Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
In reply to Roarty, Francis X's message of Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:51:49 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Maybe hydrinos improve heat transfer? They should carry more energy in a >"smaller" volume effectively increasing the internal surface area. Just because >We never see them at STP doesn't mean they can't exist as a heated plasma >inside the reactor. >Fran They can if the MFP is on the same order of size as the separation space, in which case thermal transport is far superior to any metal. IOW it depends on Hydrino size and pressure. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:52:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] >You are using the wrong criteria, as I understand the situation. The >'volume' of the heater is relatively unimportant compared to the surface >area exposed to water flow, the time of exposure and the metal transferring >the heat. With a tubular reactor as described in the Rossi patent, there is >not enough surface area to provide heat transfer through stainless steel to >a straight-thru flow of cold water to transfer the level of heat claimed. If >it were copper, it would barely work. > We have been told that the volume of the cylinder in the E-kitten is 50 cc. Since there is a photo with a ruler next to it, we can see that the length is about 5 cm. This implies a radius of 1.78 cm, and consequently a surface area of about 56 cm^2 (not including the ends). If we add the not unreasonable assumption that the thickness of the stainless steel is about 1 mm, then combined with the known thermal conductivity of stainless steel [16.3 W/(m*K)], we can calculate a thermal conductivity of the whole cylinder at about 91 W/K. Thus in order to transfer 15 kW, the temperature differential across the steel would have to be about 165 K. Given that the reaction occurs at many hundreds of degrees, and steam production would limit the cold side temperature to about 100 degrees, this is well within the capability of even the E-kitten, and it isn't designed to output anywhere near 15 kW. In short, the limit for the E-kitten would be about (500-100)*91*W/K=36.4 kW. However this is based upon an operating temperature of 500 ºC. The melting point of stainless is much higher than this, implying that even higher power outputs are possible if the operating temperature of the reaction can be higher, or the stainless is thinner than 1 mm, or if you include the surface area of the ends of the cylinder. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Giving points made by Jed, Jones and (Steven) Johnson validity, and the fact that Rossi admits to not being a genius but requests people give him some credit for being reasonably bright and competent, I would bet that the heat xfer issue was something that needed to be solved long ago and has been solved to a large degree if Johnson's (Steven's) caveat is correct, would that not explain the reason why Rossi has tended to scale his eCats DOWN instead of UP! -Mark _ From: Peter Gluck [mailto:peter.gl...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:29 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant I like to ask answerable questions, and I could not formulate this one without touching know how elements. Plus we had some indirect dialogue with Rossi re. the role of Piantelli's work in the area of Ni-H LENR. Rossi has declared that his system is different from Piantelli's. So I have asked him relatively nice things as E-lion, E kittens. I understand well his problems and tactics. If you can put this question in an innocent form.. I am ready to ask. But probably he will not tell how the pancreas or the kidneys of the E-cat work. peter On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:55 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: On a more serious note, someone who may have achieved some street creed with Rossi might want to pop this interesting heat transfer question to Ross at his blog. It might be interesting to see how Rossi responds. Could be highly revealing. Peter Gluck, comes to mind as the "volunteer" for his dangerous mission! ;-) Perhaps we should first wait for Beene's forthcoming heat-transference data before popping the question. Heat transference is indeed a tricky engineering problem. As volume increases it becomes vital to increase the amount of surface area where heat transfer can occur. Thus heat flanges and fins are created to assist in this endeavor. Internal cooling coils and tubes can also be built into solid blocks of "volume", to assist in the dissipation of heat. However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here. Consider the flip side. As overall volume decreases excess surface area becomes LESS critical because what volume exists can more easily escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area. Therefore... it IS conceivable from my POV that Rossi's smaller e-kittins might be able to more efficiently transfer heat due to their inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, the e-cat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: > Maybe hydrinos improve heat transfer? They should carry more energy in a > “smaller” volume effectively increasing the internal surface area. Just > because > > We never see them at STP doesn’t mean they can’t exist as a heated plasma > inside the reactor. Everyone is speaking of conduction and convection. I don't think anyone is considering radiative heat transfer. T
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Maybe hydrinos improve heat transfer? They should carry more energy in a "smaller" volume effectively increasing the internal surface area. Just because We never see them at STP doesn't mean they can't exist as a heated plasma inside the reactor. Fran From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:26 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant Jones Beene mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote: Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is not a surprise, given how much of an emotional stake seems to be involved. You can appraise any electrical hot water heater and see that it transfers heat at a higher rate than the Rossi device does at 16 kW. This is not anecdotal. It is in published specifications. The only emotional error here is on your side. Levi, Kullander and the others are using industry-standard techniques and instruments. For some reason you believe these instruments and techniques have produced an error by a factor of 1000. You cannot tell us which of the 4 parameters might be wrong by such a gigantic factor, but you are sure this is the case, based on an analysis which also proves that electric teapots do not work. This is irrational. If you doubt that a teapot can transfer ~0.019 kW/cm^2, I suggest you try this yourself. Just measure the size of it, and plug it in. This is not "anecdotal." It is as far from being anecdotal as an observation can be, since anyone can confirm it. Instead of waving your hands and pretending that calorimetry does not work, I suggest you try it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
I like to ask answerable questions, and I could not formulate this one without touching know how elements. Plus we had some indirect dialogue with Rossi re. the role of Piantelli's work in the area of Ni-H LENR. Rossi has declared that his system is different from Piantelli's. So I have asked him relatively nice things as E-lion, E kittens. I understand well his problems and tactics. If you can put this question in an innocent form.. I am ready to ask. But probably he will not tell how the pancreas or the kidneys of the E-cat work. peter On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:55 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson < svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On a more serious note, someone who may have achieved some street > creed with Rossi might want to pop this interesting heat transfer > question to Ross at his blog. It might be interesting to see how Rossi > responds. Could be highly revealing. > > Peter Gluck, comes to mind as the "volunteer" for his dangerous mission! > ;-) > > Perhaps we should first wait for Beene's forthcoming heat-transference > data before popping the question. > > Heat transference is indeed a tricky engineering problem. As volume > increases it becomes vital to increase the amount of surface area > where heat transfer can occur. Thus heat flanges and fins are created > to assist in this endeavor. Internal cooling coils and tubes can also > be built into solid blocks of "volume", to assist in the dissipation > of heat. > > However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here. > Consider the flip side. As overall volume decreases excess surface > area becomes LESS critical because what volume exists can more easily > escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area. > Therefore... it IS conceivable from my POV that Rossi's smaller > e-kittins might be able to more efficiently transfer heat due to their > inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, the e-cat. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Jones Beene wrote: > Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is > not a surprise, given how much of an emotional stake seems to be involved. > You can appraise any electrical hot water heater and see that it transfers heat at a higher rate than the Rossi device does at 16 kW. This is not anecdotal. It is in published specifications. The only emotional error here is on your side. Levi, Kullander and the others are using industry-standard techniques and instruments. For some reason you believe these instruments and techniques have produced an error by a factor of 1000. You cannot tell us which of the 4 parameters might be wrong by such a gigantic factor, but you are sure this is the case, based on an analysis which also proves that electric teapots do not work. This is irrational. If you doubt that a teapot can transfer ~0.019 kW/cm^2, I suggest you try this yourself. Just measure the size of it, and plug it in. This is not "anecdotal." It is as far from being anecdotal as an observation can be, since anyone can confirm it. Instead of waving your hands and pretending that calorimetry does not work, I suggest you try it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Jones Beene wrote: > > Ø Similar stainless steel surfaces in teapots transfer heat at roughly > this rate without difficulty. > > > > Nonsense. Water going thru the Rossi reactor is in contact with the reactor > only for milliseconds ! A teapot takes minutes to boil. > This assertion makes no sense. Different water is constantly in contact with the surface. Cooler water, in fact. All water molecules are the same. In a fission reactor core, or a combustion reactor, the water is constantly in motion, driven by convection and mechanically by powerful pumps. Therefore a given water molecule comes in contact with the hot metal for only milliseconds. For that matter, the water in a teapot moves rapidly from convection, coming into contact with the hot metal for only a few milliseconds before moving out of the way, allowing other water access to the bottom. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
From: Jed Rothwell * Similar stainless steel surfaces in teapots transfer heat at roughly this rate without difficulty. Nonsense. Water going thru the Rossi reactor is in contact with the reactor only for milliseconds ! A teapot takes minutes to boil. . or even longer, if you are watching Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is not a surprise, given how much of an emotional stake seems to be involved. One simply cannot cherry-pick little snippets and anecdotes, and expect a real scientific analysis. Let's leave that to the experts. And no, in a nuclear reactor - much of the heat transferred to water is via neutrons and other radiation, and the water is highly pressurized to boot. When neutrons are "moderated" they are slowed and transfer their energy - thus the water heats up. Pressurization makes a huge difference when flash steam is possible. A bubble sheath is better thermal insulation that air ! and that is what Rossi would have - unless you can figure out a way that he also got the copper tubing wrapped around the reactor and crammed into that small volume. The water flow through the Rossi reactor has no apparent back pressure. And he says it is straight-thru, which seems to be what the images indicate. It is doubly ironic, now that I think more about it - that my take on Rossi's "honesty quotient" actually makes it likely that when he says straight-thru it is misdirection, and what he really means is that he has gone to great lengths to find some kind of capillary tubing arrangement which will fit and will provide back pressure at the same time. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
On a more serious note, someone who may have achieved some street creed with Rossi might want to pop this interesting heat transfer question to Ross at his blog. It might be interesting to see how Rossi responds. Could be highly revealing. Peter Gluck, comes to mind as the "volunteer" for his dangerous mission! ;-) Perhaps we should first wait for Beene's forthcoming heat-transference data before popping the question. Heat transference is indeed a tricky engineering problem. As volume increases it becomes vital to increase the amount of surface area where heat transfer can occur. Thus heat flanges and fins are created to assist in this endeavor. Internal cooling coils and tubes can also be built into solid blocks of "volume", to assist in the dissipation of heat. However, there is a subtle point that might have been overlooked here. Consider the flip side. As overall volume decreases excess surface area becomes LESS critical because what volume exists can more easily escape - since all "volume" is relatively close to a surface area. Therefore... it IS conceivable from my POV that Rossi's smaller e-kittins might be able to more efficiently transfer heat due to their inherent smaller volume as compared to the bigger sisters, the e-cat. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > I was hoping it would be Ines Sainz... You called this moderate? http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/sportatorium/2011/02/ines_sainz_nice_booty_nicer_pe.php I wonder who painted those? T
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
On 04/18/2011 01:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > You are using the wrong criteria, as I understand the situation. The > 'volume' of the heater is relatively unimportant compared to the > surface area exposed to water flow, the time of exposure and the metal > transferring the heat. With a tubular reactor as described in the > Rossi patent, there is not enough surface area to provide heat > transfer through stainless steel to a straight-thru flow of cold water > to transfer the level of heat claimed. If it were copper, it would > barely work. > Say what? The insulating ability of the material used doesn't affect the heat flow rate, which will still match the heat generation rate. Rather, it affects the temperature on the "hot" side. Use a better insulator, and after things get rolling, the core will be hotter, but the rate at which heat flows out will still equal the rate at which it's generated. So, when you say it would "barely" work with copper, you must mean that the core temperature would approach some critical value at which something bad would happen. And when you say it would not work with steel, you must mean that the core temperature would be above some critical temperature, and something catastrophic would happen. What temperature might that be, and what catastrophic thing would happen? Are you claiming the core temperature would have to be hot enough to melt the steel shell, or what? Please explain, because it's not clear from your prior posts.
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jan09/images/lblack01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127&usg=__qnWC-fBTokr3qo4pVQfn_GEUw0g=&h=433&w=300&sz=37&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=UlBliveBdIG12M:&tbnh=143&tbnw=124&ei=X3SsTZ7gKKjmiALA3PiXDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblacklight%2Bpower%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1337%26bih%3D773%26tbm%3Disch0%2C342&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=722&vpy=219&dur=4572&hovh=270&hovw=187&tx=46&ty=291&oei=X3SsTZ7gKKjmiALA3PiXDw&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0&biw=1337&bih=773 OMG! Randell's a ginger kid! http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e11-ginger-kids T
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Jones sez: ... > Wow - I realize that this Rossi device could be the most > important development in Energy for some extended time ... > hmmm, the Neolithic age comes to mind, according to > Randy :) ... but this may be the first time in Vortician-land > for having a "play-by-play" and ongoing commentator to > moderate the game. ah... a self-appointed moderator... for what it's worth. ;-) > I was hoping it would be Ines Sainz... Oh well, maybe next year Yes, nice e-Cats! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > In the meantime, I suspect Mr. Beene will probably not find Mr. Rothwell's analysis convincing, and I fully expect a counter response. Wow - I realize that this Rossi device could be the most important development in Energy for some extended time ... hmmm, the Neolithic age comes to mind, according to Randy :) ... but this may be the first time in Vortician-land for having a "play-by-play" and ongoing commentator to moderate the game. I was hoping it would be Ines Sainz... Oh well, maybe next year Jones
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Jones Beene wrote: You are using the wrong criteria, as I understand the situation. The > ‘volume’ of the heater is relatively unimportant compared to the surface > area exposed to water flow, the time of exposure and the metal transferring > the heat. > Yes, I know. I pointed that out. Please note that the exposed surface area of the 12 kW hot water heater must be considerably smaller than that of the Rossi cell. Bear in mind that a hot water heater manufacturer does not make a device that works on the ragged edge of safety, close to melting. In other words, this heater can probably transfer twice as much heat, at a much lower flow rate than the maximum 19 L/min., without self destructing. > With a tubular reactor as described in the Rossi patent, there is not > enough surface area to provide heat transfer through stainless steel to a > straight-thru flow of cold water to transfer the level of heat claimed. > Similar stainless steel surfaces in teapots transfer heat at roughly this rate without difficulty. > The 130 kW is physically impossible. > Nuclear and combustion fired boilers transfer heat at approximately this rate, with fuel rods, fire tubes or water tubes. As I mentioned these tubes and fuel rods have larger surface area per unit of volume than Rossi's device, but on the other hand they can probably tolerate much higher rates. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
You are using the wrong criteria, as I understand the situation. The 'volume' of the heater is relatively unimportant compared to the surface area exposed to water flow, the time of exposure and the metal transferring the heat. With a tubular reactor as described in the Rossi patent, there is not enough surface area to provide heat transfer through stainless steel to a straight-thru flow of cold water to transfer the level of heat claimed. If it were copper, it would barely work. I have not yet seen the report, and have only had the summary read over the telephone, and cannot vouch for the accuracy. Hopefully, Levi will address the issue himself. The only reason I was contacted at all probably relates to past posts saying that the reactor is probably copper (bronze, brass etc). But I had already given up that possibility. Resistance heaters immersed in a small tank of water do not develop a limitation via a "bubble sheath" if there is adequate heat transfer area. The wire used in resistance heaters provides lots of area, compared to a tube. Therefore the hot water heater is not a comparable situation. Cold water going around a hot reactor without back pressure immediately develops flash steam, and a sheath of bubbles, severely limiting heat transfer. If the reactor had fins, this transfer rate could be enhanced - but from the known weight of the unit, the calculated mass of the reactor (deducting the lead shield etc) and the minimum thickness of the SS needed to maintain the maximum pressure, this design can have no fins, and only a tube is possible and even then Rossi is cutting it close for safety if he is really using ~25 bar. The 130 kW is physically impossible. The 16 kW is unlikely with stainless, unless there is provided some way to increase the surface area for heat transfer by a large factor; such as if the estimated weight of the unit had NOT included the lead shielding. The caveat is that if the water was not straight through, but instead there was provided an additional winding of copper tubing, then it would be possible to get over 10 kW out, but the images of the small units do not provide sufficient room for a wrapped of tubing, and Rossi himself has indicated a straight-thru operation. Here is an image of Mills holding a stainless reactor, with the copper tubing wrapped in the correct way to transfer heat. Contrast this to the small size of the Rossi reactor having straight-thru operation and you can see the problem. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jan09/im ages/lblack01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127&usg=__qnWC-f BTokr3qo4pVQfn_GEUw0g=&h=433&w=300&sz=37&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=UlBliveB dIG12M:&tbnh=143&tbnw=124&ei=X3SsTZ7gKKjmiALA3PiXDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dblack light%2Bpower%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1337%26bih%3D773%26tbm%3Disch0%2C34 2&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=722&vpy=219&dur=4572&hovh=270&hovw=187&tx=46&ty=29 1&oei=X3SsTZ7gKKjmiALA3PiXDw&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:0&biw=1337&bih =773 It is just one more credibility problem for skeptics to swallow - but this one may be larger than any other seen so far. Not that it matters much, since the megawatt demo will make-or-break everything. I am hoping that prior to that, Levi will take the criticisms to heart, and provide better calorimetry. But to be honest - this is a selfish desire and it could only HARM Rossi, not help him, since it would draw in more needed funding and more scientists trying to replicate. Jones From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:50 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant Jones Beene reports that it may be impossible to transfer 16 kW or 130 kW from a 1 L steel cell a flow of water. To test this hypothesis, I looked at two examples of heat transfer, in a tankless water heater, and a nuclear power plant. The tankless heater is Niagara brand 12 kW electrically fired unit that belongs to a friend of mine. See: http://www.tanklesswaterheater.com/faq.php It produces 5 gallons a minute, which is about one-third the flow rate of the Feb. 10 Rossi machine test. I asked my friend to look inside the water heater. He reports there are two resistance heaters. They are conical, about 1.5" at the top, 2" at the bottom, 6" long. That is ~18.9 cubic inches, or 309 cm^3. The two of them together are 0.6 L. They would easily fit inside the Rossi gadget. They transfer 12 kW to the flowing water reliably for years. The shape and size of the Rossi cell is not known, but assuming it is cylindrical with fairly large surface area, the performance of this water heater indicates it should have no difficulty transferring 16 kW. A large nuclear power plant produces 1 GW elect
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Correction. My friend tells me I misunderstood the geometry of the resistance heaters. They are cylindrical, not conical, with a hole in the middle. A 0.5" copper pipe runs through them. So the heat transfer is on the inside surface of the cylinders. Anyway, the total volume of the two heaters is on the order of 0.6 L, as I said. You will find a similar ratio of the volume of resistance heaters and surface area in something like an 1.5 kW electric teakettle. I recently purchased an expensive one that heats the water rapidly, without much waste heat on the outside. (Meaning it does not get very hot.) These devices have no trouble transferring heat at roughly the rate per unit of surface area the Rossi device does at 16 kW. Rossi's cell is definitely not a sphere, which as Steven Johnson points out would be the worse shape. Beene says that an expert in thermodynamics claims this is impossible. This expert should take a moment to look inside an electric water heater. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
>From Jed: ... > The tankless heater is Niagara brand 12 kW electrically fired unit > that belongs to a friend of mine. See: > http://www.tanklesswaterheater.com/faq.php > It produces 5 gallons a minute, which is about one-third the flow > rate of the Feb. 10 Rossi machine test. > I asked my friend to look inside the water heater. He reports > there are two resistance heaters. They are conical, about 1.5" > at the top, 2" at the bottom, 6" long. That is ~18.9 cubic inches, > or 309 cm^3. The two of them together are 0.6 L. They would > easily fit inside the Rossi gadget. They transfer 12 kW to the > flowing water reliably for years. The shape and size of the > Rossi cell is not known, but assuming it is cylindrical with fairly > large surface area, the performance of this water heater > indicates it should have no difficulty transferring 16 kW. I was wondering how long it would take for Mr. Rothwell to come up with some practical statistics on the Rossi heat-transfer matter. Not long at all! ;-) I suspect the recent heat transfer disagreement, as expressed between Rothwell and Beene, is of great interest to many Vort participants. As I understand it, there appears to have been legitimate concerns raised as to whether there exists sufficient SURFACE AREA within Rossi's e-Cat reactor in which to allow a sufficient amount of heat to transfer from the core of the reactor to the adjacent water flowing nearby. Heat transference is indeed a tricky issue. The more volume there is to contend with the more problematic it becomes in transferring (or expelling) internal heat. In fact an object in the shape of a perfect sphere would be the worst case scenario for expelling excess heat. That is why one tends to see, for example, rows and rows of metallic flanges acting as heat sinks attached to motorcycle engines. That is done in order to increase the surface area in which to dump/expel excess heat. If Rossi's e-cat reactors contain lots of tiny metal flanges, acting as heat sinks that would help in the heat transfer as well. Personally, I suspect, Rossi is probably not employing such internal designs with his current e-cat design. It would, however, be a good suggestion to consider for future designs - if excess heat becomes an issue. It would seem to me that Mr. Rothwell has revealed reasonably convincing statistics to suggest that there probably exist sufficient "surface area". However, that remains to be verified since I gather the guts of the Rossi device are still proprietary. In the meantime, I suspect Mr. Beene will probably not find Mr. Rothwell's analysis convincing, and I fully expect a counter response. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Heat transfer in a water heater and nuclear plant
Jones Beene reports that it may be impossible to transfer 16 kW or 130 kW from a 1 L steel cell a flow of water. To test this hypothesis, I looked at two examples of heat transfer, in a tankless water heater, and a nuclear power plant. The tankless heater is Niagara brand 12 kW electrically fired unit that belongs to a friend of mine. See: http://www.tanklesswaterheater.com/faq.php It produces 5 gallons a minute, which is about one-third the flow rate of the Feb. 10 Rossi machine test. I asked my friend to look inside the water heater. He reports there are two resistance heaters. They are conical, about 1.5" at the top, 2" at the bottom, 6" long. That is ~18.9 cubic inches, or 309 cm^3. The two of them together are 0.6 L. They would easily fit inside the Rossi gadget. They transfer 12 kW to the flowing water reliably for years. The shape and size of the Rossi cell is not known, but assuming it is cylindrical with fairly large surface area, the performance of this water heater indicates it should have no difficulty transferring 16 kW. A large nuclear power plant produces 1 GW electric, which calls for ~3 GW of heat. The reactor core has fuel rods, with uranium on the inside and zirconium on the outside. A fuel rod is 4 m long and 1 cm in diameter, or 0.315 L in volume, with a large surface area. Various sources say that nuclear reactors have anywhere from 65,000 to 80,000 rods in them. Taking 80,000, the volume of the rods is 24,120 L. Divide 3 GW by 24,120 L and you get 119 kW per liter. This is reasonably close to the 130 kW reported for the Rossi cell, although the cell must have less surface area, or it would not fit in the Rossi device. In normal fission reactor operations, pressurized cooling water circulates around these rods very rapidly, and the rods are no danger whatever of melting. There is a large safety margin. Therefore it seems likely to me that you could increase the heat transfer by a large factor without having the metal soften or rupture. The role of the cooling water in a reactor core is critical. This can be seen in the Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents. When you scram the reactor, power falls to roughly 1% of the production level. When you remove the cooling water from the reactor core, the rods soon melt. - Jed
