subject:"\[Vo\]\:Corrections to heat after death calculations"



On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Horace wrote: «What you say might be true if the public tests were  
reasonably well done. They weren't. There is thus no reason to  
believe closed door results were done any more competently unless  
sufficient information is published to make that determination.»


This is not the case. There was nothing wrong with the experimental  
setup, because they were done in open manner that Rossi invited  
independ scientists to do the measurements, but non of them thought  
that calorimetry is necessary. Even Mats Lewan failed to do this  
although he had all the resources to do proper calorimetri. Also  
Lewan had careful preparatio, unlike Kullander and Essén, who did  
not know what to expect. Actually I asked less than a month ago and  
Lewan still thinks that calorimery was not necessary and his method  
was sound.


All the opinions in the world can not change the fact that water was  
probably coming out of the device in large mass proportions, whither  
or not the device produced some nuclear heat.  If a large proportion  
of the water, by mass,  came out as liquid then the calorimetry was  
ineffective.



That Jed's "expert" was not expert at all that he would have expert  
knowledge from E-Cat. He just stated general and obvious fact that  
all water boilers on Earth produce dry steam, because there is now  
such physical concept as "wet steam" in steam physics that is  
anyway relevant with E-Cat. Expert was just asked does he think  
that steam was very wet and he replied that it was not wet steam  
because wet steam is not stable physical state of water in close to  
normal pressures. (Frankly I still wonder who was the first crack  
potter who introduced the concept Wet Steam, because it is  
physically inaccurate concept. At least if someone could provide a  
reference that descripes experimental setup that produces wet  
steam, because no one here at vortex has ever seen wet steam, but  
they just assume it.)




If you want to see wet steam as I have described it, as generated by  
the peroclator effect, just take the hose off the demo device when it  
is in equilibrium in the operating range showed here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/KrivitFilm.pdf

which is around 748 W in, and water flow of 1.94 gm/s at 2°C.  Keep  
your body protected lest you get scalded!  Oh I forgot, you are not  
actually Rossi ... or are you?  8^)


If there is no nuclear heat produced then the steam flow should be 83  
ml/s, the water flow out the exit 1.89 ml/s.  This output is steam  
which is  about 2% "wet" by volume.  It will likely *not* be wet in  
the form of suspended water droplets to which Palm referred,  
however.   Almost no energy is going into providing 83 ml/s steam,  
only 120.6 W out of 748 W, while  627.4 W goes into simply heating  
the flowing water to boiling.  If nuclear heat is present then the  
water out will be less but the ejection velocity will be much higher.



Point is that you are wrong along with Krivit that we would not  
have any means to do calorimetry retrospectively.




The measurements required for even an amateur level of calorimetry  
were not taken.  The products that went into the hose went down the  
drain.  This leaves us with guesswork at best.


Please review my last post. Also you should review the report for  
December test and ignore what Levi did calculate and make your own  
proper calculations. If you cannot come up with method of  
calculating enthalpy in creative way, then it is your problem. But  
you are in the situation that no expert knowledge does help you,  
but you need to come up something creative. Although, being  
creative is not that easy.


In summary, Rossi is completely innocent for lack of calorimetry.  
He did not have any influence on enthalpy measurements, because  
measuring enthalpy was task assigned for independent scientists  
such as Levi and Lewan.




Who is determined to be at fault is irrelevant to the extent it can  
not change the fact the Rossi demonstrations proved nothing because  
the calorimetry was so flawed.  Calorimetry on the what came out of  
the output port was not done, nor was that output even observed  
visually. My calculations show that water came out even at power  
levels where large amount of nuclear power might have been generated.  
Rossi's assertion that the steam was "dry" is thus simply wishful  
thinking, without any physical evidence.



—Jouni

Ps. I agree, that 18 hour test gave probably too high power output.  
It is probably off the mark by factor of two. There is simple  
physics that 130kW output would have lead into core melt down,  
because stailess steal is not fast enough heat conductor.





I agree with Jed:



On Aug 25, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



Brief public demos have been repeated 4 times in 8 months, I  
think. That is a small number. Anyone would invest in this based  
on those demos would be insane, in my opini

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Jouni Valkonen

Horace wrote: «What you say might be true if the public tests were
reasonably well done. They weren't. There is thus no reason to believe
closed door results were done any more competently unless sufficient
information is published to make that determination.»

This is not the case. There was nothing wrong with the experimental setup,
because they were done in open manner that Rossi invited independ scientists
to do the measurements, but non of them thought that calorimetry is
necessary. Even Mats Lewan failed to do this although he had all the
resources to do proper calorimetri. Also Lewan had careful preparatio,
unlike Kullander and Essén, who did not know what to expect. Actually I
asked less than a month ago and Lewan still thinks that calorimery was not
necessary and his method was sound.

That Jed's "expert" was not expert at all that he would have expert
knowledge from E-Cat. He just stated general and obvious fact that all water
boilers on Earth produce dry steam, because there is now such physical
concept as "wet steam" in steam physics that is anyway relevant with E-Cat.
Expert was just asked does he think that steam was very wet and he replied
that it was not wet steam because wet steam is not stable physical state of
water in close to normal pressures. (Frankly I still wonder who was the
first crack potter who introduced the concept Wet Steam, because it is
physically inaccurate concept. At least if someone could provide a reference
that descripes experimental setup that produces wet steam, because no one
here at vortex has ever seen wet steam, but they just assume it.)

Point is that you are wrong along with Krivit that we would not have any
means to do calorimetry retrospectively. Please review my last post. Also
you should review the report for December test and ignore what Levi did
calculate and make your own proper calculations. If you cannot come up with
method of calculating enthalpy in creative way, then it is your problem. But
you are in the situation that no expert knowledge does help you, but you
need to come up something creative. Although, being creative is not that
easy.

In summary, Rossi is completely innocent for lack of calorimetry. He did not
have any influence on enthalpy measurements, because measuring enthalpy was
task assigned for independent scientists such as Levi and Lewan.

—Jouni

Ps. I agree, that 18 hour test gave probably too high power output. It is
probably off the mark by factor of two. There is simple physics that 130kW
output would have lead into core melt down, because stailess steal is not
fast enough heat conductor.

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


I wrote: "I don't know of any two serious theorists that agree!"

That should have said: "I don't know of any two serious theorists  
that agree with theories they didn't help develop themselves".  Some  
obvious exceptions to the first statement are Windom & Larsen, and  
Chubb & Chubb.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 31, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner  wrote:

The flowing water test was not public as far as I know.   Where is  
the report showing the data etc.?


The data is in NyTeknik and LENR-CANR.org.

If you do not trust Levi et al. to report the results of the flow  
test honestly and accurately, then you cannot trust them to report  
any results, or to conduct a test without cheating. It would be  
very easy to make a fake test with a hidden wire. It would be even  
easier to pretend they have done a test and to publish fake data.  
If you do not believe that Levi et al. are credible, honest  
scientists you should dismiss all of these claims. You need only  
say "I don't believe them." The discussion ends there. Nothing more  
can be said, or needs to be said.


If your standard is that we can only trust "public tests" then you  
can throw out the whole of cold fusion and the rest of modern  
science, because public tests are rare and they seldom prove anything.


- Jed



What you say might be true if the public tests were reasonably well  
done.  They weren't.  There is thus no reason to believe closed door  
results were done any more competently unless sufficient information  
is published to make that determination.


What are the URLs?  I was under the impression the details of the non- 
boiling flowing water  test were kept confidential.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 31, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

You're the one that believes they are demonstrations. I stated they  
were not. Yiu also failed to convince anyone they were (but did  
try). Why you believe in this nonsense is beyond me. Did Rossi make  
a large cash contribution? I sense much academic dishonesty in you.  
Feeble puffs of condensed water out of Rossi's hose were his  
undoing and has turned CF back into the farse you're tryig to  
convince us it isn't. Apparently you aren't even up to the challenge.


Cold fusion is a serious scientific issue.  Surely any scientist who  
spends sufficient time reviewing the LENR literature, e.g.:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/

realizes there is an abundance of evidence from highly credible  
scientists indicating anomalous behavior of matter when hydrogen is  
absorbed. There can be no doubt at this point there is important  
knowledge to be gained from study in the field.  Considering research  
in the field is such small science, compared to Mars missions,  
supercolliders, and tokamaks, and considering there is so much  
potential for humanity:


http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

the potential cost/benefit of research in this field makes funding it  
highly justified on a scientific research basis.


I have seen no public evidence provided that indicates CF is ready  
for commercialization, for commercial investment with the expectation  
of quick profits.  Others may disagree of course.


Rossi is not engaged in serious science. He is engaged in a business  
venture. His integrity is possibly not that of a scientist. He could  
indeed set the field back seriously. This does not make CF a farce  
any more than one bad cop  makes law enforcement a farce.


What would make the field a farce is the blind acceptance by everyone  
in the field of any claim anyone in the field makes.  This is  
certainly not what happens in the case of LENR theory!  I don't know  
of any two serious theorists that agree!  We who work in the field  
have the obligation to be our own harshest critics. We also have some  
obligation to examine whatever evidence is put forth, pro and con,  
and make an effort to logically determine its truth, meaning,  
relevance, and implications.  It seems to me this group does a pretty  
good job of this, and not just for LENR, but for anomalous science in  
general.  It is a great place to hang out.   You never know for sure  
what you are going to see going on here when you get up in the morning.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Terry Blanton

And you would do well to study Sun Tzu for you do not know your
adversary.  I have never left the fence in discussions about Andy
Smith and his Stanley Steamer.

You clearly confuse me with someone else.

Warmest Regards,

T

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:
> You're the one that believes they are demonstrations. I stated they were
> not. Yiu also failed to convince anyone they were (but did try). Why you
> believe in this nonsense is beyond me. Did Rossi make a large cash
> contribution? I sense much academic dishonesty in you. Feeble puffs of
> condensed water out of Rossi's hose were his undoing and has turned CF back
> into the farse you're tryig to convince us it isn't. Apparently you aren't
> even up to the challenge.
> - Original Message - From: "Terry Blanton" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:
>>
>>> Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish
>>> translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.
>>
>> Joe appears to be pursued by demonstrations.  What else would induce a
>> pseudoskeptic to take up residence in a cold fusion forum?
>>
>> T
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Joe Catania

I begin to see you can be gracious where Mother Nature isn't.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

  Joe Catania wrote:

> Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her agent. I 
am authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you people to Watch 
Your Step. Next time >She may not be so magnanimous.

>- Jed

Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish 
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.

  The answer should be obvious. Mother Nature is Japanese. Why do you think she 
picked me to be her "minister and interpreter," as Bacon put it? What do you 
think an interpreter does?

  Hey, I'm not proud of this. There's no profit in being a prophet. It is 
basically an S&M relationship. Just as Bacon said, it features chains and 
submission, very kinky:

  "For man, as the minister and interpreter of nature does, and understands, as 
much as he has observed of the order, operation, and mind of nature; and 
neither knows nor is able to do more. Neither is it possible for any power to 
loosen or burst the chain of causes, nor is nature to be overcome except by 
submission."

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Joe Catania wrote:

> Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her 
agent. I am authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you 
people to Watch Your Step. Next time >She may not be so magnanimous.

>- Jed
Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish 
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.

The answer should be obvious. Mother Nature is Japanese. Why do you 
think she picked _me_ to be her "minister and interpreter," as Bacon put 
it? What do you think an interpreter does?

Hey, I'm not proud of this. There's no profit in being a prophet. It is 
basically an S&M relationship. Just as Bacon said, it features chains 
and submission, very kinky:

"For man, as the minister and interpreter of nature does, and 
understands, as much as he has observed of the order, operation, and 
mind of nature; and neither knows nor is able to do more. Neither is it 
possible for any power to loosen or burst the chain of causes, nor is 
nature to be overcome except by submission."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Joe Catania

You're the one that believes they are demonstrations. I stated they were 
not. Yiu also failed to convince anyone they were (but did try). Why you 
believe in this nonsense is beyond me. Did Rossi make a large cash 
contribution? I sense much academic dishonesty in you. Feeble puffs of 
condensed water out of Rossi's hose were his undoing and has turned CF back 
into the farse you're tryig to convince us it isn't. Apparently you aren't 
even up to the challenge.
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:


Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.


Joe appears to be pursued by demonstrations.  What else would induce a
pseudoskeptic to take up residence in a cold fusion forum?

T

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:

> Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish
> translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.

Joe appears to be pursued by demonstrations.  What else would induce a
pseudoskeptic to take up residence in a cold fusion forum?

T

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Joe Catania

> Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her agent. I am 
>authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you people to Watch Your 
>Step. Next time >She may not be so magnanimous.

>- Jed

Jed appears to be pursued by demons. What else would induce a Japlish 
translator to take up residence in a cold fusion forum.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

  Joe Catania  wrote:

Not only have I been the subject of ad hominems for a presentaion that is 
obvious by the very nature of what is being discussed, there have been false 
allegations and insults to nature

   Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her agent. I am 
authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you people to Watch Your 
Step. Next time She may not be so magnanimous.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Joe Catania  wrote:

> Not only have I been the subject of ad hominems for a presentaion that is
> obvious by the very nature of what is being discussed, there have been false
> allegations and insults to nature
>

 Mother Nature has authorized me act on Her behalf, as Her agent. I am
authorized to forgive these insults. But also to warn you people to Watch
Your Step. Next time She may not be so magnanimous.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-31 Thread Harry Veeder

 
I didn't know it was possible to insult nature with just words. 
You can insult the Pope with just words.
 
Harry
 

From: Joe Catania 
>To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
>Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:35:15 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
>
>
>  
>Not only have I been 
the subject of ad hominems for a presentaion that is obvious by the very nature 
of what is being discussed, there have been false allegations and insults to 
nature. 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner  wrote:

> The flowing water test was not public as far as I know.   Where is the
> report showing the data etc.?
>

The data is in NyTeknik and LENR-CANR.org.

If you do not trust Levi et al. to report the results of the flow test
honestly and accurately, then you cannot trust them to report any results,
or to conduct a test without cheating. It would be very easy to make a fake
test with a hidden wire. It would be even easier to pretend they have done a
test and to publish fake data. If you do not believe that Levi et al. are
credible, honest scientists you should dismiss all of these claims. You need
only say "I don't believe them." The discussion ends there. Nothing more can
be said, or needs to be said.

If your standard is that we can only trust "public tests" then you can throw
out the whole of cold fusion and the rest of modern science, because public
tests are rare and they seldom prove anything.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:38 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner  wrote:

The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods  
used are so flawed.


That is incorrect. As Rossi and I have pointed out many times, if  
there were flaws in the steam test, the flowing water test would  
have revealed them. Since it showed even more heat than the steam  
test with this same device, that proves the steam test methodology  
is sound.


- Jed




Under which shell is that pea?

The flowing water test was not public as far as I know.   Where is  
the report showing the data etc.?


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Sigh. I can't seem to get anything right the first time. Some typos
corrected below.

On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Horace Heffner wrote:

Of course Rossi has "perfect control" operating in the range
chosen. All he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat
the water flow to boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above
that for a momentary "steam" demonstration.

It isn't momentary. The steam lasts indefinitely.

Well, yes of course the steam lasts indefinitely, if the power
provided is above Pb, which is my assumption.However, my point
here is if the long term operating power is Po, Pb < Podoes not give an interesting steam demonstration, it is merely
necessary to raise Po to P2, the demonstration power, Pbto show very good steam production, and yet for the overall run have
the appearance of a good COP (coefficient of power, the ratio of
power out to power in). Chimney temperature will remain at all
times at the boiling point. Rossi does not have to manually raise
Po to Pd, because the controllers have the capability to vary the
power, and do vary the power if they are of any use at all. If the
power variation occurs in long enough time segments, then it is
possible to know when to demonstrate steam at the higher power P2 by
merely knowing from the sound of the device whether it is operating
at Po or P2 power. However, in all cases, if the output thermal
power produced remains in the range Pb to Pd, then pure water is
coming out of the device, not just droplets in the steam. This is not
condensation in the hose. It is coming directly out of the steam exit
port. The "steam quality" indicated by the relative humidity probe
will remain at all times at 100%. If one keeps his head in the sand
and does not do calorimetry on the output, or even take the hose off
and to see what is happening, and assumes all water is converted to
steam , then greatly inflated estimates of thermal output will
result. These estimates can be off by roughly an order of
magnitude. They prove nothing at all. The device could produce some
nuclear heat, or none at all.

The steam can not be dry in equilibrium operation in this power
range, Pb to Pd, even if a significant amount of power comes from a
nuclear reaction. If operating in this power range water is
obviously coming out and the "calorimetry" method used is worthless.

Not according to experts in steam such as Bjorn Palm, Head of the
Energy Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology,
quoted here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece

It is possible you know more about these systems than they do, but
I doubt it.

- Jed

You have not interpreted Palm's remarks in a valid manner. The
problem is therefore yours and not Palm's. Palm's credentials
therefore are irrelevant.

Quote from referenced article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Ny Teknik turned to Professor Björn Palm, Head of the Energy
Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology, doing
research on heat transfer by evaporation. Based on the given
dimensions and geometry, he gave his assessment of the situation:

“Any air in the tube is driven out of the flowing steam. This means
that at the outlet there is pure steam, possibly with a little water
droplets that come with the flow from the liquid surface. However, I
cannot imagine that this would affect the 'effective' enthalpy of
vaporization. From other cases with evaporation in tubes I would
guess that the steam quality is at least 90%. “

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -

"I cannot imagine" is *not* an analysis of the data. It is an
offhand remark. It is a "guess" as to how much heat can be carried
away in droplets entrained in steam, and even based on other cases at
that. My points, regarding the flow of pure water, and the
percolator effect, have nothing to do at all with how much heat can
be carried by water droplets suspended in the steam. Palm's comments
have nothing to do with my points at all. His comments are
irrelevant to the points I have made.

I believe the analysis I have made is numerically accurate. It is
based on conservation of energy. It does not show one way or
another whether nuclear heat is or is not being produced. It is
entirely possible nuclear heat is being produced in addition to power
in, yet Po = (nuclear thermal power) plus (electric heating power) is
still in the range Pbbeing ejected from the exit port, thus completely invalidating the
"calorimetry" used.

The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods
used are so flawed.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner  wrote:

> The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods used
> are so flawed.
>

That is incorrect. As Rossi and I have pointed out many times, if there were
flaws in the steam test, the flowing water test would have revealed them.
Since it showed even more heat than the steam test with this same device,
that proves the steam test methodology is sound.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

On Aug 31, 2011, at 9:43 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Horace Heffner wrote:

It isn't momentary. The steam lasts indefinitely.

Well, yes of course the steam lasts indefinitely, if the power
provided is above Pb, which is my assumption.However, my point
here is if the long term operating power is Po, Pb < Podoes not give an interesting steam demonstration, it is merely
necessary to raise Po to Pd, the demonstration power, Pbshow very good steam production, and yet for the overall run have the
appearance of a good COP (coefficient of power, the ratio of power in
to power out. Chimney temperature will remain at all times at the
boiling point. Rossi does not have to manually raise Po to Pd,
because the controllers have the capability to vary the power, and do
vary the power if they are of any use at all. If the power variation
occurs in long enough time segments, then it is possible to know when
to demonstrate steam at the higher power Pd by merely knowing from
the sound of the device whether it is operating at Po or Pd power.
However, in all cases, if the output thermal power produced remains
in the range Pb to Pd, then pure water is coming out of the device,
not just droplets in the steam. This is not condensation in the hose.
It is coming directly out of the steam exit port. The "steam quality"
indicated by the relative humidity probe will remain at all times at
100%. If one keeps his head in the sand and does not do calorimetry
on the output, or even take the hose off and see what is happening,
and assumes all water is converted to steam , then greatly inflated
estimates of thermal output will result. These can be off by roughly
an order of magnitude. They prove nothing at all. The device could
produce some nuclear heat, or none at all.

Not according to experts in steam such as Bjorn Palm, Head of the
Energy Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology,
quoted here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece

It is possible you know more about these systems than they do, but
I doubt it.

- Jed

You have not interpreted Palm's remarks in a valid manner. The
problem is therefore yours and not Palm's. Palm's credentials
therefore are irrelevant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -

The public demonstrations to date prove nothing because the methods
used are so flawed.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.


I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate  
steady and adjusts the power output to vaporize all of the water.  
In the videos you can see him adjusting the controls of the eCat,  
but I have not seen him change the pump controller.


In calorimetry it is good practice to make conditions uniform and  
unvarying as much as you can. Rather than changing the flow to keep  
the outlet temperature stable, it is better to increase or decrease  
power. Rossi has much better control over the power of his cell  
than in any previous cold fusion experiment.


- Jed



Some typos corrected and clarifying language added:

This conversation seems nonsensical in light of recent discussion.

Rossi has "perfect control" operating in the range chosen, due to not  
examining the output products.  All he has to do is provide enough  
sustained power to heat the water flow to boiling temperature, call  
it Pb, or enough above that for a momentary "steam" demonstration.  I  
haven't seen any test where thermal power reached significantly above  
the dryout point, call that Pd, where all water input is converted to  
steam.  If power had ever reached above Pd then the steam temperature  
would be way above boiling point for a sustained period.  If  
operating above Pb then the flue temperature will remain at or above  
boiling temperature, as Cantwell demonstrated by experiment.  So, in  
sustained stable equilibrium mode, Rossi is typically operating in  
the power range between Pb and Pd.  Pb and Pd are determined by the  
flow rate.  As I demonstrated earlier, if you operate continually in  
the power range Pb to Pd then water overflow necessarily occurs.  See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/KrivitFilm.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Cantwell2.pdf


Rossi says the steam is dry.  All Rossi has to do to check this is to  
operate at equilibrium in this Pb to Pd output power range for a long  
period and then remove the hose, or provide a transparent hose.  He  
will then see that water is gushing forth out the exit port. That  
condition I consider to be well beyond just a "wet steam" or a "steam  
quality" issue.


The steam can not be "dry" in equilibrium operation in this output  
power range, Pb to Pd, even if a significant amount of power comes  
from a nuclear reaction.  If operating in this power range water is  
obviously coming out and the "calorimetry" method used is worthless.  
This method is perfect for self delusion.


The dynamic situation is far more difficult to analyze because  
insufficient information about the thermodynamic properties of the  
device is available.  Also, an effort to analyze the device dynamics  
would be far more time consuming and less convincing than simply  
providing good calorimetry.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner  wrote:

> Of course Rossi has "perfect control" operating in the range chosen.  All
> he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat the water flow to
> boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above that for a momentary
> "steam" demonstration.

It isn't momentary. The steam lasts indefinitely.

The steam can not be dry in equilibrium operation in this power range, Pb to
> Pd, even if a significant amount of power comes from a nuclear reaction.  If
> operating in this power range water is obviously coming out and the
> "calorimetry" method used is worthless.

Not according to experts in steam such as Bjorn Palm, Head of the Energy
Technology Division at the Royal Institute of Technology, quoted here:

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3228376.ece

It is possible you know more about these systems than they do, but I doubt
it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 31, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.


I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate  
steady and adjusts the power output to vaporize all of the water.  
In the videos you can see him adjusting the controls of the eCat,  
but I have not seen him change the pump controller.


In calorimetry it is good practice to make conditions uniform and  
unvarying as much as you can. Rather than changing the flow to keep  
the outlet temperature stable, it is better to increase or decrease  
power. Rossi has much better control over the power of his cell  
than in any previous cold fusion experiment.


- Jed




This conversation seems nonsensical in light of recent discussion.

Of course Rossi has "perfect control" operating in the range chosen.   
All he has to do is provide enough sustained power to heat the water  
flow to boiling temperature, call it Pb, or a enogh above that for a  
momentary "steam" demonstration.  I haven't seen any test where  
thermal power reached significantly above the dryout point, call that  
Pd, where all water input is converted to steam.  If power had ever  
reached above Pb then the steam temperature would be way above  
boiling point for a sustained period.  If operating above Pb then the  
flue temperature will remain at or above boiling temperature, as  
Cantwell demonstrated.  So, Rossi is typically operating in the power  
range between Pb and Pd.  Pb and Pd are determined by the flow rate.   
As I demonstrated earlier, if you operated in the power range Pb to  
Pd then water overflow necessarily occurs.  See:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/KrivitFilm.pdf
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Cantwell2.pdf


Rossi says the steam is dry.  All Rossi has to do to see this is  
operate at equilibrium in this Pb to Pd range for a long period and  
then remove the hose, or provide a transparent hose.  He will then  
see that water is gushing forth out the exit port. That condition I  
consider to be well beyond just wet steam.


The steam can not be dry in equilibrium operation in this power  
range, Pb to Pd, even if a significant amount of power comes from a  
nuclear reaction.  If operating in this power range water is  
obviously coming out and the "calorimetry" method used is worthless.  
This method is perfect for self delusion.


The dynamic situation is far more difficult to analyze because  
insufficient information about the thermodynamic properties of the  
device is available.  Also, an effort to analyze the device dynamics  
would be far more time consuming and less convincing than simply  
providing good calorimetry.


Despite all this, and limited personal time, I'll continue to see I  
any sense or improved intuition can be made from what we know by  
using an overly simplistic black box model.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Jouni Valkonen wrote:


I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level.


I believe he does it the other way. He leaves the water inflow rate 
steady and adjusts the power output to vaporize all of the water. In the 
videos you can see him adjusting the controls of the eCat, but I have 
not seen him change the pump controller.


In calorimetry it is good practice to make conditions uniform and 
unvarying as much as you can. Rather than changing the flow to keep the 
outlet temperature stable, it is better to increase or decrease power. 
Rossi has much better control over the power of his cell than in any 
previous cold fusion experiment.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

One final addition considering December E-Cat.

This value of total heating power of 6-9 kW is reliable, because it is
calculated using three different data sets and three distinct methods.

–There was 100 kPa overpressure, and from Mats Lewan E-Cat we get one
reference point (there was 32 kPa overpressure). Therfore 6-9kW is
likely explanation for 100 kPa.
–During the two approximately 6min power surge at 17:30 and 17:50
temperature rose approximately 1.5 times more than during the first 30
minutes when only 1.2 kW electric heater was active. Therefore total
heating power when E-Cat was producing excess heat, was approximately
9kW.
–And for third method can be calculated using an estimation of total
thermal mass of E-Cat. This where I got that 6 kW for minimum possible
power outpu.

It is good to notice, that what Levi was calculating in the
preliminary report was irrelevant and it was just mere luck that he
arrived similar result. I will explain this why Levi's calculations
were irrelevant in detail, if it is requested. I am sure that Rossi
was quite well familiar with the real power of E-Cat, because water
inflow rate was adjusted in right level. But he just did not want to
correct Levi's calculations, or propose straight forward calorimetry,
what Levi forgot to do.

–Jouni

2011/8/31 Jouni Valkonen :
> Actually I took still another look for the graph:
>
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/E1E/TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg
>
> It is really difficult to try to estimate temperatures from this graph.
>
> However it looks that my estimations were somewhat inaccurate. But it
> looks that ΔT was 1.5 times higher during the last 6 minutes before
> boiling than the first 30 minutes, when only 1.2 kW heating element
> was active. Therefore likely output power was 9kW.
>
> Therefore I estimate with 90% confidence that the heating power of
> December E-Cat was between 6kW and 9 kW. And heat after death was
> 2-8kW, but this is really difficult to estimate, but it was rather
> constant. My hunch is that power drop was only 1.2 kW, when E-Cat was
> disconnected from external power source.
>
> –Jouni
>
> 2011/8/31 Jouni Valkonen :
>> Small addition, this 6kW figure is minimum possible heating power. We
>> have also empirical way for calculating total enthalphy, that gives
>> higher value than 6 kW. If it is assumed that E-Cat was full of water
>> when 1.2kW heating element was turned on, then 1.2kW was enough to
>> cause ΔT to be 20°C in 30 minutes. This means that during the 6min
>> power surge heating power was 10 × 1.2kW = 12kW.
>>
>> If it is assumed that E-Cat was not full of water when power was
>> turned on, then heating power during the power surge was even more
>> than 12kW. However I think this unlikely, because steam overperssure
>> was only 100 kPa and this is difficult to explain even for 12 kW
>> heating power. 100kPa overpressure should be more close for 6-9 kW
>> heating power.
>>
>> –Jouni
>>
>>
>> 2011/8/31 Jouni Valkonen :
>>> 2011/8/30 Jed Rothwell :
 Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have
> pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.
>

 The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
 January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16 kW output (depending
 on how you measure it) with about 400 W input. As far as I know, this is 
 the
 only eCat that Levi et al. tested in December, which is when the event
 occurred. The flow rate was typically ~300 ml/min I believe.

>>>
>>> Ah, now I know exactly what is going on.
>>>
>>> Here is the premilinary report (Test1):
>>> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html?m=1
>>>
>>> Ok, I am amazed how far from reality Joe was, because it was
>>> impossible try to make proper conclusions in what test he was
>>> referring.
>>>
>>> But anyways, it is now very clear.
>>>
>>> –Input power was turned on 16.55 and it was around 1200 Watts.
>>> –This caused slight temperature rise during first 30 minutes.(ΔT 20°C)
>>> –After that reaction partially ignited and temperature rose to 60°C.
>>> This took about 20 minutes
>>> –Then full ignition happened 17.50. Temperature rose quickly to
>>> 101.6°C and steam overpressure was ca. 100 kPa.
>>> –Then the power was cut 10 minutes later and reactor still continued
>>> producing steam for 15 minutes
>>> –Finally reactor was shut down 17.15 by increasing water flow
>>>
>>> We do not have good data what was the momentary output power during
>>> the 10minute powersurge. Also, in order to make any calculations, we
>>> should have some information how much E-Cat can store liquid water
>>> inside.
>>>
>>> However, as the temperature stayed over 100, it means that there was
>>> some steam production. We do not know exactly how much, because there
>>> was visible temperature drop after power was cut and this means tha

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Actually I took still another look for the graph:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_852Sj2_TNC4/TTwDi8cYrtI/E1E/TT603dSfpzs/s1600/report3.jpg

It is really difficult to try to estimate temperatures from this graph.

However it looks that my estimations were somewhat inaccurate. But it
looks that ΔT was 1.5 times higher during the last 6 minutes before
boiling than the first 30 minutes, when only 1.2 kW heating element
was active. Therefore likely output power was 9kW.

Therefore I estimate with 90% confidence that the heating power of
December E-Cat was between 6kW and 9 kW. And heat after death was
2-8kW, but this is really difficult to estimate, but it was rather
constant. My hunch is that power drop was only 1.2 kW, when E-Cat was
disconnected from external power source.

–Jouni

2011/8/31 Jouni Valkonen :
> Small addition, this 6kW figure is minimum possible heating power. We
> have also empirical way for calculating total enthalphy, that gives
> higher value than 6 kW. If it is assumed that E-Cat was full of water
> when 1.2kW heating element was turned on, then 1.2kW was enough to
> cause ΔT to be 20°C in 30 minutes. This means that during the 6min
> power surge heating power was 10 × 1.2kW = 12kW.
>
> If it is assumed that E-Cat was not full of water when power was
> turned on, then heating power during the power surge was even more
> than 12kW. However I think this unlikely, because steam overperssure
> was only 100 kPa and this is difficult to explain even for 12 kW
> heating power. 100kPa overpressure should be more close for 6-9 kW
> heating power.
>
> –Jouni
>
>
> 2011/8/31 Jouni Valkonen :
>> 2011/8/30 Jed Rothwell :
>>> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>>>
 Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have
 pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.

>>>
>>> The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
>>> January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16 kW output (depending
>>> on how you measure it) with about 400 W input. As far as I know, this is the
>>> only eCat that Levi et al. tested in December, which is when the event
>>> occurred. The flow rate was typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, now I know exactly what is going on.
>>
>> Here is the premilinary report (Test1):
>> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html?m=1
>>
>> Ok, I am amazed how far from reality Joe was, because it was
>> impossible try to make proper conclusions in what test he was
>> referring.
>>
>> But anyways, it is now very clear.
>>
>> –Input power was turned on 16.55 and it was around 1200 Watts.
>> –This caused slight temperature rise during first 30 minutes.(ΔT 20°C)
>> –After that reaction partially ignited and temperature rose to 60°C.
>> This took about 20 minutes
>> –Then full ignition happened 17.50. Temperature rose quickly to
>> 101.6°C and steam overpressure was ca. 100 kPa.
>> –Then the power was cut 10 minutes later and reactor still continued
>> producing steam for 15 minutes
>> –Finally reactor was shut down 17.15 by increasing water flow
>>
>> We do not have good data what was the momentary output power during
>> the 10minute powersurge. Also, in order to make any calculations, we
>> should have some information how much E-Cat can store liquid water
>> inside.
>>
>> However, as the temperature stayed over 100, it means that there was
>> some steam production. We do not know exactly how much, because there
>> was visible temperature drop after power was cut and this means that
>> steam overpressure decreased somewhat from that 100kPa, in the
>> self-sustaining mode. Therefore total heating power in self-sustaining
>> mode was at least 3 kW, probably more. But what is important is that
>> there was not visible decreasing of heating power during the 15 min
>> self-sustaining mode and it was artificially cancelled by shutting
>> down the reactor. Therefore it is fair to assume, that it would have
>> continued indefinitely without shutting down the self-sustaining mode.
>>
>> Also as we know that the volume of reactor chamber was ca. 1 liter,
>> therefore the maximum metal mass for storing thermal energy was
>> probably 5 kg. Same logic applies here that only the reactor chamber
>> can store residual heat energy.Therefore rest of the E-Cat can be
>> ignored, because it does not exceed significantly 100°C.
>>
>> Also some estimations about what was the total heating power during
>> the 10min powersurge. We know that in that time, inside E-Cat, there
>> was at least 10 kg of water. Therefore total heating power during 6min
>> power surge was 4.6kW (water stored inside the E-Cat) + 1.5kW (cool
>> water flux) + 1.0kW (metal components of E-Cat) = _6kW_, in order to
>> rise ΔT by 40°C in 6min.
>>
>> This is also the most likely excess heating power of December E-Cat,
>> i.e. 4.7kW excess heat was produced for 25 minutes.
>>
>> In summary, water flow was 14 kg/h, core mass was 5kg, he

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Small addition, this 6kW figure is minimum possible heating power. We
have also empirical way for calculating total enthalphy, that gives
higher value than 6 kW. If it is assumed that E-Cat was full of water
when 1.2kW heating element was turned on, then 1.2kW was enough to
cause ΔT to be 20°C in 30 minutes. This means that during the 6min
power surge heating power was 10 × 1.2kW = 12kW.

If it is assumed that E-Cat was not full of water when power was
turned on, then heating power during the power surge was even more
than 12kW. However I think this unlikely, because steam overperssure
was only 100 kPa and this is difficult to explain even for 12 kW
heating power. 100kPa overpressure should be more close for 6-9 kW
heating power.

–Jouni


2011/8/31 Jouni Valkonen :
> 2011/8/30 Jed Rothwell :
>> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>>
>>> Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have
>>> pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.
>>>
>>
>> The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
>> January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16 kW output (depending
>> on how you measure it) with about 400 W input. As far as I know, this is the
>> only eCat that Levi et al. tested in December, which is when the event
>> occurred. The flow rate was typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
>>
>
> Ah, now I know exactly what is going on.
>
> Here is the premilinary report (Test1):
> http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html?m=1
>
> Ok, I am amazed how far from reality Joe was, because it was
> impossible try to make proper conclusions in what test he was
> referring.
>
> But anyways, it is now very clear.
>
> –Input power was turned on 16.55 and it was around 1200 Watts.
> –This caused slight temperature rise during first 30 minutes.(ΔT 20°C)
> –After that reaction partially ignited and temperature rose to 60°C.
> This took about 20 minutes
> –Then full ignition happened 17.50. Temperature rose quickly to
> 101.6°C and steam overpressure was ca. 100 kPa.
> –Then the power was cut 10 minutes later and reactor still continued
> producing steam for 15 minutes
> –Finally reactor was shut down 17.15 by increasing water flow
>
> We do not have good data what was the momentary output power during
> the 10minute powersurge. Also, in order to make any calculations, we
> should have some information how much E-Cat can store liquid water
> inside.
>
> However, as the temperature stayed over 100, it means that there was
> some steam production. We do not know exactly how much, because there
> was visible temperature drop after power was cut and this means that
> steam overpressure decreased somewhat from that 100kPa, in the
> self-sustaining mode. Therefore total heating power in self-sustaining
> mode was at least 3 kW, probably more. But what is important is that
> there was not visible decreasing of heating power during the 15 min
> self-sustaining mode and it was artificially cancelled by shutting
> down the reactor. Therefore it is fair to assume, that it would have
> continued indefinitely without shutting down the self-sustaining mode.
>
> Also as we know that the volume of reactor chamber was ca. 1 liter,
> therefore the maximum metal mass for storing thermal energy was
> probably 5 kg. Same logic applies here that only the reactor chamber
> can store residual heat energy.Therefore rest of the E-Cat can be
> ignored, because it does not exceed significantly 100°C.
>
> Also some estimations about what was the total heating power during
> the 10min powersurge. We know that in that time, inside E-Cat, there
> was at least 10 kg of water. Therefore total heating power during 6min
> power surge was 4.6kW (water stored inside the E-Cat) + 1.5kW (cool
> water flux) + 1.0kW (metal components of E-Cat) = _6kW_, in order to
> rise ΔT by 40°C in 6min.
>
> This is also the most likely excess heating power of December E-Cat,
> i.e. 4.7kW excess heat was produced for 25 minutes.
>
> In summary, water flow was 14 kg/h, core mass was 5kg, heating power
> in self-sustaining mode was 3-5kW (but it was constant). Max core
> temperature 1000°C.
>
> –Jouni
>

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011/8/30 Jed Rothwell :
> Jouni Valkonen wrote:
>
>> Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have
>> pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.
>>
>
> The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the
> January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16 kW output (depending
> on how you measure it) with about 400 W input. As far as I know, this is the
> only eCat that Levi et al. tested in December, which is when the event
> occurred. The flow rate was typically ~300 ml/min I believe.
>

Ah, now I know exactly what is going on.

Here is the premilinary report (Test1):
http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/01/report-ufficiale-esperimento-della.html?m=1

Ok, I am amazed how far from reality Joe was, because it was
impossible try to make proper conclusions in what test he was
referring.

But anyways, it is now very clear.

–Input power was turned on 16.55 and it was around 1200 Watts.
–This caused slight temperature rise during first 30 minutes.(ΔT 20°C)
–After that reaction partially ignited and temperature rose to 60°C.
This took about 20 minutes
–Then full ignition happened 17.50. Temperature rose quickly to
101.6°C and steam overpressure was ca. 100 kPa.
–Then the power was cut 10 minutes later and reactor still continued
producing steam for 15 minutes
–Finally reactor was shut down 17.15 by increasing water flow

We do not have good data what was the momentary output power during
the 10minute powersurge. Also, in order to make any calculations, we
should have some information how much E-Cat can store liquid water
inside.

However, as the temperature stayed over 100, it means that there was
some steam production. We do not know exactly how much, because there
was visible temperature drop after power was cut and this means that
steam overpressure decreased somewhat from that 100kPa, in the
self-sustaining mode. Therefore total heating power in self-sustaining
mode was at least 3 kW, probably more. But what is important is that
there was not visible decreasing of heating power during the 15 min
self-sustaining mode and it was artificially cancelled by shutting
down the reactor. Therefore it is fair to assume, that it would have
continued indefinitely without shutting down the self-sustaining mode.

Also as we know that the volume of reactor chamber was ca. 1 liter,
therefore the maximum metal mass for storing thermal energy was
probably 5 kg. Same logic applies here that only the reactor chamber
can store residual heat energy.Therefore rest of the E-Cat can be
ignored, because it does not exceed significantly 100°C.

Also some estimations about what was the total heating power during
the 10min powersurge. We know that in that time, inside E-Cat, there
was at least 10 kg of water. Therefore total heating power during 6min
power surge was 4.6kW (water stored inside the E-Cat) + 1.5kW (cool
water flux) + 1.0kW (metal components of E-Cat) = _6kW_, in order to
rise ΔT by 40°C in 6min.

This is also the most likely excess heating power of December E-Cat,
i.e. 4.7kW excess heat was produced for 25 minutes.

In summary, water flow was 14 kg/h, core mass was 5kg, heating power
in self-sustaining mode was 3-5kW (but it was constant). Max core
temperature 1000°C.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:


Hi,

On 31-8-2011 0:01, Horace Heffner wrote:



On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


If the only source of heat was electricity, two things are certain:

1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt.  
You can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an ordinary  
wire.


This is false.  If the flow is 3 ml/s then any input power above  
1617 W will provide a flue temperature at boiling point.  If no  
one measures the output of the hose, but rather assumes dry  
steam,  then the apparent power is over 12000 W.


Just a reality check to see how thick a (VDE-approved) single  
copper wire you need at least to transfer 12 kW of power through.


Copper resistivity / m =
0.0175  
wire thickness  theoretically possible  "approved (norm)"
Imax (A)230V
1 phase
A (mm2) D (mm)  R/m (Ω) Imax (A)Pmax (W)Pmax (W)
8.0 3.190.00219 53.33   12267   53.00   12250

As far as I can see from the photos of the Rossi reactor, the wires  
to the heating resistors are a lot smaller than the 3.19 mm  
diameter (= approx. AWG 8 !)


Kind regards,

MoB


You have missed the point entirely. An electric power input of 1617 W  
will look like 12000 W if the flow is 5 ml/s and no one bothers to  
see what is coming out of the hose and exit port.  The outlet  
temperature will remain stable at boiling point.  This flaw in  
Rossi's "calorimetry" was  hopefully clearly demonstrated by  
Cantwell's experiment and my analysis here:


http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Cantwell2.pdf

You don't have to actually input 12000 W electrical because the  
calorimetry can be off by an order of magnitude. If the flow rate is  
5 ml/s then 1617 W will provide fake results, if a flow of 0.3 ml/s  
is used then 970 W will do.  If the flow is 0.83 ml/s, as calculated  
by Mattia Rizzi for one run,  then 268 W will do to fake the 12000 kW  
results.  The problem is the need to measure the flow and all other  
key variables at all times


In Cantwell's case, where the power was 800 W,  water should overflow  
at *all* flows under 3 ml/s.  Looking for this overflow has been  
avoided by Rossi (and Cantwell.)   In short you don't need to provide  
a lot of power if you don't look at the water output.   If Rossi is  
so sure his device produces dry steam then he could simply  
continually track power in and remove the hose to demonstrate that no  
water is pouring out of his device by the percolator effect I  
hopefully explained clearly here.   He could simply use a transparent  
hose section.  He could do actual calorimetry on the stuff going to  
the hose.  Rossi and associates  should not (have to) resort to using  
a relative humidity meter that even the manufacturer even says is not  
capable of measuring steam quality.


If enough power is provided to heat the flowing water to at minimum  
boiling point  (way less than 12000 W in all cases demonstrated), and  
a relative humidity probe and flue thermometer are your only windows  
into what is happening at the exit port, then you have no means to  
determine within a wide margin what the thermal output actually is.


Without quality measurement and integration of the the power input  
and thermal power output, in order to compute an energy balance, no  
assertion of excess heat can be made with reasonable certainty.   
Power within the stated capability of the controller and power leads  
is sufficient to simulate large (kW order) heat flows, depending on  
the water flow rate.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-30 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 31-8-2011 0:01, Horace Heffner wrote:


On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


If the only source of heat was electricity, two things are certain:

1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt. You 
can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an ordinary wire.


This is false.  If the flow is 3 ml/s then any input power above 1617 
W will provide a flue temperature at boiling point.  If no one 
measures the output of the hose, but rather assumes dry steam,  then 
the apparent power is over 12000 W.


Just a reality check to see how thick a (VDE-approved) single copper 
wire you need at least to transfer 12 kW of power through.


Copper resistivity / m =
0.0175  
wire thickness  theoretically possible  "approved (norm)"
I_max (A)   230V
1 phase
A (mm^2 )   D (mm)  R/_m (?)I_max (A)   P_max (W)   P_max 
(W)
8.0 3.190.00219 53.33   12267   53.00   12250



As far as I can see from the photos of the Rossi reactor, the wires to 
the heating resistors are a lot smaller than the 3.19 mm diameter (= 
approx. AWG 8 !)


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Jed its more a violation of the 1st law to have steam production without 
extraction from the metal. No the temperature would not drop to zero. Sounds 
like you're admitting defeat.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace Heffner wrote:

How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into 
the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be 
like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.

Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of flow 
rate, 300 ml/min, 5 ml/sec, 18 liters per hour, was present at the time 
of the heat after death observation?

Ah. I see. Dunno. Ask Krivit to put the video back on line, or ask Levi or 
Rossi.

Anyway, I am sure they thought it was showing significant, stable excess 
heat or they wouldn't put it in heat after death mode, would they? That 
would be pointless. The reason people do this is to eliminate input from 
the equation, to confirm that the output is not input accidentally 
magnified. You wouldn't do it if the calorimetry did not already indicate 
significant anomalous heat. That's why the "stored up heat" hypothesis 
does not work with Fleischmann's boil off heat after death, or in this 
instance. There is no storing up. It is producing more output than input 
continuously up to the moment heat after death begins (for a week, in 
Fleischmann's case). If they are "extracting heat" from the metal as 
Catania claims, the metal would be way below absolute zero by the time 
heat after death begins. I believe it is difficult to extract heat from 
metal in that condition. Something about the Second Law.

When people such as Lonchampt turn off the power to blank cells in which 
there is only electrical or electrochemical heating, the heat immediately 
falls, according to Newton's law of cooling. It is readily apparent. It 
does not look a bit like heat after death.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Horace Heffner wrote:

How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits 
into the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It 
would be like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.



Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of flow 
rate, 300 ml/min, 5 ml/sec, 18 liters per hour, was present at the 
time of the heat after death observation?


Ah. I see. Dunno. Ask Krivit to put the video back on line, or ask Levi 
or Rossi.


Anyway, I am sure they thought it was showing significant, stable excess 
heat or they wouldn't put it in heat after death mode, would they? That 
would be pointless. The reason people do this is to eliminate input from 
the equation, to confirm that the output is not input accidentally 
magnified. You wouldn't do it if the calorimetry did not already 
indicate significant anomalous heat. That's why the "stored up heat" 
hypothesis does not work with Fleischmann's boil off heat after death, 
or in this instance. There is no storing up. It is producing more output 
than input continuously up to the moment heat after death begins (for a 
week, in Fleischmann's case). If they are "extracting heat" from the 
metal as Catania claims, the metal would be way below absolute zero by 
the time heat after death begins. I believe it is difficult to extract 
heat from metal in that condition. Something about the Second Law.


When people such as Lonchampt turn off the power to blank cells in which 
there is only electrical or electrochemical heating, the heat 
immediately falls, according to Newton's law of cooling. It is readily 
apparent. It does not look a bit like heat after death.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Again your the only one who is imagining flow calorimetry without a flow. I 
can assure you I'm imagining no such thing. But of course you would not be 
able to tell me if there was or wasn't flow in any case you say you knew 
about. That's whats unique about you Jed. Your "science" is completely 
imaginary and you know it yet you can still turn around and say it was my 
imagination all along. If someone else saying the best they can do in terms 
of data is to tell you they've been working with it for more than a month 
most people would sense a total lie coming. Not you Jed. You'd tell us 
that's what makes it reliable. Ah... but there's no it as far as I can tell. 
Show the data. And no flawed flow calorimetry (however precious that may be 
to you) is going to be able to produce reliable data. Perhaps what you meant 
is what I've been telling you- don't use flow calorimetry. If you think the 
liquid test is better show us the results. Why did Rossi make so much of the 
steam tests?


If Rossi's steam is dry you'd better believe there's no liquid flow. And if 
so why is the temp 100C? No superheat. Rossi must be a master of control! 
Yes, you've been imaginig everything you've said Jed. "Experts say," is a 
redundant statement. You should know that by now Jed. Why do company 
spokespeople deny that steam quality can be measured this way. Of course you 
know it can't. I've never heard of a boiler man doing any such thing. We all 
know its more difficult to measure steam quality.


Still don't know why your ranting about flow calorimetry using a flow of 
water. Are you trying to say a flow of water is justification in itself?


As a matter of fact the probe that Levi uses to measure RH has an attachment 
for velocity. Its one of the easiest things to measure.
- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



Joe Catania wrote:

Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of 
a guess.


Okay. Ask Krivit to show it to you again. It was there before.

It seems like a pretty good guess to me, since they told me they worked 
with the gadget for a month before demonstrating it. They did not say "we 
worked with one gadget for four weeks and then arbitrarily decided to use 
another one on the day of the test." I do not have your vivid imagination 
so I am not good at guessing or coming up with mind-boggling scenarios 
such as this, or people doing flow calorimetry without a flow.




Why dosen't Rossi verify steam quality.


He does. He uses a Delta Ohm RH meter or another brand. Experts tell me 
this is a perfectly good method. Self-appointed experts here say it is 
not, but all the real world experts I've heard from are confident that 
Rossi's steam is dry. They say it has to be, given the geometry of his 
device, the temperatures and the pressure (1 atm). I do not know enough to 
judge but I tend to assume that experts know what they're talking about, 
and I'm sure that this method cannot be as wrong as people here imagine it 
might be.


I'm also sure that everyone who does flow calorimetry does use a flow of 
water. Hence the name: "flow calorimetry." But that's just me. I take 
things literally. When someone says "I drove from Atlanta to Washington" I 
assume they meant they have a car with four wheels and inflated tires, 
rather than a magic carpet or a herd of buffalo attached to skateboards. I 
suppose I am making a lot of assumptions and you could be right that 
people do flow calorimetry without a flow or that the machine is several 
hundred degrees and incandescent but no one has noticed and the insulating 
tape did not burn because it is special ordered from the Russian Space 
Agency for patching up reentry vehicle nosecones. Anything is possible and 
life is full of mysteries, but alas most of the mysteries escape my 
attention because -- as I said -- I have prosaic imagination, I read the 
manual, and I assume that people mean what they say.



A simple steam velocity would verify steam quality yet I see no attempt 
being made to do so.


And how does one measure steam velocity, simply? Or in a complicated way, 
for that matter? You should get together with Lomax on this. With your 
imagination I am sure you can suggest a method.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 30, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:

As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested  
in December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was  
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.


Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after  
death observation?


How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits  
into the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It  
would be like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.



Obviously my question is are you sure that *precise magnitude* of  
flow rate, 300 ml/min, 5 ml/sec, 18 liters per hour, was present at  
the time of the heat after death observation?







  It does correspond roughly to 12 kW boiling power. Of course, it  
could also mean water was pushed out of the top of the device  
during the run merely giving the appearance of 12 kW output when  
it is assumed all water is boiled.


If that happened, the temperature would drop. You can see that easily.


Well, yes of course, if 300 ml/s was indeed the flow rate.  The  
thermal power applied would have to be above 1617 W to heat that flow  
to boiling point.  It would be of interest to go back to the film and  
count the click rate.  Also useful to know what the maximum flow rate  
for the pump would be at that click rate.  My impression was that 7  
liters per hour was the pump rate, but my memory is admittedly very  
bad.  At 7 liters an hour the water heating power is 630.6  watts,  
not too far from 400 watts input, so it becomes very important to  
establish with great certainty just what the electric power input  
was. If all is as you say was presented, then it is true it would be  
possible to detect momentary heat after death by the flue  
temperature. However, there seems to be some doubt as to the  
credibility of any numbers that are from the demos. The good thing  
about the first *public* test is that there were multiple scientists  
present.  Still, calorimetry was not performed, and no energy balance  
determined, so nothing clear was determined by the demo.






For that matter, if you cannot tell when there is steam by the  
temperature, the method would not work at any time, under any  
conditions, whether there is input power or not. The data would be  
meaningless; all of the results would be in error. This error would  
have been revealed during the 18-hour flowing water test, as Rossi  
and I have pointed out many times.


Well, if there is no continued inspection of what is going out of the  
hose then it is not known what the thermal power is at many moments,  
and certainly an overall energy balance can not be taken.





The input power is 80 to 400 W, which is small fraction of the  
output power, so cutting it off entirely has little effect on the  
total output. Obviously, reducing overall output from ~12 kW to  
~11.2 kW will not stop the thing from boiling!



Yes obviously true, *provided* the thermal output really was 12000 W,  
and provided the input flow really was 5 ml/sec.





A calorimetric error mistaking 400 W for 12,000 W is out of the  
question. The worst flow calorimeter imaginable would not produce  
such a large error.


Well, no calorimetry was actually done on the output. The problem is  
it is easy to mistake 1700 W for 12000 W with the methodology used.   
We have good reason to think Rossi has misstated flow on at least one  
occasion.  There is some evidence he has tinker with controls during  
at least one demo.  There are active controllers in the box.  Who  
knows what kind of input power was actually applied at any specific  
minute?






I am curious as to how the steam was observed if the hose was in  
the drain.  If the steam stopped then water pouring out of the  
hose should have followed immediately if the 5 ml/s pump rate was  
maintained.


If the steam was stopped, the temperature would drop immediately.  
There is a constant flow of water into the cell. It takes little  
time to replace all of the water with cold water.



Yes, and thus water should almost immediately come out of the hose,  
as I said. That was *my* point.




If the only source of heat was electricity, two things are certain:

1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt.  
You can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an ordinary  
wire.


This is false.  If the flow is 3 ml/s then any input power above 1617  
W will provide a flue temperature at boiling point.  If no one  
measures the output of the hose, but rather assumes dry steam,  then  
the apparent power is over 12000 W.




2. Boiling would stop within seconds, and the temperature would drop.


If there is no steam then boiling *has* stopped. As soon as the  
temperature has decayed to the point there is no steam water should  
be coming out of the hose. THis should have been observed if there  
really was an observation of the heat after death steam.






It is

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Joe Catania wrote:

Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more 
of a guess.


Okay. Ask Krivit to show it to you again. It was there before.

It seems like a pretty good guess to me, since they told me they worked 
with the gadget for a month before demonstrating it. They did not say 
"we worked with one gadget for four weeks and then arbitrarily decided 
to use another one on the day of the test." I do not have your vivid 
imagination so I am not good at guessing or coming up with mind-boggling 
scenarios such as this, or people doing flow calorimetry without a flow.




Why dosen't Rossi verify steam quality.


He does. He uses a Delta Ohm RH meter or another brand. Experts tell me 
this is a perfectly good method. Self-appointed experts here say it is 
not, but all the real world experts I've heard from are confident that 
Rossi's steam is dry. They say it has to be, given the geometry of his 
device, the temperatures and the pressure (1 atm). I do not know enough 
to judge but I tend to assume that experts know what they're talking 
about, and I'm sure that this method cannot be as wrong as people here 
imagine it might be.


I'm also sure that everyone who does flow calorimetry does use a flow of 
water. Hence the name: "flow calorimetry." But that's just me. I take 
things literally. When someone says "I drove from Atlanta to Washington" 
I assume they meant they have a car with four wheels and inflated tires, 
rather than a magic carpet or a herd of buffalo attached to skateboards. 
I suppose I am making a lot of assumptions and you could be right that 
people do flow calorimetry without a flow or that the machine is several 
hundred degrees and incandescent but no one has noticed and the 
insulating tape did not burn because it is special ordered from the 
Russian Space Agency for patching up reentry vehicle nosecones. Anything 
is possible and life is full of mysteries, but alas most of the 
mysteries escape my attention because -- as I said -- I have prosaic 
imagination, I read the manual, and I assume that people mean what they say.



A simple steam velocity would verify steam quality yet I see no 
attempt being made to do so.


And how does one measure steam velocity, simply? Or in a complicated 
way, for that matter? You should get together with Lomax on this. With 
your imagination I am sure you can suggest a method.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Until I see the data you refer to all I can say is its seems like more of a 
guess. Why dosen't Rossi verify syeam quality. A simple steam velocity would 
verify steam quality yet I see no attemp being made to do so. An error in 
flow rate has already been noted and there is no way the steam could be dry. 
Coupled with the fact that Levi has attested to 50% of steam being condensed 
in the hose and we have that power is probably not even 1/4 of what Rossi 
says. How can steam be condensing at 50% rate in the hose when the heat 
transfer through the hose isn't sufficient. This makes me nervous and 
suspicious of the calorimetry. Rosii's cavalier dismissal of important 
issues like steam quality. His insistance that relative humidity will 
measure it, his refusal to measure quality, and a seeming lack of knowledge 
of the enthalpy of hydride formation and thernal inertia are screaming for 
independent calorimetry (preferably not flow calorimetry). Even with 50% of 
steam condensed in the hose the velocity of steam from the hose should be 
noticeably higher than is observed. I must conclude that he has nothing.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



Horace Heffner wrote:

As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in 
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was typically 
~300 ml/min I believe.


Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after death 
observation?


How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into 
the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be like 
trying to do it without measuring the temperature.



  It does correspond roughly to 12 kW boiling power. Of course, it could 
also mean water was pushed out of the top of the device during the run 
merely giving the appearance of 12 kW output when it is assumed all water 
is boiled.


If that happened, the temperature would drop. You can see that easily.

For that matter, if you cannot tell when there is steam by the 
temperature, the method would not work at any time, under any conditions, 
whether there is input power or not. The data would be meaningless; all of 
the results would be in error. This error would have been revealed during 
the 18-hour flowing water test, as Rossi and I have pointed out many 
times.


The input power is 80 to 400 W, which is small fraction of the output 
power, so cutting it off entirely has little effect on the total output. 
Obviously, reducing overall output from ~12 kW to ~11.2 kW will not stop 
the thing from boiling!


A calorimetric error mistaking 400 W for 12,000 W is out of the question. 
The worst flow calorimeter imaginable would not produce such a large 
error.



I am curious as to how the steam was observed if the hose was in the 
drain.  If the steam stopped then water pouring out of the hose should 
have followed immediately if the 5 ml/s pump rate was maintained.


If the steam was stopped, the temperature would drop immediately. There is 
a constant flow of water into the cell. It takes little time to replace 
all of the water with cold water. If the only source of heat was 
electricity, two things are certain:


1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt. You 
can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an ordinary wire.


2. Boiling would stop within seconds, and the temperature would drop.


It is notable that in the right conditions "steam" will be seen coming 
off a hot bowl of soup, or even a cool river. You can't actually see 
steam of course, only condensation. Too bad there is no video of this 
event.


You cannot tell much about steam by looking at a photo or video. You 
cannot discern the quality of the steam. Lomax claimed here that he can 
determine the velocity of the steam by looking, but he did not describe 
his method. I do not think that is possible.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Horace Heffner wrote:

You are providing the input data so you should know which test you are 
talking about.  Jed says the first test.


No, I said it was the device used in the first public test. The large 
eCat, shown in many photos. As far as I know this was the only eCat they 
used in December, January and February. The event occurred in December. 
Levi et al. spent a lot of time in December and January testing the 
machine before they did a public test. Getting ready for the test. One 
of the things they did was run without input for 15 min. (heat after 
death mode). I assume it was about the same power output as the January 
and February tests because they say performance is stable and 
predictable with this machine. It works the same way every time. Focardi 
emphasize that in his video interview with Krivit.


It is not always stable. Input power seems to vary for some reason, and 
during the 18-hour test it went bonkers at first, producing a great deal 
of heat and frightening Rossi, according to Levi in his comments in the 
video interview with Levi.


I assume it was the same device because they never mentioned having more 
than one, and why would you spend a month getting ready to do a test 
with one machine and then do the test with another one?


The graph from the heat after death event is shown in the video #3 (I 
think it is). Unfortunately, it appears Krivit has withdrawn this one 
from public access. He does that kind of thing. It is annoying. Anyway, 
this is not terribly important. There is no question that gas loaded 
devices work in heat after death mode. It is ridiculous to doubt that 
since most of them are inherently in that mode all the time. See Arata's 
cells, for example. The mystery is not that it runs without power, but 
rather why any heating power is needed after the critical operating 
temperature is reached. I have no idea why it needs input power, and how 
that input power controls the reaction (assuming it does). Even though I 
have no idea why it works this way, it does not surprise me. 
Temperature, heat flux and temperature differences have often been shown 
to be critical to cold fusion effects.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Horace Heffner wrote:

As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in 
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was 
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.


Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after 
death observation?


How else could it work? It would run out of water. Very little fits into 
the cell. You cannot do flow calorimetry without a flow. It would be 
like trying to do it without measuring the temperature.



  It does correspond roughly to 12 kW boiling power. Of course, it 
could also mean water was pushed out of the top of the device during 
the run merely giving the appearance of 12 kW output when it is 
assumed all water is boiled.


If that happened, the temperature would drop. You can see that easily.

For that matter, if you cannot tell when there is steam by the 
temperature, the method would not work at any time, under any 
conditions, whether there is input power or not. The data would be 
meaningless; all of the results would be in error. This error would have 
been revealed during the 18-hour flowing water test, as Rossi and I have 
pointed out many times.


The input power is 80 to 400 W, which is small fraction of the output 
power, so cutting it off entirely has little effect on the total output. 
Obviously, reducing overall output from ~12 kW to ~11.2 kW will not stop 
the thing from boiling!


A calorimetric error mistaking 400 W for 12,000 W is out of the 
question. The worst flow calorimeter imaginable would not produce such a 
large error.



I am curious as to how the steam was observed if the hose was in the 
drain.  If the steam stopped then water pouring out of the hose should 
have followed immediately if the 5 ml/s pump rate was maintained.


If the steam was stopped, the temperature would drop immediately. There 
is a constant flow of water into the cell. It takes little time to 
replace all of the water with cold water. If the only source of heat was 
electricity, two things are certain:


1. It could not be 12 kW in the first place. The wire would melt. You 
can't possibly conduct that much electricity over an ordinary wire.


2. Boiling would stop within seconds, and the temperature would drop.


It is notable that in the right conditions "steam" will be seen coming 
off a hot bowl of soup, or even a cool river. You can't actually see 
steam of course, only condensation. Too bad there is no video of this 
event.


You cannot tell much about steam by looking at a photo or video. You 
cannot discern the quality of the steam. Lomax claimed here that he can 
determine the velocity of the steam by looking, but he did not describe 
his method. I do not think that is possible.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Horace wrote: «If you provide numbers for Mass, Thermal Power  
(before shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow then I  
will then be happy to provide the corresponding data.»


Perhaps 500 grams was too small value. I re-estimated that if the  
outer volume of core chamber is 50cc, then perhaps 2kg is maximum  
value for thermal mass in the core. But we know very few details.  
The copper tubing does not contain much thermal mass, as it is in  
contact with steam/water, thus temperature is less than 100°C.  
Anyways my estimationes.


The mass of the core (for storing thermal energy) 500g-2kg.
Max core temperature 1000°C
Thermal power 2-3kW
Inlet: 25°C / 5kg/h
Steam overpressure: 3.2 kPa.

Notice that if core temperature is high (such as during the power  
surge in 18h experiment), then only small portion of the core is in  
that temperature, but there is temperature gradient. However it is  
unlikely that core temperature is high during normal operation.  
Unfortunately we (or I?) do not have any data what is the core  
temperature in normal operation.


But it is odd that we discuss this because all Rossi's reactors are  
currently selfsustaining indefinitely, because he can manage them  
adjusting hydrogen pressure and cooling water inflow rate.


—Jouni

Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we  
have pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by  
nobody.




You are providing the input data so you should know which test you  
are talking about.  Jed says the first test.


In any case I provided some output based on your range of inputs:

http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal3.pdf

Mode 1 was all at 0.83 gm/s, Mode 2 was at 1.94 gm/s.  I added some  
data at 748 W and 1000 just to consider no nuclear heat options.  
Based on the input values a 15 minute decay is only feasible in the  
low water flow conditions.   It is also feasible that 748 W input,  
similar to Krivit's video test, could produce 15 minutes of steam at  
2 kg mass. However, this might imply too high a thermal resistance to  
be feasible.


It would be interesting to run Jed's numbers, if there is a  
reasonable thermal mass number available.



Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

The imagination is all yours. If you read K&E they essentially seem to imply 
it, which I found rather disturbing. I can't make heads or tails of their 
report as written.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jed Rothwell" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Joe Catania wrote:

Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage but 
there does not seem to be evidence of that.

You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow 
calorimeters without a flow.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:18 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

As far as I know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in  
December, which is when the event occurred. The flow rate was  
typically ~300 ml/min I believe.


Are you sure about that flow rate being present in the heat after  
death observation?  It does correspond roughly to 12 kW boiling  
power. Of course, it could also mean water was pushed out of the top  
of the device during the run merely giving the appearance of 12 kW  
output when it is assumed all water is boiled.


I am curious as to how the steam was observed if the hose was in the  
drain.  If the steam stopped then water pouring out of the hose  
should have followed immediately if the 5 ml/s pump rate was maintained.


It is notable that in the right conditions "steam" will be seen  
coming off a hot bowl of soup, or even a cool river. You can't  
actually see steam of course, only condensation. Too bad there is no  
video of this event.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Joe Catania wrote:

Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage 
but there does not seem to be evidence of that.


You have an extraordinary imagination, thinking that people run flow 
calorimeters without a flow.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Its not my reasoning but the nature of the beast which I assumed everyone was 
familiar with and rightly so. Not only have I been the subject of ad hominems 
for a presentaion that is obvious by the very nature of what is being 
discussed, there have been false allegations and insults to nature. This 
doesn't matter as its is easy to see that even during powered operation of 
E-Cat thermal inertia is what controls heat transfer through the metal surface 
to the water
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:17 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

  Perhaps someone can provide specific reference to a statement by one of the 
participants in the E-Cat demos that the water flow was maintained during the 
heat-after-death tests.

  Joe Catania:

  Your post below is what you should have started with:

  1)  It contains a detailed explanation of your reasoning, which gives us 
enough information to understand the basis of your argument.

  2)  There are no personal attacks in it.

  We are talking two completely different scenarios for the heat-after-death 
test. You are assuming that the water flow was turned OFF, and I think most of 
us are assuming that the flow was unchanged from the power-on operation.  I 
think the whole point of the 'heat-after-death' test is that water flow is 
still going on during that part of the test.

  -M

  From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:08 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

  Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will 
not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the metal 
may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi and I believe 
Defkalion. If the flow is turned off or is only 1g/s it looks like 15 min can 
easily be justified. Also even if it 2g/sec steam can still be produced since 
metal surfaces will still be at 100C. If there is steam wetness it will appear 
that more steam is being produced than really is. But as long as there's heat 
transfer from metal at >100C to 100C water there will be some steam produced 
(maybe not as much as at power off but some). I took Levi to mean some steam 
was produced for 15 min and I accepted he used his judgment to determine when 
that ended. So its very possible that all he may have been observing was 
thermal inertia. On the other hand, if there's something else going on- some 
other heat source, as looks to be evident in K&E demo then the thermal inertia 
source may coincide with the anomalous source. For instance if the hydriding 
reaction is what is causing the increased slope to temperature rise in the K&E 
graph you might get ~1MJ of hydride caused heat being released (~200,000J/mol 
and ~1 mol/9g). The reason I wanted to be understood about the thermal inertia 
is that good calorimetry will need to take it into account. I believe it has 
already been posted to Vortex that time history is important- this is roughly 
the same. It will be difficult for us to determine the exact goings-on in 
Rossi's device even armed with this since we don't know if he keeps the flow on 
(I'm guessing he does), what the rate is (Rizzi may be right about it being at 
least halved), the steam is not thoroughly dry, and we don't react have details 
of the reactor construction. I have to say that from the K&E report it seems 
Rossi might not even be aware that the hydriding that occurs in metals when 
packing hydrogen into the lattice is not the chemical hydriding that K&E quote 
the enthalpy to but the physical hydriding which releases much more energy. So 
now its not clear if that was detected at all. If Rossi understood physical 
hydriding and merely hired Levi as an independent, University associated 
researcher to try to detect the "self-sustaining nuclear" reaction that would 
be observed upon cutting the power he may have baited Levi and hinted that 
there might be such a phenomenon relying on Levi's innocence to report 
continued steam production. From watching the interviews with Levi it seems he 
is not aware of thermal inertia or physical hydriding that contribute to this 
"extra steam" and may have been forced to attribute it to a successful cold 
fusion demo.

RE: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-30 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

Perhaps someone can provide specific reference to a statement by one of the
participants in the E-Cat demos that the water flow was maintained during
the heat-after-death tests.

 

Joe Catania:

Your post below is what you should have started with:

1)  It contains a detailed explanation of your reasoning, which gives us
enough information to understand the basis of your argument.

2)  There are no personal attacks in it.

 

We are talking two completely different scenarios for the heat-after-death
test. You are assuming that the water flow was turned OFF, and I think most
of us are assuming that the flow was unchanged from the power-on operation.
I think the whole point of the 'heat-after-death' test is that water flow is
still going on during that part of the test.

 

-M

 

From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

 

Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will
not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the
metal may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi and I
believe Defkalion. If the flow is turned off or is only 1g/s it looks like
15 min can easily be justified. Also even if it 2g/sec steam can still be
produced since metal surfaces will still be at 100C. If there is steam
wetness it will appear that more steam is being produced than really is. But
as long as there's heat transfer from metal at >100C to 100C water there
will be some steam produced (maybe not as much as at power off but some). I
took Levi to mean some steam was produced for 15 min and I accepted he used
his judgment to determine when that ended. So its very possible that all he
may have been observing was thermal inertia. On the other hand, if there's
something else going on- some other heat source, as looks to be evident in
K&E demo then the thermal inertia source may coincide with the anomalous
source. For instance if the hydriding reaction is what is causing the
increased slope to temperature rise in the K&E graph you might get ~1MJ of
hydride caused heat being released (~200,000J/mol and ~1 mol/9g). The reason
I wanted to be understood about the thermal inertia is that good calorimetry
will need to take it into account. I believe it has already been posted to
Vortex that time history is important- this is roughly the same. It will be
difficult for us to determine the exact goings-on in Rossi's device even
armed with this since we don't know if he keeps the flow on (I'm guessing he
does), what the rate is (Rizzi may be right about it being at least halved),
the steam is not thoroughly dry, and we don't react have details of the
reactor construction. I have to say that from the K&E report it seems Rossi
might not even be aware that the hydriding that occurs in metals when
packing hydrogen into the lattice is not the chemical hydriding that K&E
quote the enthalpy to but the physical hydriding which releases much more
energy. So now its not clear if that was detected at all. If Rossi
understood physical hydriding and merely hired Levi as an independent,
University associated researcher to try to detect the "self-sustaining
nuclear" reaction that would be observed upon cutting the power he may have
baited Levi and hinted that there might be such a phenomenon relying on
Levi's innocence to report continued steam production. From watching the
interviews with Levi it seems he is not aware of thermal inertia or physical
hydriding that contribute to this "extra steam" and may have been forced to
attribute it to a successful cold fusion demo.

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Oops! I assumed that there actually was outflow water at this stage but 
there does not seem to be evidence of that. Perhaps the water is retained in 
the E-Cat and the temperaure is monitored. In any case it seems the E-Cat is 
not producing steam yet. There would also be heat stored in E-Cat water 
although this does not contribute directly to steam.
- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Catania" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

I belive you are saying the heating mantle alone is 500g. Also the water
never exceeds 100C so why should the insulation? I assume Rossi construction
does not allow metal potentially hot enough to destroy insulation to contact
insulation. If he saw that happen he would rework the insulation. Also the
temperature of metal would decline as we move from the core. For instance in
K&E, figure 6 graph, for over 10 minutes (600 sec) the 300W heater runs
producing ~2MW of heat at least half of which are not measured as flowing
out in outlet water thus establishing that at least 1MW was stored in the
metal in this way. The hdriding reaction which I postulate as the reason for
the increased slope at 60C will add even more.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011/8/30 Horace Heffner :

Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5
and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal
decline curve with no nuclear energy involved.

Good thinking, expect that the total metal weight of the E-Cat is ca.
5kg. Perhaps quite bit less. And we still need to worry that
insulation material cannot withstand high temperatures and also the
parts of E-Cat that are in direct contact with water cannot exceed
100°C. Therefore total mass that can store thermal energy (i.e.
heating element or the core) cannot weight more than 500 grams.
Therefore I suggest you slight revision of calculations.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

I belive you are saying the heating mantle alone is 500g. Also the water 
never exceeds 100C so why should the insulation? I assume Rossi construction 
does not allow metal potentially hot enough to destroy insulation to contact 
insulation. If he saw that happen he would rework the insulation. Also the 
temperature of metal would decline as we move from the core. For instance in 
K&E, figure 6 graph, for over 10 minutes (600 sec) the 300W heater runs 
producing ~2MW of heat at least half of which are not measured as flowing 
out in outlet water thus establishing that at least 1MW was stored in the 
metal in this way. The hdriding reaction which I postulate as the reason for 
the increased slope at 60C will add even more.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


2011/8/30 Horace Heffner :

Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5
and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal
decline curve with no nuclear energy involved.


Good thinking, expect that the total metal weight of the E-Cat is ca.
5kg. Perhaps quite bit less. And we still need to worry that
insulation material cannot withstand high temperatures and also the
parts of E-Cat that are in direct contact with water cannot exceed
100°C. Therefore total mass that can store thermal energy (i.e.
heating element or the core) cannot weight more than 500 grams.
Therefore I suggest you slight revision of calculations.

–Jouni

RE: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-30 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

Yes, Jed, thanks for pointing that out, but, I was incorporating into my
figures (and didn't write it down) the additional energy going into the heat
of vaporization that would be necessary for the E-Cat to continue to produce
steam as Joe is claiming. after the power is turned off.

-M

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 7:00 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

 

Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:




Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see that
water can store 100 to 1000 times more heat per mass than any metal. 




It is a factor of 10 for most metals, per unit of mass. Not 100 or 1000. The
eCat is mostly steel which is 0.49 kJ/kg K. Water is 4.19 kJ/kg K.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will 
not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the metal 
may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi and I believe 
Defkalion. If the flow is turned off or is only 1g/s it looks like 15 min can 
easily be justified. Also even if it 2g/sec steam can still be produced since 
metal surfaces will still be at 100C. If there is steam wetness it will appear 
that more steam is being produced than really is. But as long as there's heat 
transfer from metal at >100C to 100C water there will be some steam produced 
(maybe not as much as at power off but some). I took Levi to mean some steam 
was produced for 15 min and I accepted he used his judgment to determine when 
that ended. So its very possible that all he may have been observing was 
thermal inertia. On the other hand, if there's something else going on- some 
other heat source, as looks to be evident in K&E demo then the thermal inertia 
source may coincide with the anomalous source. For instance if the hydriding 
reaction is what is causing the increased slope to temperature rise in the K&E 
graph you might get ~1MJ of hydride caused heat being released (~200,000J/mol 
and ~1 mol/9g). The reason I wanted to be understood about the thermal inertia 
is that good calorimetry will need to take it into account. I believe it has 
already been posted to Vortex that time history is important- this is roughly 
the same. It will be difficult for us to determine the exact goings-on in 
Rossi's device even armed with this since we don't know if he keeps the flow on 
(I'm guessing he does), what the rate is (Rizzi may be right about it being at 
least halved), the steam is not thoroughly dry, and we don't react have details 
of the reactor construction. I have to say that from the K&E report it seems 
Rossi might not even be aware that the hydriding that occurs in metals when 
packing hydrogen into the lattice is not the chemical hydriding that K&E quote 
the enthalpy to but the physical hydriding which releases much more energy. So 
now its not clear if that was detected at all. If Rossi understood physical 
hydriding and merely hired Levi as an independent, University associated 
researcher to try to detect the "self-sustaining nuclear" reaction that would 
be observed upon cutting the power he may have baited Levi and hinted that 
there might be such a phenomenon relying on Levi's innocence to report 
continued steam production. From watching the interviews with Levi it seems he 
is not aware of thermal inertia or physical hydriding that contribute to this 
"extra steam" and may have been forced to attribute it to a successful cold 
fusion demo.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Horace Heffner 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


  Hi Joe,


  I found an error in my calculation of the critical temperature, the 
temperature at which all energy merely goes into heating the water to 100°C, 
with none left to produce steam.  You will probably like the improvements.  I 
have reposted:


  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal.pdf
  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf
  http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf


  The old formula for Critical Temp. was:


 (Critical Temp.) = (Thermal Resistance) * (Water Heating) +100


  The current formula for Critical Temp. is:


 (Critical Temp.) = (Water Heating)*(Thermal Resistance)+(Inlet Temp.)


  I also added a "Thermal Power" column to the decay curve data to show the 
thermal power applied to the water as the temperature decays.  Note that at the 
critical temperature Tcrit in the decay curve the power applied to the water is 
equal to that required to heat it to 100°C, namely 268.3 W.  This is also the 
critical time 23.73 minutes. 


  Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5 and 
10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal decline 
curve with no nuclear energy involved.  However, the flow rate used is that 
suggested by Mattia Rizzi, 3 liters per second, not 7 liters per second. 



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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Terry Blanton wrote:


I concur, Nick.  These are violations of forum rules.
Perhaps, but let us not be too thin-skinned. Or politically correct. 
Let's not ban anyone. If someone irritates you, just add the name to 
your own auto-delete list.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

You have no idea what I'm talking about. If I say water flow is not what you 
need to get on square one with this then its true. Your posts are completely of 
topic and show a total lack of competence. I never said there was no water 
flow. I said it is not relevant. One does grasp therma inertia by understanding 
there is a water flow. Also it is not certain that Levi leaves the flow on. In 
either case your calculations have prooven to be incorrect. As this has been 
stated many times you must accept that your are being ignoramus. The heat 
capacity of water is irrelevant. The heat capacity of water is nowhere near 100 
to 1000 times a metal. In fact on a volume basis they are about equal. The time 
of production of steam has to do with the time it takes the hot metals 
temperature to decay to 100C. With good insulation and no water flow (but 
allowing steam flow) its impossible for the temperature of the metal to decay 
beow 100C. You need to understand that it will produce steam for on the order 
of 15 minutes not 1 minute. Water flow will not drastically change the 
situation. Remember this is an order of mag calculation. There are no practical 
measurements available. Any numbers you suggest are totally biased. Also the 
calculations you believers suggest do not jibe with length of steam production 
using those numbers. You are all running away from the truth. There is little 
point in this since any anomalous heat has already been ascribed to hydride 
formation. - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:30 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


  Joe:

   

  Water flow is most certainly pertinent to any energy calculations concerning 
the E-Cat. Your statement that "we aren't discussing water flow" seems to 
indicate that either we are talking about two completely different calculations 
or you have no idea what you're talking about.  All demonstrations of the E-Cat 
have had a high quality pump pumping water thru the E-Cat - where do you think 
the steam comes from?  There is some disagreement as to the 'claimed' flowrates 
which might be in conflict with the apparent flowrate based on the number of 
'strokes' per minute, but no one has ever claimed that there is no water flow 
thru the E-Cat.  Given that and the fact that there are few substances that 
have a higher heat capacity than water, make me seriously question your 
understanding of the device and/or the physics involved here.  Compare the heat 
capacity of any metal with water and you will see that water can store 100 to 
1000 times more heat per mass than any metal.  Since the mass of water in the 
E-Cat and the mass of the metal structure are at least similar, how long the 
E-Cat could continue to produce steam once the power was turned off is MOST 
CERTAINLY dependent on the water flow and the temperature of that water. 
probably much more so than the metal structure.

   

  PS:  Horace was probably doing these kinds of energy calculations when you 
were still pissing in your diapers, so I'd suggest that you calm down and stop 
insisting that all others are wrong and you are right.  If you want to gain any 
credibility on this discussion list then I'd suggest that you stick to facts 
and figures and calculations to support your points, and stop the personal 
attacks.

   

  -Mark

   

   

  From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] 
  Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 7:59 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

   

   

  On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

   

  [snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]

   

 We aren't discussing water flow. 


  [snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]

   

  Of course we are discussing water flow.  The device had water pumped into it 
at a constant rate.  If you chose to ignore that then you chose to ignore 
reality.  Looking back, I do see that you simply chose to ignore reality in 
your discussion with Jed. 

   

  Joe

   

  On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:





  Joe Catania wrote:

   

No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate 
of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant 
I neglect it.

   

  The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter.

   

  It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you can boil water in device 
this size, save up heat in metal, and then continue boiling at any observable 
rate for more than a few seconds after the power goes off. That is out of the 
question. The temperature of the metal would be far above the melting point. 
The metal would be incandescent.

   

  - Jed

   

   

  Instead of talking imaginary things I suggest a quantitative analysis to see 
what kinds of

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Water flow is irrelevant to what I'm discussing. It is not a certainty that 
Levi keeps the flow on during his power out. Clearly your grasp of physics is 
limited. Insulting mother nature won't clinch proof of CF. If the best you have 
is a dream you may as well join the rational thinkers.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Horace Heffner 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 10:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

  On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote:

  [snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]

 We aren't discussing water flow. 

  [snip ad hominem and continued mistakes]

  Of course we are discussing water flow.  The device had water pumped into it 
at a constant rate.  If you chose to ignore that then you chose to ignore 
reality.  Looking back, I do see that you simply chose to ignore reality in 
your discussion with Jed. 

  Joe

  On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Joe Catania wrote:

  No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate 
of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant 
I neglect it.

The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter.

It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you can boil water in device 
this size, save up heat in metal, and then continue boiling at any observable 
rate for more than a few seconds after the power goes off. That is out of the 
question. The temperature of the metal would be far above the melting point. 
The metal would be incandescent.

- Jed

  Instead of talking imaginary things I suggest a quantitative analysis to see 
what kinds of numbers make sense. 

  I have taken no position on the reality of input t this point except to say 
it looks to me that 1 MJ of stored energy seems to be too high to be real.  
Still, I ran some numbers that support that proposition.  Applying logic to a 
proposition is *not* accepting the proposition as true. 

  The statement:

 If x then y 

  is not the same as:

 x is true. 

  It merely provides the opportunity to examine y to see if it is feasibly 
true. 

  Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Jouni Valkonen wrote:

Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we 
have pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.




The 15 minute heat-after-death event was with the large eCat used in the 
January and February tests. This produces 12 kW to 16 kW output 
(depending on how you measure it) with about 400 W input. As far as I 
know, this is the only eCat that Levi et al. tested in December, which 
is when the event occurred. The flow rate was typically ~300 ml/min I 
believe.


It is not mythical. Levi described it in NyTeknik I think.

This is not a bit surprising. Nearly all cold fusion reactions will 
continue without input power. There is no one-for-one ratio or direct 
correspondence between input power and output power. The effect is not 
some sort of conversion or amplification. Input power with electrolysis 
is needed to form the NAE and keep it from dissipating (degassing), but 
dissipation happens slowly so when the heat is robust, there is plenty 
of time after you turn off electrolysis before the heat starts to fade. 
I do not know what the role of the input power is with the Rossi device, 
but clearly there is no one-for-one correspondence or fixed ratio. When 
you turn off input power, output is not likely to fade. On the contrary, 
the cell is likely to heat up and perhaps go out of control and explode 
according to Rossi. I expect he is telling the truth about that. It does 
not surprise me.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

Horace wrote: «If you provide numbers for Mass, Thermal Power (before
shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow then I will then be happy
to provide the corresponding data.»

Perhaps 500 grams was too small value. I re-estimated that if the outer
volume of core chamber is 50cc, then perhaps 2kg is maximum value for
thermal mass in the core. But we know very few details. The copper tubing
does not contain much thermal mass, as it is in contact with steam/water,
thus temperature is less than 100°C. Anyways my estimationes.

The mass of the core (for storing thermal energy) 500g-2kg.
Max core temperature 1000°C
Thermal power 2-3kW
Inlet: 25°C / 5kg/h
Steam overpressure: 3.2 kPa.

Notice that if core temperature is high (such as during the power surge in
18h experiment), then only small portion of the core is in that temperature,
but there is temperature gradient. However it is unlikely that core
temperature is high during normal operation. Unfortunately we (or I?) do not
have any data what is the core temperature in normal operation.

But it is odd that we discuss this because all Rossi's reactors are
currently selfsustaining indefinitely, because he can manage them adjusting
hydrogen pressure and cooling water inflow rate.

—Jouni

Ps. I do not know what model of E-Cat we are talking about. Does we have
pictures? Or is it just some mythical test what was seen by nobody.

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations


Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:

Compare the heat capacity of any metal with water and you will see 
that water can store 100 to 1000 times more heat per mass than any metal.




It is a factor of 10 for most metals, per unit of mass. Not 100 or 1000. 
The eCat is mostly steel which is 0.49 kJ/kg K. Water is 4.19 kJ/kg K.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011-08-30 Thread Terry Blanton

I concur, Nick.  These are violations of forum rules.

Amazing how we can go for years on Vortex with no bannings; then, a
controversial issue comes along and we have to ban those children who
cannot act like human beings.

I think Catania will be the third Rossi fatality.  :)

T

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Nick Palmer  wrote:
> I think Catania needs to be banned..
>
> Talking about Horace he wrote "You just don't have the patience, are
> incompetent or are plain ignorant" and "You're nuts ".
>
> Pay attention to this, Catania. Both Horace and Jed, in different ways, are
> mental giants. You are a midget and a very rude incorrigible one too.
>
> Nick Palmer
>
> On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
>
> Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
> http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations



On Aug 30, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/8/30 Horace Heffner :
Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of  
between 5
and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute  
thermal

decline curve with no nuclear energy involved.


Good thinking, expect that the total metal weight of the E-Cat is ca.
5kg. Perhaps quite bit less. And we still need to worry that
insulation material cannot withstand high temperatures and also the
parts of E-Cat that are in direct contact with water cannot exceed
100°C.


This demonstrates the importance of calculating the thermal  
resistance of the device, even in this simple model.  The temperature  
of the surface adjacent to the water will be near the temperature of  
the water.  A thermal differential, a gradient, exists between the  
catalyst surface and the water surface, or heater surface and water  
surface. The magnitude of the differential is dependent on the  
thermal resistance of the material. The main thermal mass can be  
extremely hot provided the thermal resistance is adequate. Of course  
a finite element analysis would be best, but my simple model  
hopefully provides much more insight into the problems involved than  
one can obtain from a non-quantitative discussion.


One of the items clearly identified for discussion by my model is  
what reasonable values are for the effective thermal resistance of  
the device. If an assumed set of input data produces an impossible  
thermal resistance, then the input data can be rejected as self- 
inconsistent.




Therefore total mass that can store thermal energy (i.e.
heating element or the core) cannot weight more than 500 grams.


On what do you base this claim? All the mass of the device is involved.



Therefore I suggest you slight revision of calculations.

–Jouni



It appears you are suggesting a revision of the input data. If you  
provide numbers for Mass, Thermal Power (before shutoff), Inlet  
Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow then I will then be happy to  
provide the corresponding data.


Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations

2011/8/30 Horace Heffner :
> Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5
> and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal
> decline curve with no nuclear energy involved.

Good thinking, expect that the total metal weight of the E-Cat is ca.
5kg. Perhaps quite bit less. And we still need to worry that
insulation material cannot withstand high temperatures and also the
parts of E-Cat that are in direct contact with water cannot exceed
100°C. Therefore total mass that can store thermal energy (i.e.
heating element or the core) cannot weight more than 500 grams.
Therefore I suggest you slight revision of calculations.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations