Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Just to conclude my question, from various sources it seems that the pessimistic version of the consumption of e-cat is the good one, http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ 10kg Ni+16kgH for 1MW*6month (4,4GW.h) other numbers were daily consumption. my estimate of world consumption, is that 300kTons of nickel could produces one year of energy for the world, and it represent 25% of world production. it is strange that H is much more consumed than Ni, especially in term of atoms, but H have a tendency to leak. maybe also the reaction is not the one I think about (H+Ni-Cu+E) and the ratio H/Ni are very big. something strange is that my FAQ put on ecat site is not answered, and on journal of nuclear physic CF article my question/comment have been blocked... any correction/comment/critic/advice welcome 2011/11/25 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com FYI i've found this FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113090/i-was-wondering-if-you-may-inform-us-as-to-the-amount-of-hydrogen-that-will-be-required-to-run-an-ecatfor/ say that for 24h the 10kW e-cat use 0.2g of H... it is hard to interpret about Ni... the 0.2g might be just the fixed value to fill the Ni for 6 month... in that case, it can fill 12g of nickel at loading factor 1/1... but what about the volume used to fill the pipes? maybe is it 0.1g of Ni, 0.0016g of H loaded, and the 0.198 rest to fill the pipes and chambers. it can also be just the leaks for one day, telling nothing about the quantity stored in the Ni, and thus, the Ni quantity... and implying that it consume 3.6kg of H for a 1MW on 6month... but what about Ni? it can be a mix... so, missing data to estimate Ni quantity, nor H consumption and cause of the consumption (loading, leaks, reactions)... not yet answer to my FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ on the site, but he seems to copy FAQ and answer from another source ... if someone know where to deposit question, so they ane answered clearly. if someone find a better analysis... 2011/11/24 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
It won't use nearly that much hydrogen as a reactant - if it really is using that much hydrogen then most of it will be lost through leakage, or possibly to remove unwanted gaseous contaminants and products. On 29 November 2011 10:17, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: Just to conclude my question, from various sources it seems that the pessimistic version of the consumption of e-cat is the good one, http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ 10kg Ni+16kgH for 1MW*6month (4,4GW.h) other numbers were daily consumption. my estimate of world consumption, is that 300kTons of nickel could produces one year of energy for the world, and it represent 25% of world production. it is strange that H is much more consumed than Ni, especially in term of atoms, but H have a tendency to leak. maybe also the reaction is not the one I think about (H+Ni-Cu+E) and the ratio H/Ni are very big. something strange is that my FAQ put on ecat site is not answered, and on journal of nuclear physic CF article my question/comment have been blocked... any correction/comment/critic/advice welcome 2011/11/25 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com FYI i've found this FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113090/i-was-wondering-if-you-may-inform-us-as-to-the-amount-of-hydrogen-that-will-be-required-to-run-an-ecatfor/ say that for 24h the 10kW e-cat use 0.2g of H... it is hard to interpret about Ni... the 0.2g might be just the fixed value to fill the Ni for 6 month... in that case, it can fill 12g of nickel at loading factor 1/1... but what about the volume used to fill the pipes? maybe is it 0.1g of Ni, 0.0016g of H loaded, and the 0.198 rest to fill the pipes and chambers. it can also be just the leaks for one day, telling nothing about the quantity stored in the Ni, and thus, the Ni quantity... and implying that it consume 3.6kg of H for a 1MW on 6month... but what about Ni? it can be a mix... so, missing data to estimate Ni quantity, nor H consumption and cause of the consumption (loading, leaks, reactions)... not yet answer to my FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ on the site, but he seems to copy FAQ and answer from another source ... if someone know where to deposit question, so they ane answered clearly. if someone find a better analysis... 2011/11/24 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
One problem with this statement by Rossi that 18 kg hydrogen and 10 kg nickel is required for a 180 day charge for 1 MW, is that it is inconsistent with the gammas observed (i.e. not observed.) See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53616.html The non-transmuted Ni could of course be recycled in a fully developed E-cat economy, and the hydrogen cost is inconsequential because it can be made from water using E-cat generated electrical power. The main problem is the inconsistency between statements and observations. The 1 MW (or less) test produced no gammas. This would be impossible, given Rossi's statements with regards to the reactions involved, even if he used 5 cm lead shielding. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Nov 29, 2011, at 1:17 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste wrote: Just to conclude my question, from various sources it seems that the pessimistic version of the consumption of e-cat is the good one, http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it- take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ 10kg Ni+16kgH for 1MW*6month (4,4GW.h) other numbers were daily consumption. my estimate of world consumption, is that 300kTons of nickel could produces one year of energy for the world, and it represent 25% of world production. it is strange that H is much more consumed than Ni, especially in term of atoms, but H have a tendency to leak. maybe also the reaction is not the one I think about (H+Ni-Cu+E) and the ratio H/Ni are very big. something strange is that my FAQ put on ecat site is not answered, and on journal of nuclear physic CF article my question/comment have been blocked... any correction/comment/critic/advice welcome 2011/11/25 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com FYI i've found this FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113090/i-was-wondering-if-you-may-inform-us-as- to-the-amount-of-hydrogen-that-will-be-required-to-run-an-ecatfor/ say that for 24h the 10kW e-cat use 0.2g of H... it is hard to interpret about Ni... the 0.2g might be just the fixed value to fill the Ni for 6 month... in that case, it can fill 12g of nickel at loading factor 1/1... but what about the volume used to fill the pipes? maybe is it 0.1g of Ni, 0.0016g of H loaded, and the 0.198 rest to fill the pipes and chambers. it can also be just the leaks for one day, telling nothing about the quantity stored in the Ni, and thus, the Ni quantity... and implying that it consume 3.6kg of H for a 1MW on 6month... but what about Ni? it can be a mix... so, missing data to estimate Ni quantity, nor H consumption and cause of the consumption (loading, leaks, reactions)... not yet answer to my FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will- it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ on the site, but he seems to copy FAQ and answer from another source ... if someone know where to deposit question, so they ane answered clearly. if someone find a better analysis... 2011/11/24 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it- take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500- euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will- it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
One problem with this statement by Rossi that 18 kg hydrogen and 10 kg nickel is required for a 180 day charge for 1 MW, is that it is inconsistent with the gammas observed (i.e. not observed.) See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53616.html The non-transmuted Ni could of course be recycled in a fully developed E-cat economy, and the hydrogen cost is inconsequential because it can be made from water using E-cat generated electrical power. The main problem is the inconsistency between statements and observations. The 1 MW (or less) test produced no gammas. This would be impossible, given Rossi's statements with regards to the reactions involved, even if he used 5 cm lead shielding. Other questions arise as to the radiation hazard, or lack thereof: From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Charlie Zimmerman November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM Dear Mr. Rossi, I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay. 1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here? 2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion? 3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers? A concerned fan, Charlie Zimmerman Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM Dear Charlie Zimmerman: I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors. Warm Regards, A.R. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
As I read it, this is not fusion, as it was understood to happen. So not much use looking for the products expected from conventional fusion. May have seem transmutations but no gammas. So why stress out over missing gammas? The old understand is not happening here. I'm just an engineer but maybe for the scientific types here it is time to think outside the square and to create theory that fits what we are seeing happening instead of saying it can't be real as it does not fit our current theory of what should be happening. AG On 11/30/2011 12:20 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: One problem with this statement by Rossi that 18 kg hydrogen and 10 kg nickel is required for a 180 day charge for 1 MW, is that it is inconsistent with the gammas observed (i.e. not observed.) See: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53616.html The non-transmuted Ni could of course be recycled in a fully developed E-cat economy, and the hydrogen cost is inconsequential because it can be made from water using E-cat generated electrical power. The main problem is the inconsistency between statements and observations. The 1 MW (or less) test produced no gammas. This would be impossible, given Rossi's statements with regards to the reactions involved, even if he used 5 cm lead shielding. Other questions arise as to the radiation hazard, or lack thereof: From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Charlie Zimmerman November 28th, 2011 at 9:32 AM Dear Mr. Rossi, I was interested in your comments regarding intentionally causing explosions of the device during safety testing. I had previously understood that short half lived radioactive isotopes of Copper and Nickel were rapidly decaying within the device and that this radioactivity was shielded. But, during an explosive event, the radioactive isotopes would be exposed to the environment without shielding before they would have a chance to decay. 1) Are there short lived radioactive isotopes as in your patent and paper published here? 2) Do those radioactive isotopes escape during an explosion? 3) Are you taking proper precautions yourself against such dangers? A concerned fan, Charlie Zimmerman Andrea Rossi November 28th, 2011 at 7:01 PM Dear Charlie Zimmerman: I confirm that no radiations above the background in relevant measure have been found in the controlled explosive tests. I cannot enter in particulars, because I cannot give information regarding what happens in the reactors. Warm Regards, A.R. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
On Nov 29, 2011, at 5:18 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: As I read it, this is not fusion, as it was understood to happen. So not much use looking for the products expected from conventional fusion. May have seem transmutations but no gammas. So why stress out over missing gammas? The old understand is not happening here. I'm just an engineer but maybe for the scientific types here it is time to think outside the square and to create theory that fits what we are seeing happening instead of saying it can't be real as it does not fit our current theory of what should be happening. AG It is not my theory that gammas produce the heat from Ni+H nuclear reactions. It is Rossi's. Scan the archives. This was discussed much here. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Here is what happened. Before the test, the e-Cats are empty of H2. They weighted the bottle on the scale. The reading was 13606.4 g. This is consistent with previous weighthings, since the bottle was at 13606.9 g on Oct. 6th. They then pressed the zero button, leaving the bottle on the scale. They let the test run. After the test, they went back to check the scale. The scale was reading -1700 g. Then they went on to fill the report. As you can see the report had been pre-printed. It was to be filled in manually. But the reporting format for the H2 consumption was weight (really mass) before test, weight after test. So they had to add the initial mass and the difference, and that's where they fucked up, adding -1.7 g instead of -1.7 kg. Happens all the time. They even wrote down kg instead of g. Obviously, they didn't have a 13 ton hydrogen bottle, right? Now, does 1.7 kg make sense? For the Oct. 6th demo, the consumption was 1.5 g. The Oct. 28th demo used 321 reactors, so that's 1700/321 = 5.3 g per reactor. Assuming the same 1.5 g per reactor, that leaves 3.8 g. At 2 g/mol, that's 1.9 x 321 = 610 mol of excess H2, which at 55 bar and 300 K will take a volume of 277 l. The modules were arranged in 8 or 10 rows of 5 m (since that is the dimension of the container). That's likely 40 to 50 m of tubing. That tubing with an inner radius of 2.66 - 3 mm. It all makes perfect sense to me. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Sorry I meant diameter. The inner DIAMETER of tubing would have to be 2.66 - 3 mm. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Am 26.11.2011 12:57, schrieb Berke Durak: So they had to add the initial mass and the difference, and that's where they fucked up, adding -1.7 g instead of -1.7 kg. Happens all the time. They even wrote down kg instead of g. Obviously, they didn't have a 13 ton hydrogen bottle, right? Doesnt happen to a Nato Colonel with 30 years of experience. These guys are topfit, far above average. What they delivered is substandard. Peter
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Am 26.11.2011 13:04, schrieb Peter Heckert: Am 26.11.2011 12:57, schrieb Berke Durak: So they had to add the initial mass and the difference, and that's where they fucked up, adding -1.7 g instead of -1.7 kg. Happens all the time. They even wrote down kg instead of g. Obviously, they didn't have a 13 ton hydrogen bottle, right? Doesnt happen to a Nato Colonel with 30 years of experience. These guys are topfit, far above average. What they delivered is substandard. They did this before the test was started and they where not tired. The only reasonable explanation is, they where already drunk or on cocaine or smoked something.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Doesnt happen to a Nato Colonel with 30 years of experience. These guys are topfit, far above average. Are you seriously claiming that a category of people doesn't make mistakes? -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
FYI i've found this FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113090/i-was-wondering-if-you-may-inform-us-as-to-the-amount-of-hydrogen-that-will-be-required-to-run-an-ecatfor/ say that for 24h the 10kW e-cat use 0.2g of H... it is hard to interpret about Ni... the 0.2g might be just the fixed value to fill the Ni for 6 month... in that case, it can fill 12g of nickel at loading factor 1/1... but what about the volume used to fill the pipes? maybe is it 0.1g of Ni, 0.0016g of H loaded, and the 0.198 rest to fill the pipes and chambers. it can also be just the leaks for one day, telling nothing about the quantity stored in the Ni, and thus, the Ni quantity... and implying that it consume 3.6kg of H for a 1MW on 6month... but what about Ni? it can be a mix... so, missing data to estimate Ni quantity, nor H consumption and cause of the consumption (loading, leaks, reactions)... not yet answer to my FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ on the site, but he seems to copy FAQ and answer from another source ... if someone know where to deposit question, so they ane answered clearly. if someone find a better analysis... 2011/11/24 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
tnx Giancarlo, for pointing this out! I think what this means is that he uses a separate bottle for demonstrations versus his own testing. maybe he has a big bottle that is hard to weight but more practical in daily operation? Maybe the hydrogen is a red Herring all together? the small amounts used and the little difference between big and small ecat means that it is mostly the plumbing that gets charged. one load of hydrogen doesn't necessary suffice for 6mo, it does for 6hour. what bothers me is that it is noted that the tank pressure drops. impossible with so little consumption, unless the tank valve wasn't actually open. then only the hydrogen still present in the tubing was used. but that also means that the ecat was running on a lower pressure ... Bastiaan. On Nov 25, 2011 6:29 AM, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: FYI i've found this FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113090/i-was-wondering-if-you-may-inform-us-as-to-the-amount-of-hydrogen-that-will-be-required-to-run-an-ecatfor/ say that for 24h the 10kW e-cat use 0.2g of H... it is hard to interpret about Ni... the 0.2g might be just the fixed value to fill the Ni for 6 month... in that case, it can fill 12g of nickel at loading factor 1/1... but what about the volume used to fill the pipes? maybe is it 0.1g of Ni, 0.0016g of H loaded, and the 0.198 rest to fill the pipes and chambers. it can also be just the leaks for one day, telling nothing about the quantity stored in the Ni, and thus, the Ni quantity... and implying that it consume 3.6kg of H for a 1MW on 6month... but what about Ni? it can be a mix... so, missing data to estimate Ni quantity, nor H consumption and cause of the consumption (loading, leaks, reactions)... not yet answer to my FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ on the site, but he seems to copy FAQ and answer from another source ... if someone know where to deposit question, so they ane answered clearly. if someone find a better analysis... 2011/11/24 Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.com so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
so two article of the same FAQ are not coherent. http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ is'nt there a known issue with an error of unit that rossi admit. I remember some comment about that mistake. 10g instead of 10kg... ??? note that the cost estimated of the powder is about 1 euro/MW.6month http://faq.ecat.com/112602/if-selling-price-is-planned-for-500-euros-per-1-kw-of-output-capability-this-is-5000-euros-for-10-kw/ and that 1kG of raw nickel is 13Eur/kg on the market... incoherences... To clear the doubt, I put the question on the FAQ. http://faq.ecat.com/113004/in-faq-how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six/ maybe the different base numbers we have explain the disagreement. 2011/11/24 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com Repeat from earlier in this thread: http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ 1MW needs 10kg Nickel powder, so about 100g per ecat (will run for 6 months) + 1g of hydrogen per ecat per day (in reality far less than this is used, but there will be leakage etc). On 23 November 2011 20:33, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: that is not what rossi says on the FAQ. he talks about 10mg/kW of H, and 100mg/kW of Ni however, in my previeux computation I'me made a mistake... 1MW should need 10g of H and 100g of Ni if the number for Ni is Ok, but H is a bit exagerated, for 100g of Ni you need 100g/59=1.7g hydrogen... strange it fall on that number... but maybe it is that rossi exagerate the need of H. maybe also he count not only the loading of H (1.7g), but also the leaks on 6 month (8h it seems) anyway without knowing the machine and it's behavioor it is like guessing the gas consumption behavior of a car, not having driven any, not used the engine. 2011/11/23 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com 2011/11/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Here however the measured value was 1000 fold too little, because used amount of hydrogen should have been something in order of 1.7 kg that was initially reported. Not 1.7 grams.
[Vo]:hydrogen refill
I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in the hydrogen consumption October 6th test, from Lewan's report Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report - before filling: 13604.5 grams - after filling: 13602.8 grams Total loaded: 1.7 grams We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
28th test: 1.7grams is 21 litres of H2 at 1 bar and 25°C (gas constant R=4120 J/kg/K). At 15 bar (assuming same as Oct 6th test) it is about 1.5 litres. If there were (from memory) 107 e-cats in the 1MW plant then that means about 15ml of hydrogen container at 15bar per unit, including all hydrogen pipes etc. Seems very unlikely that it would be so little, but maybe the pressure was a lot lower - only a few bar? On 23 November 2011 12:38, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in the hydrogen consumption October 6th test, from Lewan's report Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report - before filling: 13604.5 grams - after filling: 13602.8 grams Total loaded: 1.7 grams We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
That hydrogen bottle weight is a good point. It has been discussed somewhere, but I do not remember was it here or elsewhere. This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This kind of typo in units implies that figures were just put there without much of thinking. Certainly they were not measured! —Jouni On Nov 23, 2011 3:00 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in the hydrogen consumption October 6th test, from Lewan's report Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report - before filling: 13604.5 grams - after filling: 13602.8 grams Total loaded: 1.7 grams We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Jouni Valkonen wrote: This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There is no reason to think the figures are fabricated. Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This was obviously a mistake. People often confuse units of measure. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
There are obviously much, much bigger problems than the weight of the hydrogen tank, but nevertheless: September 7th: Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar October 6th: Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar October 28th: The Hydrogen tank has been weighted (sic) by means of a scale before and after loading of the Hydrogen In the reactor. Before the loading the weight measured is: 13604.5 kg After the loading the weight measured is: 13602.8 kg The Hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load: Hydrogen pressure before the load: 55 BAR Hydrogen pressure after the load: 55 BAR Rossi later corrected himself. The 13604.5 kg and 13602.8 kg measurements should have been 13604.5 g and 13602.8 g, respectively. So, one Ottoman E-Cat sometimes takes 2.7 g at 20 bar, and sometimes 1.5 g at 15 bar. On the other hand, 107 of the Ottoman E-Cats only take 1.7 g. But, Jed says that there is no reason to think that the numbers were fabricated, so it must be fine. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:51:48 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill Jouni Valkonen wrote: This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There is no reason to think the figures are fabricated. Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This was obviously a mistake. People often confuse units of measure. - Jed Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:36:35 +0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill From: jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That hydrogen bottle weight is a good point. It has been discussed somewhere, but I do not remember was it here or elsewhere. This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This kind of typo in units implies that figures were just put there without much of thinking. Certainly they were not measured! —Jouni On Nov 23, 2011 3:00 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
I have a doubt. Is that H2 pressure just on the loading before the experiment? But, there is no mention of what is the pressure during the experiment, right? 2011/11/23 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com There are obviously much, much bigger problems than the weight of the hydrogen tank, but nevertheless: ** *September 7th:* Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar *October 6th:* Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar *October 28th:* The Hydrogen tank has been weighted (sic) by means of a scale before and after loading of the Hydrogen In the reactor. Before the loading the weight measured is: 13604.5 kg After the loading the weight measured is: 13602.8 kg The Hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load: Hydrogen pressure before the load: 55 BAR Hydrogen pressure after the load: 55 BAR Rossi later corrected himself. The 13604.5 kg and 13602.8 kg measurements should have been 13604.5 g and 13602.8 g, respectively. So, one Ottoman E-Cat sometimes takes 2.7 g at 20 bar, and sometimes 1.5 g at 15 bar. On the other hand, 107 of the Ottoman E-Cats only take 1.7 g. But, Jed says that there is no reason to think that the numbers were fabricated, so it must be fine. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:51:48 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill Jouni Valkonen wrote: This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There is no reason to think the figures are fabricated. Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This was obviously a mistake. People often confuse units of measure. - Jed -- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:36:35 +0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill From: jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That hydrogen bottle weight is a good point. It has been discussed somewhere, but I do not remember was it here or elsewhere. This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This kind of typo in units implies that figures were just put there without much of thinking. Certainly they were not measured! —Jouni On Nov 23, 2011 3:00 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
I have never seen any indication of the H2 pressure during the experiment. It would seem logical that the pressure would vary quite a lot with temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:16 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill I have a doubt. Is that H2 pressure just on the loading before the experiment? But, there is no mention of what is the pressure during the experiment, right? 2011/11/23 Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com There are obviously much, much bigger problems than the weight of the hydrogen tank, but nevertheless: September 7th: Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar October 6th: Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar October 28th: The Hydrogen tank has been weighted (sic) by means of a scale before and after loading of the Hydrogen In the reactor. Before the loading the weight measured is: 13604.5 kg After the loading the weight measured is: 13602.8 kg The Hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load: Hydrogen pressure before the load: 55 BAR Hydrogen pressure after the load: 55 BAR Rossi later corrected himself. The 13604.5 kg and 13602.8 kg measurements should have been 13604.5 g and 13602.8 g, respectively. So, one Ottoman E-Cat sometimes takes 2.7 g at 20 bar, and sometimes 1.5 g at 15 bar. On the other hand, 107 of the Ottoman E-Cats only take 1.7 g. But, Jed says that there is no reason to think that the numbers were fabricated, so it must be fine. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:51:48 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill Jouni Valkonen wrote: This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There is no reason to think the figures are fabricated. Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This was obviously a mistake. People often confuse units of measure. - Jed Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:36:35 +0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill From: jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That hydrogen bottle weight is a good point. It has been discussed somewhere, but I do not remember was it here or elsewhere. This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This kind of typo in units implies that figures were just put there without much of thinking. Certainly they were not measured! —Jouni On Nov 23, 2011 3:00 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
just to cite data from the FAQ http://faq.ecat.com/112273/how-much-ni-is-in-the-cell/ so the needed Ni is about 10mg/kW (with pg really consumed in 6 months) the needed H is about ten times less 1mg/kW note that CF according to the presented success, need a 1/1 loading ratio (in atoms) between the metal (Ni or Pd) and hydrogen (H or D) to form the metal hydrure/deuterure. strong purity is also needed , else the cell is contaminated and killed. nanopowder should increase surface (and change the crystallographic parameter), and quicen loading. here, in the FAQ numbers, the loading radio seems quite huge , since Ni is about 58+ more heavy than H, thus 10mg/kW Ni should match 0.17mg/kW (and nor 1mg)... maybe is there a problem of leaks, or some H ins loaded into normal metal to form normal metal hydrure... note that Hydrogen (like helium) is hard to keep in a bottle (leaking). bottle should be replaced every 6month according to some people (whatever the application). as far as i understand the principle of E-cat and CF, in theory is no leaks, the reactor could be let closed for decennies before the fuel is consumed. but maybe is the crystal matrix corrupted, by thermal effect, of my copper contamination (than may act as a dopant). anyway, like H bottle, it should be refiled every 6 month. according to my computation, and FAQ numbers, he real active leading should be 0.17mg/kW, thus 0.17g/MW (MW installed power, not real). another possibility is that the E-cat works at a loading factor much higher that 1... about incoherence, the strange stability of consumption despite size changed, think about leaks and loading in normal metals. think also about plain volume. about changes, maybe the losses are in a common element, and maybe is the plumbing better with the bigger version. It seems also that the model have changed (don't they use a 50kW unit instead?) don't hesitate to check my numbers and correct false assumptions.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
What if it isn't an error? 1.7g of hydrogen if pressurised to 15bar is about 1.5L or 14mL of hydrogen per E-cat for 107 E-cats. 100 grams of nickel powder at 50% packing (I think this was stated nickel mass in original e-cat, though original e-cat was supposedly ~50mL) could take as little as 22mL to contain, with only 11mL of that being hydrogen. If the hydrogen supply line was only Ø2mm internal diameter then even 1 meter per ecat would only be another 3mL and the numbers would sort of add up, moreso if the reactors were heated up while the hydrogen was connected (eg 300°C = half mass). There could have been significant unused hydrogen volume in the system in earlier tests - big tubes, large valves, some leakage etc, or the hydrogen pressure could have been significantly lower in the latest test. However I think most likely explanation is that the weight measurement process is just not that accurate, eg small amounts of dirt on bottle, hanging mass of tubes, imperfections in scales, hysteresis, changing temperature etc, to get this right requires close attention to detail in measurement, something Mr Rossi is famously bad at. I believe Rossi has lately claimed that there is only about 1kg of nickel powder per 1MW (astonishing if true) On 23 November 2011 14:57, Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.comwrote: There are obviously much, much bigger problems than the weight of the hydrogen tank, but nevertheless: ** *September 7th:* Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 60 bar Reduced: 20 bar *October 6th:* Hydrogen was filled after having checked that there was no pressure inside the E-cat. The bottle was attached, opened, closed, and detached. Weight hydrogen bottle: - before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 55 bar Reduced: 15 bar *October 28th:* The Hydrogen tank has been weighted (sic) by means of a scale before and after loading of the Hydrogen In the reactor. Before the loading the weight measured is: 13604.5 kg After the loading the weight measured is: 13602.8 kg The Hydrogen tank pressure has been measured before and after the load: Hydrogen pressure before the load: 55 BAR Hydrogen pressure after the load: 55 BAR Rossi later corrected himself. The 13604.5 kg and 13602.8 kg measurements should have been 13604.5 g and 13602.8 g, respectively. So, one Ottoman E-Cat sometimes takes 2.7 g at 20 bar, and sometimes 1.5 g at 15 bar. On the other hand, 107 of the Ottoman E-Cats only take 1.7 g. But, Jed says that there is no reason to think that the numbers were fabricated, so it must be fine. Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:51:48 -0500 From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill Jouni Valkonen wrote: This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There is no reason to think the figures are fabricated. Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This was obviously a mistake. People often confuse units of measure. - Jed -- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:36:35 +0200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill From: jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com That hydrogen bottle weight is a good point. It has been discussed somewhere, but I do not remember was it here or elsewhere. This means with certainty that figures were fabricated and also in rather poor manner. There was initially also wrong units used, that hydrogen quantity was in kilogramms instead of gramms. This kind of typo in units implies that figures were just put there without much of thinking. Certainly they were not measured! —Jouni On Nov 23, 2011 3:00 PM, Gigi DiMarco gdmgdms...@gmail.com wrote: We can derive the following conclusions: - no intermediate experiments/tests have been made since 0.4 grams is likely to be a leakage, unless a different vessel was used - almost same quantity of Hydrogen is needed for either 1 or 107 fat-cat systems OR - Fioravanti Rossi report misleading figures Since Rossi in his blog says that 18 kg are needed in 6 months to charge the 1MW plant, 100 grams are needed in 1 day. Giancarlo
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
I believe Rossi has lately claimed that there is only about 1kg of nickel powder per 1MW (astonishing if true) Oops, according to the man himself it is 10kg, so about 100g per ecat (will run for 6 months) + 1g of hydrogen per ecat per day. http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
2011/11/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. That is nonsense. They were using precision scale and those are usually telling the truth. Of course few gram mistakes can occur, like one did occur in January, when Levi put an adhesive tape to seal the valve of hydrogen bottle. Here however the measured value was 1000 fold too little, because used amount of hydrogen should have been something in order of 1.7 kg that was initially reported. Not 1.7 grams. I would speculate, that the hydrogen consumption was weighted but there was not data recorded for before and after values. And later when writing the report bottle weights were taken just from the previous Oct 6th report and put there, but of course here was made the blunder that units were not in kilograms. This is far fetched speculation, but something like that would make some sense. However truthfulness about the figures is just impossible, because Rossi has made several day private tests with MW-plant before the 28th demonstration. Idea that he would use different hydrogen bottle for demonstrations and testing is not plausible. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
1.7Kg of hydrogen means 850mols of H2, or ~20,000 liters of hydrogen, or 20m^3 at 1bar. I guess even at 25 bar, it wouldn't fit in there... 2011/11/23 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com 2011/11/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Weighing the entire tank is an extremely inaccurate method. Almost useless. That is nonsense. They were using precision scale and those are usually telling the truth. Of course few gram mistakes can occur, like one did occur in January, when Levi put an adhesive tape to seal the valve of hydrogen bottle. Here however the measured value was 1000 fold too little, because used amount of hydrogen should have been something in order of 1.7 kg that was initially reported. Not 1.7 grams. I would speculate, that the hydrogen consumption was weighted but there was not data recorded for before and after values. And later when writing the report bottle weights were taken just from the previous Oct 6th report and put there, but of course here was made the blunder that units were not in kilograms. This is far fetched speculation, but something like that would make some sense. However truthfulness about the figures is just impossible, because Rossi has made several day private tests with MW-plant before the 28th demonstration. Idea that he would use different hydrogen bottle for demonstrations and testing is not plausible. –Jouni -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
2011/11/23 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: 1.7Kg of hydrogen means 850mols of H2, or ~20,000 liters of hydrogen, or 20m^3 at 1bar. I guess even at 25 bar, it wouldn't fit in there... That is true, with 2.5 MPa pressure it would still take volume of 830 liters. So this my idea for mistake is not plausible. It is good to however keep in mind that in previous demonstrations there was used about one ½ liter of hydrogen at 2.5 MPa pressure per module and in 1MW ecat there was 300 modules and lot more piping. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
At 04:38 AM 11/23/2011, Gigi DiMarco wrote: I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in the hydrogen consumption October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report For Oct 28, don't forget the restart -- they started the eCat, it was unstable, so they lowered the hydrogen pressure. Did they completely discharge it? Maybe they just let some out, and then reconnected the hydrogen bottle to measure the 55 Bar, (or whatever). The actual hydrogen consumption is so small that it's trivial the 1MW would run for 25 (wild guess for intentional hyperbole) milliseconds on a gram of hydrogen. This isn't just a picayune problem ... it's a pico-picayune problem.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
I think the catalyzer might be water and something that reacts with oxygen. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_pressure_electrolysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis It think, initially the hydrogen is just to increase pressure of the system. As the temperature increases, a combination of both starts increasing the pressure inside the reactor, which cause temperature and pressure to grow, which makes more electrolysis to happen and more hydrogen to load in the nickel powder. 2011/11/23 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com 2011/11/23 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com: 1.7Kg of hydrogen means 850mols of H2, or ~20,000 liters of hydrogen, or 20m^3 at 1bar. I guess even at 25 bar, it wouldn't fit in there... That is true, with 2.5 MPa pressure it would still take volume of 830 liters. So this my idea for mistake is not plausible. It is good to however keep in mind that in previous demonstrations there was used about one ½ liter of hydrogen at 2.5 MPa pressure per module and in 1MW ecat there was 300 modules and lot more piping. –Jouni -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Where on Earth did you guys get the information that it was running and hydrogen was purged? Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer opted to go for the self-sustain mode. There was never additional information provided as to how this power cut was achieved. I would love to hear any ideas as to why it would be 1MW driven or half-that in self sustaining. Still, look at the numbers. If it were filled before hand, the tank would have dropped between September and Oct 28th: September 7th: before filling: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams October 6th: before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams October 28th: Before filling: 13604.5 grams After filling: 13602.8 grams Total loaded: 1.7 grams Or are you assuming that the E-Cat was filled from a different bottle, then mostly purged, then the same bottle from all of the other tests was used for the demo? Again, this is a non-issue. It looks like some numbers were fudged, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. _ Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:43:54 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill At 04:38 AM 11/23/2011, Gigi DiMarco wrote: I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in the hydrogen consumption October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report For Oct 28, don't forget the restart -- they started the eCat, it was unstable, so they lowered the hydrogen pressure. Did they completely discharge it? Maybe they just let some out, and then reconnected the hydrogen bottle to measure the 55 Bar, (or whatever). The actual hydrogen consumption is so small that it's trivial the 1MW would run for 25 (wild guess for intentional hyperbole) milliseconds on a gram of hydrogen. This isn't just a picayune problem ... it's a pico-picayune problem.
RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
The early Ny Tecknik video of the inside of the 1MW reactor reveals that the hydrogen inlets for the individual inlets are not connected. If each individual module must be filled separately then the measurement is valid. From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:29:12 -0600 Where on Earth did you guys get the information that it was running and hydrogen was purged? Early in the day with a glitch showing up, Rossi said that they had to make a decision about whether to go for 1 MW output, not in self-sustain mode, or with self-sustain mode at a lower power level. The customer opted to go for the self-sustain mode. There was never additional information provided as to how this power cut was achieved. I would love to hear any ideas as to why it would be 1MW driven or half-that in self sustaining. Still, look at the numbers. If it were filled before hand, the tank would have dropped between September and Oct 28th: September 7th: before filling: 13613.4 grams - after filling: 13610.7 grams Total loaded: 2.7 grams October 6th: before filling: 13606.4 grams - after filling: 13604.9 grams Total loaded: 1.5 grams October 28th: Before filling: 13604.5 grams After filling: 13602.8 grams Total loaded: 1.7 grams Or are you assuming that the E-Cat was filled from a different bottle, then mostly purged, then the same bottle from all of the other tests was used for the demo? Again, this is a non-issue. It looks like some numbers were fudged, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. _ Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:43:54 -0800 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com From: a...@well.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill At 04:38 AM 11/23/2011, Gigi DiMarco wrote: I don't know if it was already reported but I found some oddies in the hydrogen consumption October 28th test, from Fioravanti/Rossi's report For Oct 28, don't forget the restart -- they started the eCat, it was unstable, so they lowered the hydrogen pressure. Did they completely discharge it? Maybe they just let some out, and then reconnected the hydrogen bottle to measure the 55 Bar, (or whatever). The actual hydrogen consumption is so small that it's trivial the 1MW would run for 25 (wild guess for intentional hyperbole) milliseconds on a gram of hydrogen. This isn't just a picayune problem ... it's a pico-picayune problem.
RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
At 10:29 AM 11/23/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Where on Earth did you guys get the information that it was running and hydrogen was purged? http://pesn.com/2011/10/31/9501942_After_the_E-Cat_Test--Report_and_Q-A_with_Rossi/ Description of the test installation the one megawatt Energy Catalyzer is an assembly of 107 modules of ten kilowatts each connected in parallel. You have noted that we did not produce one megawatt hour per hour we produced less than that. *** This is because we had to lower the power of the power of the plant because in self sustaining we had the temperature at a certain time that rose too much. The system was difficult to modulate. And this also is the reason why we had to stay very, very strict. So we have produced if you make the calculation we have produced.. two thousand and six hundred thirty five kilowatt hours divided by We made about 479 kilowatt hours per hour, which is not one megawatt of power. But we had to choose if we wanted to go all self sustained, or to go with a drive of the resistances. The customer wanted to go all self sustained, because it is very important for him. http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501943_Rossis_E-Cat_Victory_on_Cold_Fusion_Emergence_Day--E-Day/ To resolve the issue, the hydrogen pressure in all the reactors was reduced. As has already been revealed by Rossi, increasing or decreasing the hydrogen pressure is a way of throttling the output in these systems. By reducing the hydrogen pressure, the temperatures would not rise quite as high, and the system as a whole would be more stable. The consequence of reducing the hydrogen pressure would be that the plant would not be able to achieve a constant one megawatt of output in a self-sustained mode. To achieve one megawatt of output in a stable manner, it would have required a constant drive or input of electrical energy into the resistors. Somehow, the heat from the resistors not only triggers the nuclear reactions during start up, but can also allow for the system to be more easily controlled. Rossi admitted during the question and answer period after the system would be easier to control with a drive, and could have reached one megawatt. However, the ability of the plant to operate in self sustain mode was very important for the customer, so it was decided to simply reduce they hydrogen pressure, and allow the system to produce less total output in a self sustained mode of operation.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: because in self sustaining we had the temperature at a certain time that rose too much. The system was difficult to modulate. Rossi keeps saying that. But it doesn't make sense. In all the 9+ months he's been showing E-cats, I don't know of a single time he has demonstrated it or even shown a laboratory-obtained time vs temp curve that even suggests it. Instead, every one of Rossi's devices requires substantial electrical power to start and most require it to run, even piddly periods of time. There is no evidence of any tendency to thermal or any other sort of runaway in any test results I've seen. And he says the large band heater surrounding his early E-cats is for safety. But it can only heat the cooling water! Does any of this make sense to anyone? If excess heating happened October 28, why didn't Rossi let anyone see it? Why didn't he record it and show the record?
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I don't know of a single time he has demonstrated it or even shown a laboratory-obtained time vs temp curve that even suggests it. I should add that I except the Levi test where there was a reported brief and incredible (for various good reasons already discussed) power surge but as we know, that test was improperly documented and controlled and there was inexplicable never a repeat of it. Other than that, I recall of no documentation of any problems ever due to excessive power.
RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Yes, he claimed they had to reduce power. Where does it say that they did this by reducing the hydrogen pressure? Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: At 10:29 AM 11/23/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Where on Earth did you guys get the information that it was running and hydrogen was purged? http://pesn.com/2011/10/31/9501942_After_the_E-Cat_Test--Report_and_Q-A_with_Rossi/ Description of the test installation the one megawatt Energy Catalyzer is an assembly of 107 modules of ten kilowatts each connected in parallel. You have noted that we did not produce one megawatt hour per hour we produced less than that. *** This is because we had to lower the power of the power of the plant because in self sustaining we had the temperature at a certain time that rose too much. The system was difficult to modulate. And this also is the reason why we had to stay very, very strict. So we have produced if you make the calculation we have produced.. two thousand and six hundred thirty five kilowatt hours divided by We made about 479 kilowatt hours per hour, which is not one megawatt of power. But we had to choose if we wanted to go all self sustained, or to go with a drive of the resistances. The customer wanted to go all self sustained, because it is very important for him. http://pesn.com/2011/11/02/9501943_Rossis_E-Cat_Victory_on_Cold_Fusion_Emergence_Day--E-Day/ To resolve the issue, the hydrogen pressure in all the reactors was reduced. As has already been revealed by Rossi, increasing or decreasing the hydrogen pressure is a way of throttling the output in these systems. By reducing the hydrogen pressure, the temperatures would not rise quite as high, and the system as a whole would be more stable. The consequence of reducing the hydrogen pressure would be that the plant would not be able to achieve a constant one megawatt of output in a self-sustained mode. To achieve one megawatt of output in a stable manner, it would have required a constant drive or input of electrical energy into the resistors. Somehow, the heat from the resistors not only triggers the nuclear reactions during start up, but can also allow for the system to be more easily controlled. Rossi admitted during the question and answer period after the system would be easier to control with a drive, and could have reached one megawatt. However, the ability of the plant to operate in self sustain mode was very important for the customer, so it was decided to simply reduce they hydrogen pressure, and allow the system to produce less total output in a self sustained mode of operation.
RE: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
At 11:57 AM 11/23/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote: Yes, he claimed they had to reduce power. Where does it say that they did this by reducing the hydrogen pressure? In the second link that I just posted : To resolve the issue, the hydrogen pressure in all the reactors was reduced. I guess my use of restart was inferred ... it's not clear if they stopped and restarted, but they certainly started and then adjusted ...
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
that is not what rossi says on the FAQ. he talks about 10mg/kW of H, and 100mg/kW of Ni however, in my previeux computation I'me made a mistake... 1MW should need 10g of H and 100g of Ni if the number for Ni is Ok, but H is a bit exagerated, for 100g of Ni you need 100g/59=1.7g hydrogen... strange it fall on that number... but maybe it is that rossi exagerate the need of H. maybe also he count not only the loading of H (1.7g), but also the leaks on 6 month (8h it seems) anyway without knowing the machine and it's behavioor it is like guessing the gas consumption behavior of a car, not having driven any, not used the engine. 2011/11/23 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com 2011/11/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Here however the measured value was 1000 fold too little, because used amount of hydrogen should have been something in order of 1.7 kg that was initially reported. Not 1.7 grams.
Re: [Vo]:hydrogen refill
Repeat from earlier in this thread: http://faq.ecat.com/112449/how-much-nickel-and-hydrogen-will-it-take-to-generate-one-megawatt-of-heat-continuously-for-six-months/ 1MW needs 10kg Nickel powder, so about 100g per ecat (will run for 6 months) + 1g of hydrogen per ecat per day (in reality far less than this is used, but there will be leakage etc). On 23 November 2011 20:33, Alain dit le Cycliste alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote: that is not what rossi says on the FAQ. he talks about 10mg/kW of H, and 100mg/kW of Ni however, in my previeux computation I'me made a mistake... 1MW should need 10g of H and 100g of Ni if the number for Ni is Ok, but H is a bit exagerated, for 100g of Ni you need 100g/59=1.7g hydrogen... strange it fall on that number... but maybe it is that rossi exagerate the need of H. maybe also he count not only the loading of H (1.7g), but also the leaks on 6 month (8h it seems) anyway without knowing the machine and it's behavioor it is like guessing the gas consumption behavior of a car, not having driven any, not used the engine. 2011/11/23 Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com 2011/11/23 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Here however the measured value was 1000 fold too little, because used amount of hydrogen should have been something in order of 1.7 kg that was initially reported. Not 1.7 grams.
