Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Alain Sepeda wrote: > It seems the community is quite skeptic, negative , about Defkalion . . . > I do not think so. I did not get a sense of this at ICCF18. People were no more skeptical -- or accepting -- of Defkalion's claims than any other. That was a group of 220 people who are sure that cold fusion exists. They had no reason to doubt these claims. Some, including me, have reservations because this is not a rigorous test in the conventional sense, and because we never give a free pass to anyone. I do mean no one. Martin Fleischmann told me in person that he saw the cathode that melted and went into the floor at U. Utah. I still have my doubts, because he took no photos and preserved no evidence. (He admitted it was stupid not to do that.) > , and that maybe their purpose. > Being sincere they have to avoid claiming false things that could be > opposed later to hurt them. > Unlike some industriels or science domain, they know that any error or > manipulation won't be forgiven. Red Herring or errors are very dangerous > (Rossi shows that). > You should not try to judge this based on people's sincerity or their motives. Those are not valid criteria for judging a scientific claim. In some cases we are forced to resort to speculation about people's motives because there is no better evidence available. We had to do this with Rossi for a long time in some ways. That is regrettable. At best it produces an approximate answer to questions which should be answered by rigorous physical proof and textbook laws. It is even more absurd to try to judge the validity of a scientific claim by placing bets or by a public opinion poll that includes people who have no knowledge of the claim. If you tried the opposite technique, people would agree you are crazy. Suppose an election is coming up and you ask me who I predict will win. I say: "To answer that we must first need to check the calibration curves for the thermocouples and then we need to ask whether their mass spectrometer is the correct type for this analysis . . ." You would conclude that I am stark staring crazy. Those are the wrong tools for predicting elections. Betting and money are equally absurd tools for trying to predict whether an experiment will work, or did work. Some people are under the impression that I have judged Rossi in the past strictly by subjective evidence regarding his motivation, the fact that he works 12 hours a day, the fact that person trying to sell or fraud would not have to work at all, and so on. I have pondered such evidence, and published it here. We should not dismiss that sort of thing even though it is speculative. It is valid but far weaker than experimental data. Let me point out again however, that I did not rely only on this. Rossi allowed independent testing of his devices in 2009. I have the data and photos right here. I have had this data for a long time. For some reason the people doing these tests and Rossi himself wish to keep these results confidential. I cannot imagine why, but I feel I should honor their desires. I better! As the librarian at LENR-CANR.org I will get into trouble if I start uploading stuff like this without permission. People will stop sending me information. However the tests have been widely reported so I see no harm in mentioning them. I also have photos and descriptions of the EON factory Rossi device, described by Focardi in Italian TV, and in the patent. Again, I can't imagine why Rossi wants to keep this secret, but he does. Naturally I cannot expect other people to believe this since the data has not been made public. If you have trouble believing me I won't take that personally. If I am free to doubt Martin Fleischmann I can't fault anyone for doubting me. Defkalion has said they have definitive information in reports compiled by experts under NDA's. They recently told me they do not wish to publish any of this, for the time being, because they feel it is not in their interests. I disagree. In any scenario I can think of, for any business, it is best to enhance your credibility. That makes it easier to borrow money and sell products. Perhaps there is something about Defkalion's situation that overrules this, and makes secrecy more valuable than enhanced credibility. Who knows? There is no point to speculating. (Strictly speaking, I cannot be sure Defkalion has such reports, but I suppose they do. It seems reasonable that they would.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
That demo is not clearly bulletproof, however there are many details that let no real doubt of reality. The fact that they ignored steam enthalpy show that they don't want to overstate the COP, since they accept to understate it. They just wanted to prove reality, while a COP of 160 seems credible after more engineering. There are two possibilities, with no intermediate. Either it is a fraud. in that case their allowance to let uncontrolled observer lurk the pipes and wires, to let him dismantle the wires, shows that the tricks is not in the wires or the pipes... An oscilloscope allowed to enter the room eliminate also anything about RF. Their body language, and the loose security opposed to observers close all realistic options for fraud. If you add the Nelson test report (the human part is enough ) it confirms that. My analysis is that this hypothesis does not hold facing the evidence, the behaviors. It is comfortable to stay skeptical, it is good to avoid personal critics by extremists, but it is not supported by the mesh of evidences. I prefer to be insulted as believers, but there is a moment when doubting is a delusion, and complicity of delusion. Call me a whistleblower, it is fashion today. the alternative is that they are sincere, at least like a corporate (letting room for optimism, bias). If they are sincere, they have done many similar test (which explain their low-tech protocol, adapted to demo and to engineering), and this test was done for a communication purpose, mainly toward the scientific community at ICCF18. It seems the community is quite skeptic, negative , about Defkalion, and that maybe their purpose. Being sincere they have to avoid claiming false things that could be opposed later to hurt them. Unlike some industriels or science domain, they know that any error or manipulation won't be forgiven. Red Herring or errors are very dangerous (Rossi shows that). This is why I analyse that their scientific claims (Magnetic field, Debye temp...) are simply sincere. I don't say true, I say sincere. That let room for errors, artifacts, bias, optimism. about their business claims, all which could be checked afterward is normally true, except for communication errors (misunderstanding). For the loose claims which are hard to check (like interested corps, application development), there is room for exaggeration. anyway for the future, sincerity does not prevent to be wrong, to change strategy afterward, to be surprised by the environments,... Given the tendency in cold fusion domain to be skeptical, I estimate that Defkalion claims are more reliable that the equivalent claims from green-energy startup. They know their abuse won't be forgiven, they checked all before, they control claims. More reliable, does not meant perfect... and Green-energy startup, like most startup, do exaggerates, make errors, change strategy, and crash often... About the science, given their visible desire to seduce LENR science community, I assume that their claim are simply sincere. Too much risk else. 2013/7/31 H Veeder > maybe the steam was just hot air? > > *ducks* > > harry > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Craig wrote: > >> On 07/29/2013 05:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: >> > James Bowery mailto:jabow...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > There is no video of the steam output. >> > >> > >> > Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 >> > hours? >> > >> >> I watched it all, and though I may have missed a moment or two, they did >> not show the steam output. >> >> Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the >> hot part of the run. >> >> Craig >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
maybe the steam was just hot air? *ducks* harry On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Craig wrote: > On 07/29/2013 05:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > James Bowery mailto:jabow...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > There is no video of the steam output. > > > > > > Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 > > hours? > > > > I watched it all, and though I may have missed a moment or two, they did > not show the steam output. > > Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the > hot part of the run. > > Craig > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 5:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: Simple is good! They achieved that with this test > My favorite simple test -- boil a large barrel of water for an extended period of time, feeding it with a measured input flow to keep the water topped off, and measuring of the power coming in from the mains. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM, David Roberson wrote: I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. That seems like a lot. Here is 10 kilowatts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN5-nhcjH_A&list=PLF5DF775E5D70960F Eric
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Interesting the reason they didn't increase the flow rate was because "[23/07/2013 22:11:08] Mats Lewan: I asked -- the answer is that the flow from the water pipe is not enough" http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/general-updates/309-iccf-fun On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s > > It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on > the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is > 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. > > 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C > > 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s > > 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories > > 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W > > That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the > screen. > > I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times > in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at > Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of > vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, > so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). > > I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully > vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled > water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is > irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. > > This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
No steam was generated during the argon run. The temperature was too low. Dave -Original Message- From: hohlraum To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 7:13 pm Subject: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization If I recall correctly they showed steam in the blank run. - Reply message - From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:52 PM In this video there is a quick look at the steam tube inserted into the drain. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I saw it, but now I can't find it. It is around the 1 hour mark, I think. I wrote down 1:09 but now I can't find it. It was not very revealing. It did not show the steam plume. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
If I recall correctly they showed steam in the blank run. - Reply message - From: "Jed Rothwell" To: Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:52 PM In this video there is a quick look at the steam tube inserted into the drain. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I saw it, but now I can't find it. It is around the 1 hour mark, I think. I wrote down 1:09 but now I can't find it. It was not very revealing. It did not show the steam plume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
In this video there is a quick look at the steam tube inserted into the drain. http://new.livestream.com/triwu2/Defkalion-US I saw it, but now I can't find it. It is around the 1 hour mark, I think. I wrote down 1:09 but now I can't find it. It was not very revealing. It did not show the steam plume. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
This seems a little unfair to Mats. He calibrated the flow rate at the start of the demonstration and found that the real rate was actually greater than the indication by a few percent. This was performed at several different flow rates. Unless you assume that DGT faked the flow rate indications during the demonstration, then what went into the device was what comes out. The dry vapor leaving the device might not cause as much commotion as some suggest. Check super heated steam at 150 C or so to get some idea of what to expect. Also, the initial run with argon did not come close to the performance with hydrogen. In both cases, the input powers were similar as well as the flow rate. It was an impressive show, unless of course you assume a trick. Dave -Original Message- From: blaze spinnaker To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization The problem with dry steam is that it is invisible and Mats merely observed on the basis on what he thought was the sound of hissing gas through the tubes to determine presence and flow rate. Hardly scientific.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
The problem with dry steam is that it is invisible and Mats merely observed on the basis on what he thought was the sound of hissing gas through the tubes to determine presence and flow rate. Hardly scientific.
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On 07/29/2013 06:07 PM, Craig wrote: > Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the > hot part of the run. Craig At the beginning of the demonstration, they also manually checked the flow against the meter, by measuring the weight of the water after two minutes of flow -- twice. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On 07/29/2013 05:52 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > James Bowery mailto:jabow...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > There is no video of the steam output. > > > Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 > hours? > I watched it all, and though I may have missed a moment or two, they did not show the steam output. Mats Lewan did observe that there was NO water in the steam during the hot part of the run. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
>From what I recall from watching the stream life, is that they had water running down the waste entry in parallel to cool off the output of the reactor (being dry steam in optimum running state). On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Before getting too worked up over the implications, there is a bit of a > credibility gap. > > ** ** > > This is what 1.6 liters per hour of dry steam looks like: > > ** ** > > http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/large/MR100_Steam_Floor_Head.jpg > > > ** ** > > The DGT is supposedly putting out over 34 liters per hour which is twenty > times more than in this image. > > ** ** > > We should be seeing a massive blast of steam… Is there visual evidence of > 34 liters per hour of steam anywhere in that demo ? > > ** ** > > ** ** > > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Alan Fletcher wrote: > Doesn't look at all dry to me. If it was, you'd see a large gap of > invisible steam before you saw any droplets -- visible "steam". > Good point, although maybe the head is blocking the view. The Hydrodynamics ~100 kW steam plume was invisible for a couple of feet. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
James Bowery wrote: There is no video of the steam output. > Are you sure? Someone told me there is. Have your reviewed the full 8 hours? > The credibility gap is better demonstrated -- as I implied -- by the > failure to drive a steam turbine to provide the input electricity. > >From what I have heard, it is difficult and expensive to engineer something like that. You can't simply go out, buy a turbine, and attach it in a few days. You certainly cannot generated electricity with it, and there would not be much point to having a whirling turbine by itself. You can spin a turbine with water pressure alone, so unless you are measuring the torque, it would prove nothing. I think that is an unreasonable demand. Calorimetry should suffice at this stage. This was a demo, not a full test. You can't expect as much assurance from this as we got from Levi and 6 others going to visit Rossi for a week or so total, on three different occasions. This was a good start. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
> From: "Jones Beene" > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:19:58 PM > Before getting too worked up over the implications, there is a bit of > a credibility gap. > > This is what 1.6 liters per hour of dry steam looks like: > http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/large/MR100_Steam_Floor_Head.jpg Doesn't look at all dry to me. If it was, you'd see a large gap of invisible steam before you saw any droplets -- visible "steam".
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Jones Beene wrote: > > This is what 1.6 liters per hour of dry steam looks like: > > ** ** > > http://www.ajmadison.com/ajmadison/images/large/MR100_Steam_Floor_Head.jpg > I cannot tell the scale of that picture. How big is the plume? Are you sure it is 1.6 L/hour? That seems a little low. I borrowed a steam cleaner for my car a few years ago that put out 1.5 kW, which is the limit for U.S. equipment in ordinary 120 VAC plugs. It put out a small steam plum. Unimpressive. It did not help remove the stains in the car or the bathroom grout. I guess this is an MR-100 Primo Steam Cleaning System. I think it plugs into an ordinary socket meaning it is 1.5 kW. Other photos of the output from this make the steam plume look small. > We should be seeing a massive blast of steam… > Where in the full video does it show the steam? I am still reviewing it. I have heard it is shown, but most of the time it was sparged in cold water. I have seen ~100 kW of steam sparged in a drum of cold water, at Hydrodynamics. It is noisy but not that impressive. Held in open air the steam plume is very impressive and noisy! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
David Roberson wrote: They(DGT) intentionally left out the vaporization as a "gift to the > skeptics" according to what was stated. There is evidence that the water > was vaporized into steam which was then superheated to dry vapor. I > calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. That is what I thought you said, but I wanted to reiterate this, to be sure I understood. There was some confusion about this issue at the conference, among people who were discussing this. Some said Defkalion did take into account of the vaporization, some said they didn't. At the conference, the video worked well in the morning. The problem was that many people, including me, could not see it because we had sessions and we were scheduled for tours of the SKINR lab and the nanoparticle lab. (They had to break the crowd into groups because we could not all fit into the lab rooms.) In the afternoon, something went wrong with the Livestream recording. It played the same 5-minute segment over and over again. This was *not* caused by a problem at Missouri U. So we were unable to establish the facts. I am just catching up now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
They(DGT) intentionally left out the vaporization as a "gift to the skeptics" according to what was stated. There is evidence that the water was vaporized into steam which was then superheated to dry vapor. I calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:01 pm Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the screen. I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
At this level, it should be possible to power a steam electric generator to provide the inputs. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, David Roberson wrote: > They(DGT) intentionally left out the vaporization as a "gift to the > skeptics" according to what was stated. There is evidence that the water > was vaporized into steam which was then superheated to dry vapor. I > calculated over 20 kilowatts was being delivered. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jed Rothwell > To: vortex-l > Sent: Mon, Jul 29, 2013 4:01 pm > Subject: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization > > I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s > > It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers > on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is > 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. > > 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C > > 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s > > 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories > > 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W > > That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the > screen. > > I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various > times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people > at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of > vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, > so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). > > I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully > vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled > water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is > irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. > > This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
Craig wrote: > Yes, here's Mats' comment: > > " The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, > but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all." > > http://matslew.wordpress.com/ > > Defkalion, at the beginning of the demonstration, made a comment that > this was a gift they were giving to the skeptics. > Well said! That's hilarious. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
On 07/29/2013 04:01 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. > > - Jed > Yes, here's Mats' comment: " The output was led down into a sink. Initially water was pouring down, but at high temperatures there was no water dropping at all." http://matslew.wordpress.com/ Defkalion, at the beginning of the demonstration, made a comment that this was a gift they were giving to the skeptics. Craig
[Vo]:Defkalion apparently ignored heat of vaporization
I am looking at the Josephson version of the Defkalion video, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHEtnTO3h6s It is a little more blurry than the original. At time 39:03 the numbers on the screen can be read. Total input is 1918 W. Output is 4295 W. T_in is 25.29°C, T_out 132.13°C, and the flow rate is 0.569 liters/min. 132.13°C - 25.29°C = 106.9°C 0.569 liters/min = 9.5 ml/s 106.9°C * 9.5 ml = 1014 calories 1014 cal * 4.2 = 4258 W That is approximately what is shown in the Output Power section of the screen. I have heard that the device produced steam. This is shown at various times in the whole video. From the numbers here, I conclude that the people at Defkalion treated the output as hot water, ignoring the heat of vaporization. The heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, or 2260 J/g, so for 9.5 ml that would be an extra 21,470 J/s (watts). I gather there have been some disputes over whether this water was fully vaporized. It might have been somewhat wet. It might have included unboiled water. I don't see how it could have, at 132°C, but in any case that is irrelevant since they ignored the heat of vaporization. This is very conservative estimate of the heat output. - Jed
