/9/20 Peter Heckert:


I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a
secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80
kg box my doubts are even increased.

Least thing what Rossi wants in this phase that people start to
believe in his E-Cat.
He is creating a community of uncritical believers in his forum, 
answering questions that have been asking a thousand times with 
stereotype nonexplaining answers.
He wants believers that dont ask, that are not interested in technical 
understanding, that are somewhat naive and easy to handle and that are 
potential customers in future.

Why else this forum ?  Why does he take the time?

RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[jean guy moreau]

What are the 2 extra wires(22) for ?

 
 

> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:10:34 +0200
> From: peter.heck...@arcor.de
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
> 
> Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:
> > They state there is an auxillary heater.
> Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see 
> whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue 
> control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they 
> should have reported this.
> 
  <>

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

That wasn't me. I've never posted to that site. But so what? Is that the 
best you can do?
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  
wrote:



Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a
numerical velocity to determine the difference?


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html

I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video. The steam screams! ;-)


I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania.  Look at his
question that no one bothered to answer:

http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html

Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine?  Maybe in a UFO!  

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

To ay the matter to rest I was not the one to use the word dribble. It was 
HH.
- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Horace:
The first thing I thought of when Joe used the word "dribble" was that he
had not seen the video where they opened the water inlet valve on the bottom
and a VERY strong stream of liquid water and steam came out!  To refer to
that as a dribble, is clearly the wrong adjective... "forceful expulsion" is
much closer to an accurate decription.

Joe:
Perhaps you should go back and watch that video several times, and then look
up the word 'dribble' to see if the definition accurately describes what you
saw coming out of that valve... if so, then we're looking at wo different
videos.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:


Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its
vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters
through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high
velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of
flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for
about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still
emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.



Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?



- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:


I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.


Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the
overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how
long it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

The screaming does not indicate high pressure. It could be a whistle effect 
as bubbles of steam are forming in the outlet. Why not experiment and see 
how fast a container drains through an outlet the size of the E-Cat's?
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  
wrote:



Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a
numerical velocity to determine the difference?


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html

I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video.  The steam screams!  ;-)

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
>>> powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.  The couple
>>> atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off.   You need a
>>> numerical velocity to determine the difference?
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html
>>
>> I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video.  The steam screams!  ;-)
>
> I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania.  Look at his
> question that no one bothered to answer:
>
> http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html
>
> Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine?  Maybe in a UFO!  

The first 'is' is 'in'.

T

(with no apologies to President Clinton :)

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/20 Peter Heckert :

> I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a
> secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80
> kg box my doubts are even increased.

Least thing what Rossi wants in this phase that people start to
believe in his E-Cat. No, he has already gained too much publicity for
his needs. The reason why he has refused to make proper demonstrations
was that he wanted originally to go into publicity not sooner than
October.

Also he presented for Levi as good test opportunity as Levi can
measure in order to make the research agreement with University of
Bologna. I think that the for the conclusive Upsala test, the
motivation is the same, that they are preparing for the research
contract in similar manner as with Unibo.

In all demonstrations, I think that Rossi have had definitive
motivation for doing demonstrations. But unfortunately Rossi's
motivation has never been seeking public attention with scientifically
relevant tests (i.e. they are too short, although observers are also
made bad and irrelevant measurements, so that the data is even vorse).
Also, before Rossi has signed proper financial agreements (that were
failed with Defkalion due to obvious reasons), Rossi does not need
publicity into anything. The less people know about him, the more he
has time to do what he wants to do.

Anyway, I kind of like very much of Rossi's attitude. For me he is
making very much of sense. Although some people find him difficult to
understand. In my knowledge, only argument that support a fraud, is
that E-Cat is far too good to be true. It is just wasting of time to
try to rationalize criticism. There is just no evidence that would
support E-Cat to be a fraud.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  
> wrote:
>
>> Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
>> powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.  The couple
>> atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off.   You need a
>> numerical velocity to determine the difference?
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html
>
> I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video.  The steam screams!  ;-)

I don't see why you bother to waste your time on Catania.  Look at his
question that no one bothered to answer:

http://www.industrycommunity.com/bbs/mfg_1_2805.html

Where is the world is there a 5 GW (electric) turbine?  Maybe in a UFO!  

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner  wrote:

> Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
> powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.  The couple
> atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off.   You need a
> numerical velocity to determine the difference?

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51256.html

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51289.html

I don't think Joe has bothered to see the video.  The steam screams!  ;-)

T

RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Horace:
The first thing I thought of when Joe used the word "dribble" was that he
had not seen the video where they opened the water inlet valve on the bottom
and a VERY strong stream of liquid water and steam came out!  To refer to
that as a dribble, is clearly the wrong adjective... "forceful expulsion" is
much closer to an accurate decription.

Joe:
Perhaps you should go back and watch that video several times, and then look
up the word 'dribble' to see if the definition accurately describes what you
saw coming out of that valve... if so, then we're looking at wo different
videos.

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

> Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its  
> vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters  
> through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high  
> velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of  
> flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for  
> about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still  
> emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.


Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a  
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.   
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem  
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?


> - Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"  
> 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
>
>> I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but   
>> the water does not come dribbling out.
>
> Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
> gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
> velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
> opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
> If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.
>
> One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
> above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
> of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.
>
>> Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can  
>> infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the   
>> overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how   
>> long it takes to drain.
>
> Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Horace Heffner
> http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
>
>
>
>
>

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 20.09.2011 22:19, schrieb Joe Catania:
Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly 
like the September test. Why shouldn't they be?

I dont want to convince anybody. I still have doubts myself.
Im just pointing to remarkable aspects that was mostly overseen in 
public discussion.
It is not my task to do thios. This is Rossis and Levis task and they 
failed badly.


Let me tell you how a hoax could be done:

Inside the chimmney is a solid state metal hydride storage system and a 
platin catalyzer that catalyzes hydrogen and oxygen.
This could have the same thermal characteristic that was observed. 
Together with the errors of the steam measurement this could give the 
surplus energy.
I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as 
a secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this 
big 80 kg box my doubts are even increased.


We should learn about this when it was tested in Upsala as promised.

Best regards,
Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly like 
the September test. Why shouldn't they be?
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:

They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see whats 
below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue control box 
where they measured the input current. If not, then they should have 
reported this.

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:

They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see 
whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue 
control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they 
should have reported this.

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

The point is that a gallon empties very quickly even though not vented at 
the top. The sound it makes is immaterial and is most like caused by the 
water hitting the barrel. I don't know why you feel the water is under 
inordinate pressure. The E-CAt is open to the atmosphere unless Lewan seals 
the other valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting. 
Why not ask Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat?
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its 
vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters 
through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high 
velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of  flow out 
the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for  about 1 minute 
20 seconds before ending and the tank is still  emptying. I assume ~20L of 
water in the tank.



Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?




- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" 


To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but   the 
water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.

Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can 
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the 
overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how   long 
it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Really?
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:


I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure whether 
Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure 
to obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements 
prevents the public from knowing.


There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public
discussions:

In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to
100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and
so the COP should be larger than 2.
This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

They state there is an auxillary heater.
- Original Message - 
From: "Peter Heckert" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik 
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 
100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and 
so the COP should be larger than 2.

This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter



I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in 
the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)  Do you mean there 
wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water flow to steam?



Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I
recalculated it and can confirm.
Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because this
is too simple to calculate.
Look here: <http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EssenHexperiment.pdf>
At Page 2 they write:
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36
and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the
temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C
to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been
generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C
recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after
10:36,"

I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but
reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations.

I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not actually 
knowing the true flow rate at all times.  Mattia Rizzi observed pump rates 
on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s.

Essen & Kullander measured it with a carafe. (See page 1, chapter
"Calibrations").
In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle.
They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my life.
( I did electronics and computer servicing there)
They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when
accurate flow is required.
This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible.
If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/s, 
input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow heated to 
100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated.   All that is hard to know too 
because apparently Rossi touched the control panel.  Manual adjustment is 
apparently part of the process, as is changing duty factors.  This is one 
reason why a good kWh meter would be of use.

Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The heater
should be on some seconds and off some seconds.
The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it
corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater.


A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is so 
high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much.

I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they watched
carefully what was going on.
Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy source
and that there are no tricks, but I think in the Kullander and Essen
demo we can be sure there was more energy than 300W. 600W would have
been required to heat the water flow to 100° and some additional 100
Watts are needed to get reasonable steam and boiling.

Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy is 
meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques.  Total 
energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the meaningful number.

Yes of course for a scientific publication test this is necessary, but
not for a qualitative plausibility test.

Best,
Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 20.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
But I have several times told to Horace if he bothered to look up the 
report and see the data by himself, but he have refused to even look 
the data available. This kind of attitude is very sad from him. –Jouni 
Maybe not everybody has the time. I dont really have it, but I have 
taken it anyway ;-)


It is also sad that Kullander & Essen did not emphasize this. They tell 
this like an unimportant remark, but I think this is the most important 
fact. A proven COP of 2 is more important than a doubtful COP of 6.

I also cannot understand why dont Rossi & Levi emphasize and explain this.

Please stay calm.  I can understand him.  I had (and have) my serious 
doubts about this and sometime I fear it is wasted time to go deep into 
this. Rossis answers in his forum  are often unlogical or untrue or 
misleading and he contributes to this.


Best regards,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
> I am familiar with multivariate regression analysis.
> It is of comparatively little use when there are missing
> critical variables.

Therefore you must MEASURE the critical variables. ALL of them. This
much I require common sense.


> Your approach will tell us nothing about the army tank.

We are not interested about the tank, but only for the Prius. If we
are going to studying the tank, we must make ALL appropriate
measurements for the tank to establish proper correlation. This much I
require common sense.


> Best to simply *directly* measure the fuel consumption
> for each vehicle don't you think?

No it is not the best way, because we have big uncertainties for
measuring fuel consumption in the long run. But we can measure the
momentary fuel consumption very accurately. Up to two or three
significant digits. Therefore we must use these short tests to
establish correlation for steam pressure and total enthalpy.

This is simplest method for doing long run tests such as 24 hour / 27
kW power output, what is just too high power level for any reasonable
sub-boiling water calorimetry.


2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
>
>> Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:
>>>
>>> I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure whether
>>> Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The continued failure to
>>> obtain independent high quality input and output energy measurements
>>> prevents the public from knowing.
>>
>> There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public
>> discussions:
>>
>> In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik
>> demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 100°
>> Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
>> There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and
>> so the COP should be larger than 2.
>> This is mass flow calorimetry.
>> There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
>> So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the water in
> the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)

Please review reports before you start trolling discussion with your
misconceptions, because you are so [*censored*] that you do not need
to bother to check MEASURED FACTS out.

And to refresh your memory, in Krivit's demonstration first of all, it
lasted about 15 minutes and there was not made any measurements expect
electric current was measured. But that value was also useless,
because voltage was not measured. Any any reasonable scientific
discourse we ignore data that is based on non-measured allegations in
favor of measured data. I admit that data could be better, but that is
all we have.

So, please, check at least facts before you are trolling the
discussion. It seems that you derive all your opinions from Krivit's
demonstration, but you fail to understand that that test is useless
because there was not measured any values. Also in that time Rossi had
already perfected new self-sustaining E-Cat. Perhaps this was the
reason, why he did not show Krivit a working E-Cat, because that model
was already obsolete. Rossi has only shown latest development versions
of his E-Cat's in demonstrations.

===

Peter, sorry about that above message content but you are correct. We
can calculate from the steam pressure, that K&E's E-Cat was producing
ca. 2 kW energy. As input was ca. 310 volts the COP was ca. 6.4x or
something similar (uncertainties are quite high with that
demonstration). This is what Rossi promised. Too bad that K&E failed
to measure the enthalpy more properly, e.g by doing several water trap
and steam sparging tests.

December test was most best suited. In that demonstration 1200 W
electric heater heated E-Cat only ca. 20°C (I do not remember
accurately) in 30 minutes. Later when excess heat production was
kicked in, water temperature rose into 60°C just in five minutes or
so. That means that total heating power was boosted by six fold more
than electric input. And later of course E-Cat was running
self-sustaining for 15 minutes. In December demonstration we had
clearly the best data available, and from that data we can make
calculations with at least one significant number.

But I have several times told to Horace if he bothered to look up the
report and see the data by himself, but he have refused to even look
the data available. This kind of attitude is very sad from him.


 –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik 
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water 
to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments 
and so the COP should be larger than 2.

This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter



I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the 
water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)  Do 
you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water 
flow to steam?


Yes. Kullander and Essen have calculated this explicitely and I 
recalculated it and can confirm.
Also I dont think two Physics Professors can do errors here because this 
is too simple to calculate.

Look here: 
At Page 2 they write:
"It is worth noting that at this point in time and temperature, 10:36 
and 60°C, the 300 W from the heater is barely sufficient to raise the 
temperature of the flowing water from the inlet temperature of 17.6 °C 
to the 60 °C recorded at this time. If no additional heat had been 
generated internally, the temperature would not exceed the 60 °C 
recorded at 10:36. Instead the temperature increases faster after 
10:36,"


I recalculated this. I did not recalculate the other documents, but 
reliable persons said this and I made some rule of thumb estimations.


I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not actually 
knowing the true flow rate at all times.  Mattia Rizzi observed pump 
rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s.
Essen & Kullander measured it with a carafe. (See page 1, chapter 
"Calibrations").

In the january experiment they measured the weigt of the water bottle.
They use a peristaltic pump. I was often in chemical labors in my life. 
( I did electronics and computer servicing there)
They use peristaltic pumps, (equipped with calibrated hoses) when 
accurate flow is required.

This should be pretty constant and a big variation would be audible.
If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/s, 
input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow heated 
to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated.   All that is hard to know 
too because apparently Rossi touched the control panel.  Manual 
adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is changing duty 
factors.  This is one reason why a good kWh meter would be of use.
Yes but the heater is controlled by a zero crosspoint switch. The heater 
should be on some seconds and off some seconds.
The current that they measured should be the maximum current and it 
corresponded to the 300W rating of the band heater.



A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is 
so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much. 
I think Kullander and Essen where there all the time and they watched 
carefully what was going on.
Of course this cannot prove that there ai no hidden fake energy source 
and that there are no tricks, but I think in the Kullander and Essen 
demo we can be sure there was more energy than 300W. 600W would have 
been required to heat the water flow to 100° and some additional 100 
Watts are needed to get reasonable steam and boiling.


Only fast sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy 
is meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques.  
Total energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the 
meaningful number.
Yes of course for a scientific publication test this is necessary, but 
not for a qualitative plausibility test.


Best,
Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its  
vented at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters  
through the bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high  
velocity flow in the video. Since you can't tell me the rate of  
flow out the valve we have nothing to discuss. The video runs for  
about 1 minute 20 seconds before ending and the tank is still  
emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.



Sigh.  Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a  
high powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure.   
The couple atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem  
off.   You need a numerical velocity to determine the difference?





- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"  


To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but   
the water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.

Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can  
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the   
overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how   
long it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:


I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure  
whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The  
continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and  
output energy measurements prevents the public from knowing.


There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all  
public discussions:


In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny  
Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat  
the water to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all  
experiments and so the COP should be larger than 2.

This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter



I don't recall at all that there was not enough power to boil the  
water in the initial tests. (My memory is not very good though!)  Do  
you mean there wasn't enough power applied to convert all the water  
flow to steam?


I guess one of the problems with making that assertion is not  
actually knowing the true flow rate at all times.  Mattia Rizzi  
observed pump rates on a video which indicated much less than 2 gm/s.


If I recall correctly the Krivit demo was for the most part 1.94 gm/ 
s, input temp 23°C, and 748 W input, which makes for all the flow  
heated to 100°C plus 83 cc/sec steam generated.   All that is hard to  
know too because apparently Rossi touched the control panel.  Manual  
adjustment is apparently part of the process, as is changing duty  
factors.  This is one reason why a good kWh meter would be of use.


A technical problem exists because the thermal mass of the E-cats is  
so high. Momentary power readings don't mean very much. Only fast  
sampled power measurements integrated to cumulative energy is  
meaningful, or first principle energy integrating techniques.  Total  
energy in vs total energy out for a long period is the meaningful  
number.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked but if its vented 
at the top you should get a steady stream. Or if air enters through the 
bottom you don't get a dribble! I scan't confirm high velocity flow in the 
video. Since you can't tell me the rate of flow out the valve we have 
nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before 
ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but  the 
water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.

One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.

Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can 
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the  overlying 
water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how  long it takes to 
drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:


I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure 
whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The 
continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output 
energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. 


There is one thing that was unfortunately ignored in allmost all public 
discussions:


In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik 
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water to 
100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There was without doubt some considerable boiling in all experiments and 
so the COP should be larger than 2.

This is mass flow calorimetry.
There /must/ be more energy than the /measured/ electrical energy.
So there is something, lets hope it is not a trick.

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :


I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that  
there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and  
enthalpy? Do

you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea
yourself?

There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how  
much gas it
uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage the  
vehicle
gets.  The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles per gallon  
(21
km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per mile (0.142  
km/liter).

 The problem is insufficient known variables.



Your analog is perfect and i could come up better analogy myself. Here
indeed is the key point of your misunderstanding. Idea is that we
should measure the Prius' fuel consumption rate in different
velocities. We can measure the fuel consumption rate for the
velocities of 200 km/h, 150 km/h, 130 km/h, 100 km/h, 55 mph, 10 m/s,
etc. Then we have enough data points to find best fitted function that
expresses the relationship between fuel consumption and the speed.
Then afterwards we can just measure the speed of Prius and we can find
out the fuel consumption rate for any speed e.g. 70 km/h and also we
can let Prius running overnight and then later examine from the speed
logger how much fuel Prius consumed during the overnight run.


I am familiar with multivariate regression analysis.  It is of  
comparatively little use when there are missing critical variables.  
Your approach will tell us nothing about the army tank.  Best to  
simply *directly* measure the fuel consumption for each vehicle don't  
you think?  That is the simple approach. Best to use standard methods  
to perform calorimetry directly on each E-cat output, and not rely on  
insufficient data, hidden instruments or guesses as to what is inside  
a black box.





You are just utterly mistaken here. Period.


My goodness, how unscientific.



Please do not invent silly
excuses, because you are just digging yourself even deeper into quick
sand. You have mistaken and insulting me indirectly does not gain for
you any further respect. It is irrelevant what words do you have for
insulting. Only thing that matter is that how Lawrence perceives them.

   –Jouni


Again, what specifically that I wrote do you find insulting?  If what  
you have written appears to me to not be based in reality, am I not  
allowed to voice that opinion?  If I think something is not based in  
reality is it an error to call it a fantasy?  Is it insulting to you  
when I disagree with you?


I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure  
whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The  
continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output  
energy measurements prevents the public from knowing. Since the  
public is being kept in the dark, the months of fluffy bluster does,  
however, tip the scales more strongly toward a negative verdict. What  
a pity and waste of valuable time this is for Rossi if there really  
is something extraordinary going on in the E-cat. Hopefully the 1 MW  
unit test will provide economical steam for a very long period."


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but  
the water does not come dribbling out. Since its open to the  
atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the  
bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlying water dosen't  
give it pressure. We also don't know how long it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but  
the water does not come dribbling out.


Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping".  The water flows from a  
gallon container in an unsteady stream.  It doesn't spray out at high  
velocity as if it were from a pressure washer nozzle. Besides, the  
opening on the E-cat was much smaller than a typical gallon bottle.   
If you poke a small hole in a gallon bottle it will dribble or drip.


One estimate given for the tank pressure was 2 bar. The water was  
above 100°C so some of it flashed to steam. It came from the bottom  
of the tank so was likely entirely water before being ejected.


Since its open to the atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can  
infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the  
overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how  
long it takes to drain.


Aha.  We have a dribble quibble.  8^)

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
>>
>> I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
>> correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do
>> you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea
>> yourself?
>>
> There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how much gas it
> uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage the vehicle
> gets.  The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles per gallon (21
> km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per mile (0.142 km/liter).
>  The problem is insufficient known variables.
>

Your analog is perfect and i could come up better analogy myself. Here
indeed is the key point of your misunderstanding. Idea is that we
should measure the Prius' fuel consumption rate in different
velocities. We can measure the fuel consumption rate for the
velocities of 200 km/h, 150 km/h, 130 km/h, 100 km/h, 55 mph, 10 m/s,
etc. Then we have enough data points to find best fitted function that
expresses the relationship between fuel consumption and the speed.
Then afterwards we can just measure the speed of Prius and we can find
out the fuel consumption rate for any speed e.g. 70 km/h and also we
can let Prius running overnight and then later examine from the speed
logger how much fuel Prius consumed during the overnight run.

You are just utterly mistaken here. Period. Please do not invent silly
excuses, because you are just digging yourself even deeper into quick
sand. You have mistaken and insulting me indirectly does not gain for
you any further respect. It is irrelevant what words do you have for
insulting. Only thing that matter is that how Lawrence perceives them.

   –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the water 
does not come dribbling out. Since its open to the atmosphere it won't 
dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the bottom it won't dribble. I'm not 
saying the overlying water dosen't give it pressure. We also don't know how 
long it takes to drain.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.


Joe, could you please explain why the water is ejected at such a high 
velocity instead of just dribbling out of the tap?



On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

One does not have to measure that it is open to the atmosphere  since 
that is a valid datum. It is no assumption. Assuming it is  under 
pressure is worthless. You did not observe pressure. What  experience 
would you be talking about? Its incredible to me that  there would be any 
significant pressure in something open to the  atmosphere. That should be 
your experience.
- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" 


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric 
pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot  metal.


That is an assumption, not a measurement.

When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under 
significant pressure.  That is an assumption on my part, but based  on 
observation and experience.


It should not be under that much pressure.  The other end should  be 
open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying  out the 
hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is  present.


It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and 
pressure of the supply water  (since we know for sure that is 
variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the  relief 
valve.





- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" 


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:


Why do you think the device is under pressure?


See end of:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/ article3264362.ece

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

I was done commenting on your posts, but I see you want me to comment  
more.


Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you  
have never seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on  
that, because it might fail you.




Uh ... a device is purported to create excess heat. Bad calorimetry  
(even as admitted by you) is applied to public demonstrations.   
Public and press pointed this out.  Instead of doing the right thing  
and correcting the calorimetry and re-running tests at nominal cost  
and effort, the response is to change the device and continue with  
more bad calorimetry of a different sort?   The response is to keep  
true experts away that have extensive experience and will do  
calorimetry for free.   How can anyone rely on any claims when kind  
of approach is taken?  You think we haven't seen this kind of thing  
here on vortex before?   What do you think the success rate is for  
creating useful products using this kind of approach?  We have even  
seen people who have struggled to prove themselves wrong, who  
continually strived to get to the scientific truth, and still failed  
to make a product designed to produce the expected excess heat.   
However, such efforts are highly laudable.  They exhibit the best  
qualities of mankind and the scientific method. The seekers avoided  
at great cost going down the road of fantasy and self delusion that  
such a large majority of free energy seekers have gone before.  This  
is not an uncommon occurrence, now or in the past.


"A more self-willed, self-satisfied, or self-deluded class of the  
community, making at the same time pretension to superior knowledge,  
it would be impossible to imagine. They hope against hope, scorning  
all opposition with ridiculous vehemence, although centuries have not  
advanced them one step in the way of progress."


Henry Dircks, Perpetuam Mobile, or A History of Search for Self- 
Motive Power from the 13th to the 19th Century, 1870, P.354.  A  
comment on perpetual motion seekers.


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg51474.html
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that  
there is a correlation between steam production rate (i.e.  
pressure) and enthalpy? Do you discard it only because you were  
unable to come up with the idea yourself?


There is a correlation between how fast a vehicle drives and how much  
gas it uses. This correlation means nothing with regards to mileage  
the vehicle gets.  The vehicle could be a Prius which gets 50 miles  
per gallon (21 km/liter) , or an army tank which gets 3 gallons per  
mile (0.142 km/liter).  The problem is insufficient known variables.


Why do you demand ultra high accuracy for calorimetry for short  
tests, although short tests cannot exclude hidden power sources.  
Also your suggestions for method does not even provide great  
accuracy without extensive efforts, but calorimetry from steam  
pressure is here more accurate, because there is not involved  
unknown rate of escaping heat due to insufficient insulation. We  
can estimate the heat loss just by measuring the surface  
temperature of E-Cat. Very simple and accurate.




This statement I take to be out of touch with reality.  What should I  
call it?  Fantasy seems like a nice word.  What word would you  
recommend I use?


Is it not easier to demand that MW power plant would run  
continuously producing it's own electricity 24 hours per day, and  
seven days per week and 52 weeks per year?


No.  It is reasonable to expect someone making claims which can cost  
investors thousands or millions of dollars to apply some effort to  
correct bad work before moving on to something so big that it is  
dangerous, very expensive, and very difficult to prove out with a  
test.   Testing the small components (E-cats) makes much more sense.   
If the small components do not create free or nuclear energy then an  
aggregate of them can not produce free or nuclear energy.  If the  
small units perform as expected as scientifically verified then the  
large unit can be expected to perform, except perhaps with  
operational and safety difficulties due to increased complexity and  
size.



See how utterly out of context your pondring is here, because  
indeed, electricity production rate depends on only one thing and  
that is the pressure of steam MW E-Cat can provide.


Sigh.  Water can be sealed into an insulated box and massive  
temperatures and pressure built up with nominal energy.  Using this  
approach with an E-cat is supposed to prove free energy??  This  
appears to be an assertion that is without any basis in fact.  What  
would you like me to call that?  The nicest word that comes to mind  
is fantasy.



Calibration of instruments is of course necessary, but even more  
necessary is to use common sense.


Also, instead of more insults,



Could you be very specific as to what I said

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

Joe, could you please explain why the water is ejected at such a high  
velocity instead of just dribbling out of the tap?



On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:55 AM, Joe Catania wrote:

One does not have to measure that it is open to the atmosphere  
since that is a valid datum. It is no assumption. Assuming it is  
under pressure is worthless. You did not observe pressure. What  
experience would you be talking about? Its incredible to me that  
there would be any significant pressure in something open to the  
atmosphere. That should be your experience.
- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"  


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric   
pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot  
metal.


That is an assumption, not a measurement.

When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under   
significant pressure.  That is an assumption on my part, but based  
on  observation and experience.


It should not be under that much pressure.  The other end should  
be  open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying  
out the  hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is  
present.


It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and  
pressure of the supply water  (since we know for sure that is   
variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the  
relief  valve.





- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"  


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:


Why do you think the device is under pressure?


See end of:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/ 
article3264362.ece


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

One does not have to measure that it is open to the atmosphere since that is 
a valid datum. It is no assumption. Assuming it is under pressure is 
worthless. You did not observe pressure. What experience would you be 
talking about? Its incredible to me that there would be any significant 
pressure in something open to the atmosphere. That should be your 
experience.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric  pressure. 
The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal.


That is an assumption, not a measurement.

When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under  significant 
pressure.  That is an assumption on my part, but based on  observation and 
experience.


It should not be under that much pressure.  The other end should be  open 
to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying out the  hole 
around the thermometer if that much pressure is present.


It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and 
pressure of the supply water  (since we know for sure that is  variable), 
and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the relief  valve.





- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner" 


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:


Why do you think the device is under pressure?


See end of:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 11-09-20 02:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods 
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around 
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to 
disprove claims.  How sad.  I suppose you don't think you need bother 
with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods.  Must be 
true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate 
calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother spending 
time and money on that?  With such bad calorimetry methods applied so 
far there is a risk it could all be merely a big systematic mistake.  
That would be so inconvenient to discover.


Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my 
little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15 
years discussing things just like this.  I'm not sure why I posted at 
all on this.  I suppose it present some fun problems and an 
opportunity to learn.  Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the 
gestalt of the list.


Dunno about anyone else, but I've certainly read -- and appreciated -- 
your posts on this, Horace.  Thank you!


As to Jouni ... well, I plonked him quite a while back and haven't read 
any of his posts since.

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jouni Valkonen]

Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you have never
seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on that, because it might
fail you.

I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do
you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea
yourself?

Why do you demand ultra high accuracy for calorimetry for short tests,
although short tests cannot exclude hidden power sources. Also your
suggestions for method does not even provide great accuracy without
extensive efforts, but calorimetry from steam pressure is here more
accurate, because there is not involved unknown rate of escaping heat due to
insufficient insulation. We can estimate the heat loss just by measuring the
surface temperature of E-Cat. Very simple and accurate.

Is it not easier to demand that MW power plant would run continuously
producing it's own electricity 24 hours per day, and seven days per week and
52 weeks per year? See how utterly out of context your pondring is here,
because indeed, electricity production rate depends on only one thing and
that is the pressure of steam MW E-Cat can provide. Calibration of
instruments is of course necessary, but even more necessary is to use common
sense.

Also, instead of more insults, i am still expecting you to apologize your
public insults what you have made. I am especially offended by your insults
that did end up into Krivit's Blog. And also, I consider your experience
with zero value. Only thing that matters is what you are now. In the history
we have just too much examples where experience has guided people into wrong
direction, so it is not relevant to trust into experience, but do the
thinking always on the basis of fresh arguments and clear thinking without
prejudices.

 —Jouni
On Sep 20, 2011 9:51 AM, "Horace Heffner"  wrote:
> Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
> which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
> things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
> disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother
> with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods. Must be
> true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate
> calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother
> spending time and money on that? With such bad calorimetry methods
> applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big
> systematic mistake. That would be so inconvenient to discover.
>
> Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my
> little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15
> years discussing things just like this. I'm not sure why I posted at
> all on this. I suppose it present some fun problems and an
> opportunity to learn. Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the
> gestalt of the list.
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> 2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
>>> It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic
>>> scientific
>>> methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
>>> overlooked.
>>> That is the importance of using experimental controls.
>>
>> Uh. No way it is important!
>>
>> What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the
>> enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical
>> power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even
>> more important to understand in what context methods from scientists'
>> guide book should be applied.
>>
>> Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know
>> the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with
>> traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do
>> not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do
>> not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of
>> theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just
>> calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and
>> we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity
>> heats the system.
>>
>> I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment,
>> because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make
>> calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure
>> inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment,
>> because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating
>> power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would
>> be necessary.
>>
>> Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for "control
>> experiments" as it would be same thing as testing well known internal
>> combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent
>> in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get
>> the picture.)
>>
>>> In the case of the

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods  
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around  
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to  
disprove claims.  How sad.  I suppose you don't think you need bother  
with calibration control runs to check calorimetry methods.  Must be  
true if quality calorimetry is never applied I guess. Doing accurate  
calorimetry could prove embarrassing I suppose, so why bother  
spending time and money on that?  With such bad calorimetry methods  
applied so far there is a risk it could all be merely a big  
systematic mistake.  That would be so inconvenient to discover.


Well, I've made an attempt to provide what benefit I can from of my  
little experiences doing free energy experiments, and spending 15  
years discussing things just like this.  I'm not sure why I posted at  
all on this.  I suppose it present some fun problems and an  
opportunity to learn.  Hopefully, my posting has contributed to the  
gestalt of the list.



On Sep 19, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic  
scientific

methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
overlooked.
That is the importance of using experimental controls.


Uh. No way it is important!

What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the
enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical
power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even
more important to understand in what context methods from scientists'
guide book should be applied.

Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know
the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with
traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do
not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do
not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of
theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just
calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and
we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity
heats the system.

I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment,
because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make
calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure
inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment,
because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating
power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would
be necessary.

Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for "control
experiments" as it would be same thing as testing well known internal
combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent
in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get
the picture.)

In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass  
and is
highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of  
being a
means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and  
emergency

procedures.



I am sure that for the last 24 months and last 4 months with the new
version, Rossi has done nothing but test runs!

 –Jouni



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
> It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific
> methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
> overlooked.
> That is the importance of using experimental controls.

Uh. No way it is important!

What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the
enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical
power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even
more important to understand in what context methods from scientists'
guide book should be applied.

Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know
the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with
traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do
not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do
not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of
theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just
calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and
we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity
heats the system.

I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment,
because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make
calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure
inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment,
because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating
power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would
be necessary.

Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for "control
experiments" as it would be same thing as testing well known internal
combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent
in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get
the picture.)

> In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass and is
> highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of being a
> means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and emergency
> procedures.
>

I am sure that for the last 24 months and last 4 months with the new
version, Rossi has done nothing but test runs!

 –Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric  
pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal.


That is an assumption, not a measurement.

When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under  
significant pressure.  That is an assumption on my part, but based on  
observation and experience.


It should not be under that much pressure.  The other end should be  
open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying out the  
hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is present.


It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and  
pressure of the supply water  (since we know for sure that is  
variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the relief  
valve.





- Original Message - From: "Horace Heffner"  


To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:


Why do you think the device is under pressure?


See end of:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/








Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic  
scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies  
science, is overlooked.  That is the importance of using experimental  
controls.  In the case of the E-cat it is clearly important to  
calibrate any calorimetry done using a preliminary control experiment  
or series of experiments, i.e without any catalyst or hydrogen  
present, or a least no hydrogen present. It should be feasible to use  
a kWh meter to measure energy in and exactly match that energy via  
total heat out measurement.


After control runs and calorimetry calibration is achieved, then a  
live run made exactly the same way should show any added effect from  
the catalyst and hydrogen.


In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass and  
is highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of  
being a means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and  
emergency procedures.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:



It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking  
about a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which  
Rossi claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW!
So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be dangerous,  
don't get me wrong that can still be very dangerous.
But if you are a true skeptic than the calculations should be based  
also upon this fake amount of 167 kW i.s.o. 1 MW, because everyone  
can see the amount of energy that is put in it!


Kind regards,

MoB



There is no justification to call anything a fake.  No one has  
actually measured total energy in and total energy out for any E-cat  
device and made it public. Momentary power measurements are  
useless.   The problem is the calorimetry applied is so poor as to  
learn almost nothing at all about a hidden device of not fully known  
structure and function. Everything is speculation.


It is easy to get a MW out for a while, even periodically,  even if  
the only input has been 167 kW.  The thermal mass is huge.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The 
steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.




On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:


Why do you think the device is under pressure?


See end of:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:


Why do you think the device is under pressure?


See end of:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Man on Bridges]

Hi,

On 20-9-2011 0:11, Horace Heffner wrote:
It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there 
is no excess energy produced.  This is because purely normal 
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric 
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a steel 
heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible thermal 
mass Mt given by:


   Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K 


On 19-9-2011 23:47, Jed Rothwell wrote:
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > wrote:


It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence
the subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus &
completely unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer
from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't
possibly harm a fly.


If it is fake, presumably those are electric heaters. Fake or real, it 
will produce a great deal of steam -- presumably about a megawatt, or 
it will not fool anyone. He could hardly get away with dry ice instead 
of steam. 1 MW of anything is dangerous: steam, hot water, hot air, 
electricity . . . Very dangerous!


It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking about 
a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which Rossi 
claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW!
So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be dangerous, don't get 
me wrong that can still be very dangerous.
But if you are a true skeptic than the calculations should be based also 
upon this fake amount of 167 kW i.s.o. 1 MW, because everyone can see 
the amount of energy that is put in it!


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Joe Catania]

Why do you think the device is under pressure?
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.



On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a
fly.


It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there
is no excess energy produced.  This is because purely normal
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a
steel heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible
thermal mass Mt given by:

   Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K

At 200°C, or delta T = 100°C above boiling, this is an energy storage
of 196 MJ.  This is enough to produce 196 MW seconds of boiling
energy if the water being recycled back into the E-cat from a
condenser is at 100°C.  It is thus critical to know where the heating
element is located in the E-cat, and the general geometry of the
device, to determine the device safety even if no excess energy is
produced.

Earlier I estimated the flow rate out the E-cat pipe to be 223 m/s,
or 803 km/hr, at 1 MW output with 100°C water recycled.  This is over
6 times a reasonable flow rate limit for the pipe size.

Each of the new E-cats, if like the one demonstrated briefly, can
utilize 2500 W electric input, for a total of 130 kW. If the E-cat is
operating at a COP of 6 then it will produce 0.78 MW of thermal
output. However, if the thermal mass is heated to a mean temperature
of 200°C, the device can periodically produce over a MW of steam
without any excess energy input at all ever.  This demonstrates why
it is important to measure each test run total energy balance vs
momentary powers.

Instabilities can develop in the water condense cycle flow rate,
especially if the condenser capacity can be overrun. If the condenser
capacity is overrun an explosion can result due to pressure build up.
High pressure steam can drive water within and from the condenser
into the E-cat, and then steam as well, creating a momentary feedback
loop.  If the steam momentarily cannot be condensed at an adequate
rate, say due to water slugs in the line, then the input water flow
rate is momentarily low and the water entering will end up
superheated steam, allowing the thermal mass to overheat. This kind
of flow instability then can be the source cause for a periodically
over 1 MW feedback loop oscillating condition to form, even without
excess energy.  This demonstrates the need to control the flow of
water into each E-cat independent of the flow rate out of the
condenser and dependent on the mean thermal energy stored in the
overall device.

The new 80 kg E-cat, one 52nd of the 1 MW E-cat, when tested alone,
looked like it might have had some unusual transient properties. For
example, it is strange the device at the end was under so much
pressure, yet steam was not pouring forth from the thermometer well,
around the probe.  The hose itself should have been able to take much
of the pressure off the device. It looked as if possibly some
thermostatically controlled orifice closed or the output flow was
momentarily blocked for some reason (pure speculation of course.) If
true, that a dangerous situation was suddenly perceived by the
operators, then this one wild speculation would account for the
abrupt lack of will to carry on the experiment through the night, or
the next day.  The huge thermal mass provided by 80 kg of mostly
steel could bring instabilities not only to a 1 MW E-cat made of 52
of them, but internal instabilities to the small E-cats by
themselves. There is no way of knowing if this is true without
detailed knowledge of the structure of the device. Such knowledge is
not required to determine true COP, provided total test run energy
balances are accurately determined.  Such knowledge is required,
however, to make any estimate of the device safety.

If a single E-cat catastrophically fails, it will be difficult to
enter the container to perform any emergency operation of the
remaining devices. Hopefully complete operation can be performed
remotely.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a
fly.


It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there  
is no excess energy produced.  This is because purely normal  
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric  
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a  
steel heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible  
thermal mass Mt given by:


   Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K

At 200°C, or delta T = 100°C above boiling, this is an energy storage  
of 196 MJ.  This is enough to produce 196 MW seconds of boiling  
energy if the water being recycled back into the E-cat from a  
condenser is at 100°C.  It is thus critical to know where the heating  
element is located in the E-cat, and the general geometry of the  
device, to determine the device safety even if no excess energy is  
produced.


Earlier I estimated the flow rate out the E-cat pipe to be 223 m/s,  
or 803 km/hr, at 1 MW output with 100°C water recycled.  This is over  
6 times a reasonable flow rate limit for the pipe size.


Each of the new E-cats, if like the one demonstrated briefly, can  
utilize 2500 W electric input, for a total of 130 kW. If the E-cat is  
operating at a COP of 6 then it will produce 0.78 MW of thermal  
output. However, if the thermal mass is heated to a mean temperature  
of 200°C, the device can periodically produce over a MW of steam  
without any excess energy input at all ever.  This demonstrates why  
it is important to measure each test run total energy balance vs  
momentary powers.


Instabilities can develop in the water condense cycle flow rate,  
especially if the condenser capacity can be overrun. If the condenser  
capacity is overrun an explosion can result due to pressure build up.  
High pressure steam can drive water within and from the condenser  
into the E-cat, and then steam as well, creating a momentary feedback  
loop.  If the steam momentarily cannot be condensed at an adequate  
rate, say due to water slugs in the line, then the input water flow  
rate is momentarily low and the water entering will end up  
superheated steam, allowing the thermal mass to overheat. This kind  
of flow instability then can be the source cause for a periodically  
over 1 MW feedback loop oscillating condition to form, even without  
excess energy.  This demonstrates the need to control the flow of  
water into each E-cat independent of the flow rate out of the  
condenser and dependent on the mean thermal energy stored in the  
overall device.


The new 80 kg E-cat, one 52nd of the 1 MW E-cat, when tested alone,  
looked like it might have had some unusual transient properties. For  
example, it is strange the device at the end was under so much  
pressure, yet steam was not pouring forth from the thermometer well,  
around the probe.  The hose itself should have been able to take much  
of the pressure off the device. It looked as if possibly some  
thermostatically controlled orifice closed or the output flow was  
momentarily blocked for some reason (pure speculation of course.) If  
true, that a dangerous situation was suddenly perceived by the  
operators, then this one wild speculation would account for the  
abrupt lack of will to carry on the experiment through the night, or  
the next day.  The huge thermal mass provided by 80 kg of mostly  
steel could bring instabilities not only to a 1 MW E-cat made of 52  
of them, but internal instabilities to the small E-cats by  
themselves. There is no way of knowing if this is true without  
detailed knowledge of the structure of the device. Such knowledge is  
not required to determine true COP, provided total test run energy  
balances are accurately determined.  Such knowledge is required,  
however, to make any estimate of the device safety.


If a single E-cat catastrophically fails, it will be difficult to  
enter the container to perform any emergency operation of the  
remaining devices. Hopefully complete operation can be performed  
remotely.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jed Rothwell]

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject
> of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely unproven source of
> energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW
> demonstration couldn't possibly harm a fly.
>

If it is fake, presumably those are electric heaters. Fake or real, it will
produce a great deal of steam -- presumably about a megawatt, or it will not
fool anyone. He could hardly get away with dry ice instead of steam. 1 MW of
anything is dangerous: steam, hot water, hot air, electricity . . . Very
dangerous!

I have always been enchanted by heavy equipment such as railroad
locomotives, airplanes, and factory tools. I guess it runs in the family
since my father worked in the engine room of a ship. He was almost killed by
a deck engine. His arm was crushed.

One of my earliest memories is the smell, noise, and heat of a locomotive
arriving at a station, and my father saying: "stand back, those things are
dangerous."

See "The Secret of the Machines":

Do you wish to make the mountains bare their head
And lay their new-cut forests at your feet ?
Do you want to turn a river in its bed,
Or plant a barren wilderness with wheat ? . . .

. . . It is easy! Give us dynamite and drills!
Watch the iron-shouldered rocks lie down and quake,
As the thirsty desert-level floods and fills,
And the valley we have dammed becomes a lake.

But remember, please, the Law by which we live,
We are not built to comprehend a lie,
We can neither love nor pity nor forgive.
If you make a slip in handling us you die!

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_secretmachines.htm

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:


> Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF
> for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to
> raise concerns,. . .

Please understand that most fences are quite an uncomfortable roost.
Hence, while staying nearby, one must often rest one's backside.

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

I sed:

"Mr. Feyman! Pay no attention to the extension cord!

That's FeyNman!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson]

Terry sez:

> I agree with you and Horace.  If it can explode, it will explode, and
> at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary).

It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a
fly.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF
for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to
raise concerns, such that Rossi's CF technology in its current
undeveloped state has the potential to kill innocent bystanders due to
the lack of proper controls and engineering.

How ironic the division of perception is!

It will be interesting to see how this all eventually plays out.

Mr. Feyman! Pay no attention to the extension cord!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Terry Blanton]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> Horace Heffner  wrote:
>
>>
>> If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow
>> up.  If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam
>> could be released inside the container.
>
> Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a great deal about
> heating plants of this nature. They say this design is dangerous and likely
> to explode. I do not know enough about engineering to judge. I can say looks
> extremely complicated with all those pipes and control wires. This is not a
> good first step for this technology. Rossi should begin by demonstrating
> much simpler machines.
> I would be very nervous about going to see a demonstration of this machine.
> I would not want to go close to it unless it had been run for thousands of
> hours. Obviously it will not be run that long in a month or two. I think
> there is little chance this machine in its present state will be ready for a
> demonstration by the end of next month.

I agree with you and Horace.  If it can explode, it will explode, and
at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary).

This device needs to be properly engineered with feedback and controls
to help stabilize the reaction.  Hopefully, the engineers at GE, or
whoever AR has signed in the US, will disallow the demonstration until
it has been properly redesigned.  Otherwise, this has the potential to
set back CF years if it kills someone.

And keep Feynman away from it.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Joseph_Papp's_Noble_Gas_Engine

T

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow
> up.  If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam
> could be released inside the container.
>

Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a great deal about
heating plants of this nature. They say this design is dangerous and likely
to explode. I do not know enough about engineering to judge. I can say looks
extremely complicated with all those pipes and control wires. This is not a
good first step for this technology. Rossi should begin by demonstrating
much simpler machines.

I would be very nervous about going to see a demonstration of this machine.
I would not want to go close to it unless it had been run for thousands of
hours. Obviously it will not be run that long in a month or two. I think
there is little chance this machine in its present state will be ready for a
demonstration by the end of next month.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 19.09.2011 05:28, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:

Peter wrote:
"So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm."

A "pipe diameter" of 100cm is one heck of a big pipe!
I think you mean "cross-sectional area"?

Correction:
So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe cross sectional area is 100 
cm^2.

Yes, I was a little bit in hurry and I am not used to do such calculations.
I can do but oviously need to practise more ;-).
Sorry
Peter

RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

Peter wrote:
"So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm."

A "pipe diameter" of 100cm is one heck of a big pipe! 
I think you mean "cross-sectional area"?

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] 
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

Am 18.09.2011 21:19, schrieb Peter Heckert:
>
> So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s
>
> If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the 
> steam speed is 6.36 m/s.
>

Oops immediately after posting I found an error ;-)

1l = 1000 cm^3

636000 cm^3/s  / 100 cm^2 = 6360 cm/s = 63.6 m/s.

So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm.
Is this correct?
Did somebody see in the video what the actual diameter is?

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Jouni Valkonen]

Horace wrote: »Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of
4160 kg! I wonder what the shipping cost on that is?»

Can anyone estimate what would be the building costs of this fake Megawatt
plant? If it is asumed that there is inside conventional fuel water boiler,
that can produce 200°C steam.

Cargo fares may also be some few kilodollars. I think that this cost issue
is right now the strongest argument that support Rossi, because I would say
that no matter if it is a fake, the buiding and cargo costs of this MW plant
should be some hundreds of kilodollars, especially if time is also counted.

Therefore as we do not have any evidence that Rossi has attracted any
investment money, for sure this is not very cost effective fakes. If you
want to do fakes, I think that first requirement would be making at least
convincing tests, that would attract media attention. Rossi have not even
tried to attract media attention and is reluctantly accepted interviews.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 18.09.2011 23:22, schrieb Horace Heffner:

Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C.

The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g.  If 1 MW is heating 
100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s, with a 
volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec.  This gives a flow velocity of 
(737500 cm^3/s)/(33 cm^3)= 223 m/s in the pipe, or 803 km/hr.


If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could 
blow up.  If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices 
the steam could be released inside the container.


Note, if water is fed back a 50°C I get only 675 liter/sec steam flow.

Thank you very much.
So we must wait. Possibly he adds pipes or tubes.
Or he uses higher pressures and temperatures or something else than water.
Or he has other surprises.
Only Mr. Rossi knows and he probably will not tell this to us and to 
competitors.
I dont expect too much from the 1MW plant. Observers will not want to do 
measurements and tests inside this hot and somewhat dangerous box.


My hopes are on the promised test in Upsalla.

best regards,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Michele Comitini]

> Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of 4160 kg!  I
> wonder what the shipping cost on that is?

Must be cheap (compared to sending a space aircraft across the ocean).
Those containers are standard they can carry up to 25000 kg. A big
ship carries thousands of those.

see for instance:

http://www.worldshipping.org/


mic

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Horace Heffner]

On Sep 18, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant.

Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar,  @100 centigrade = 2675 J/ 
g (taken from an industrial steam table)

10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s.
Volume of steam = 1.7l / g
So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s

If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the  
steam speed is 6.36 m/s.


If the COP is 6 then the input power = 167 kW.
At 380 Volt the current is 439 Amperes.

I think they use 380 V 3-phase current  in industry in US.
The single phase voltage against the neutral zero conductor is 230V  
in this case.
(I dont know the precise english words for this. Hope it is  
understandable)


So this all sounds reasonable.

I post this as is, you may use it or check for errors ;-)

Best wishes,
Peter





The photos are here:

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49798.html

The  outside width of a standard container is 8 feet, or 2.44 meters

From the full photo of the back side:

The 8 feet = 129 pixels

The red handle = 16 pixels = (16 px)*(2.44 m)/(129 px) = 30 cm, much  
larger than I would have thought.


In the closeup photo the handle is 94 px, giving (30 cm)/(94 px) =  
0.319 cm/px.


The cap is 40 px, or 12.8 cm OD.

The exit pipe appears to have a 22 px OD, or 7 cm OD.  Maybe the pipe  
is 6.5 cm ID, or 3.25 cm radius, giving an area pi*(3.25 cm)^2 = 33  
cm^2.


The energy put into the steam depends on the temperature to which it  
is condensed before being fed back into the E-cat.


Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C.

The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g.  If 1 MW is  
heating 100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s,  
with a volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec.  This gives a flow  
velocity of (737500 cm^3/s)/(33 cm^3)= 223 m/s in the pipe, or 803 km/ 
hr.


If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could  
blow up.  If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices  
the steam could be released inside the container.


Note, if water is fed back a 50°C I get only 675 liter/sec steam flow.

Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of 4160  
kg!  I wonder what the shipping cost on that is?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

Am 18.09.2011 21:19, schrieb Peter Heckert:


So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s

If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the 
steam speed is 6.36 m/s.




Oops immediately after posting I found an error ;-)

1l = 1000 cm^3

636000 cm^3/s  / 100 cm^2 = 6360 cm/s = 63.6 m/s.

So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm.
Is this correct?
Did somebody see in the video what the actual diameter is?

[Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.

[Peter Heckert]

I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant.

Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar,  @100 centigrade = 2675 J/g 
(taken from an industrial steam table)

10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s.
Volume of steam = 1.7l / g
So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s

If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the steam 
speed is 6.36 m/s.


If the COP is 6 then the input power = 167 kW.
At 380 Volt the current is 439 Amperes.

I think they use 380 V 3-phase current  in industry in US.
The single phase voltage against the neutral zero conductor is 230V in 
this case.

(I dont know the precise english words for this. Hope it is understandable)

So this all sounds reasonable.

I post this as is, you may use it or check for errors ;-)

Best wishes,
Peter