RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Rick, I see a LOT of opinions commentary being expressed in the links you supplied. However, it's not clear to me if those are opinions you have personally arrived at, or whether you are continuing to cite the opinions of others. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:58 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Rick, I see a LOT of opinions commentary being expressed in the links you supplied. However, it's not clear to me if those are opinions you have personally arrived at, or whether you are continuing to cite the opinions of others. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Well, Steven Vincent Johnson, pick up one of the specific bones, so we can chew on it from opposite ends, until we inevitably meet somewhere in the middle... Since awareness-being has no color, sound, taste, smell, weight, shape, location, size, geometry, number, quantity, spaces or times, causality, identity, history, meaning -- then there is no way to declare that it is any way not here, where within this very moment, these little crooked le t t er marks instantly flower as remembered-imagined sounds, standard meanings, apparent evidence for each of us that somewhere in awareness-being, another-similar exists -- the entire exponentially expanding edifice of commonsense and scientific-social reality arises mysteriously within -- the space where we stand and greet is not just holy ground, it is hollow ground -- hello is a greeting, while hollo ? be question -- I'm only playing the dice games of dicey conclusions based on exponentially evolving evidence, in order to propose questioning the reality of the dice board itself, and the true reality of the ostensible deeply engrossed gamblers, testing their imaginary skills -- look, look at the edges, the board goes on forever in all directions -- infinity doesn't wear matching socks... Brought home a Motorola Xoom 4G 64 GB tablet from Verizon for $ 199 plus $ 168 accessories -- Sondra, computer proof for our 16 years, loved it instantly and wants to get one for herself tomorrow -- in recent hours, I find it slippery, elusive, tantalizing, the slightest touch sending it off in unexpected directions -- Verizon provides 5 Gb data monthly for $ 50, while it is in turn the Wi-Fi source for my laptop and her Xoom and as many as three more computers, within 30 feet of mine, anywhere in the USA -- Skype allows free video chats worldwide -- be in our rental house in Imperial Beach in a week for my first night... Rich
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I am sorry if my statement annoys you Mary. You suggest that you might be willing to accept the slim possibility that Rossi is honest. I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you promise that your statement reflects your real opinion. On the other hand, Mr. Cude has made it quite clear that he does not believe that Rossi or anyone else has achieved a LENR reaction. He fabricates evidence that suggests either the customer engineer is lying or incompetent. He claims that the system approved and set up by the same engineer is useless in recovering water that escapes from the ECATs. He accuses people who are convinced that the ECAT might be successful of being ignorant of his truths. I do not recall him ever saying that LENR is possible, and I would like for you to correct me if I am misunderstanding his position. There is little reason for me to keep repeating the same position over and over to answer his negative statements and I refuse to continue. Vortex should not be used as a board where the loudest screamers seem true. This is not productive. You have been subjected to a significant amount of ridicule for repeating the same ideas in a similar manner and should understand this concept well. New ideas as well as building upon existing ones is the way to move forward and I and most others appreciate that type of conversation. I will answer any questions that arise concerning my hypothesis, provided they are not combative and repetitive. I as much as anyone else wants to determine models of the ECAT and related devices that are rigorous and true. You should know that by now. That is my only goal and if the ECAT demonstrates performance that is lacking I will reveal my findings as I have in the past. Dave -Original Message- From: Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 24, 2011 1:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. I find that assertion annoying. Several others including, IIRC, Cude, nd I have said under what criteria Rossi's claims would be credible nd those criteria are both entirely reasonable and easy to fulfill. or, as some assert, would proper testing in any way risk revealing ossi's secret. On the other hand, selling E-cats in batches of 50 or ore as a plant certainly does risk his secrets. Rossi has now categorically refused *public* pleas from four strong upporters of LENR/cold fusion -- Josephson, Celani, McKubre and othwell to get independent testing and I am sure many others have sked him as well by personal communications. I don't recall anyone here saying categorically that Rossi is camming. Can you quote such a statement from a regular participant n this email list? I think Rossi's critics say he's *acting* like a cammer and he most certainly is for reasons I have carefully outlined ere before. M.Y.
RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Rick sez: I am captivated by [Cude's] exceptional lucidity of mind -- soon, he will give the Defkalion delusion an equally exquisite shave Your personal objectivity on these matters is something to behold, as what appears to be your undying faith in the infallibility of your heroes. Rich, have you considered the possibility of simply sticking to and expressing your own personal observations opinions (warts and all) instead of constantly bolstering your current opinions/ideology with incessant product endorsements of the perceived unapproachable qualities of your favorite heroes? Personally, I would be much more interested in listening to why YOU PERSONALLY feel skeptical of Rossi and the whole CF shebang. If you want people to listen and seriously ponder what you have to say, I would suggest expressing WHY you personally feel skeptical on such matters. To put it bluntly, I could give a rat's ass about being subjected to yet another product endorsement of the perceived qualities of someone else's favorite hero. Shoot! You've seemed to have even endorsed me on several occasions when I go off on another one of my eccentric rants... and while I ought to feel a sense of gratitude for your occasional expressed admiration, the truth of the matter is: the last thing I need in my life is hero worship. It's been my experience that anyone perceived as the quintessential hero for today can just as easily be demoted to the role of a villain for tomorrow. All this hero worship... You seem to set yourself up to be disappointed, over and over. But then... perhaps that's one of the major lessons you have set yourself up to experience in this life-time. It's a doozey of a lesson too! Have a happy Turkey day. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm. However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small. It's not really like that at all. In the Rossi scenario, the rate of input powers are known. The input power is 160 kW or so during pre-heat. And it heats up to the level required to transfer 70 kW to the water in 2 hours. During the self-sustain, Rossi claims the input power (from the ecat core) is 470 kW, and it heats up to the level required to transfer the full 470 kW to the water in a few minutes. So, it's more analogous to the theatre filling up gradually over 2 hours with people coming in on average at 10 persons per minute. Then it empties out in 2 minutes with people leaving at 30 persons per minute. It doesn't compute. (If you take account of heat leaving as during the heating process, it becomes even more implausible.) The point is that the length of the warm-up interval by itself does not render the output implausible. If you think it is implausible then presumably you think the ECAT could not be heated electrically to self sustaining temperatures in minutes without failure (melting/exploding). The plausible explanation for the long warm up interval is that the self-sustain mode must be approached slowly. If the ECAT is heated too quickly, the self sustain mode may not last very long or it may never be reached. Harry
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Hello Steven Vincent Johnson, this is my third try at starting a reply to your compassionate suggestions, having shut down and restarted my Windows Vista MSi laptop after the first try vanished after 20 minutes, while the second try lasted only a minute -- sometimes too many web pages and things are open at once, overloading the 4 GB RAM -- so first, proof that I give detailed, original, emphatic critical asseys - essays - I says -- lame LENR H-Ni run report by Sergio Focardi and Francesco Piantelli, 9 pages, Il Nuovo Cimento, November 1998 -- recent news: Rich Murray 2011.08.20 lame LENR H-Ni run report by Sergio Focardi and Francesco Piantelli, 9 pages, Il Nuovo Cimento, November 1998 -- recent news: Rich Murray 2011.08.20 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011/08/lame-lenr-h-ni-run-report-by-sergio.html http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/astrodeep/message/94 __ [ summary of critique: science that purports to establish a notable percentage increase in excess heat as a reproducible anomaly, as reported herein, is very lacking re many critical details and shows lack of common sense consideration of reasonable complications -- as usual in LENR research, an enthusiastic team created a black witch's cauldron, full of impurities, sealed and invisible to detailed observation during months of cooking in H2 gas at high temperatures. Probably, corrosion opened up additional conducting paths, reducing the total electrical resistance fed by the constant voltage power supply, increasing the total input electric power via increased current flow, which increased ordinary electric heat effects in complex ways within the black box. So far, the surge of enticing, but vague, thin, and variable information follows the pattern of the Rossi debacle in 2010-2011... ] [ search http://www.lenr-canr.org/ Piantelli to get 5 pages of items that include many full text papers ] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf 10 pages [ more ... ] so, I'll send this, now, before it, too, flickers back into the zero point fluctuations... On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 7:12 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Rick sez: I am captivated by [Cude's] exceptional lucidity of mind -- soon, he will give the Defkalion delusion an equally exquisite shave Your personal objectivity on these matters is something to behold, as what appears to be your undying faith in the infallibility of your heroes. Rich, have you considered the possibility of simply sticking to and expressing your own personal observations opinions (warts and all) instead of constantly bolstering your current opinions/ideology with incessant product endorsements of the perceived unapproachable qualities of your favorite heroes? Personally, I would be much more interested in listening to why YOU PERSONALLY feel skeptical of Rossi and the whole CF shebang. If you want people to listen and seriously ponder what you have to say, I would suggest expressing WHY you personally feel skeptical on such matters. To put it bluntly, I could give a rat's ass about being subjected to yet another product endorsement of the perceived qualities of someone else's favorite hero. Shoot! You've seemed to have even endorsed me on several occasions when I go off on another one of my eccentric rants... and while I ought to feel a sense of gratitude for your occasional expressed admiration, the truth of the matter is: the last thing I need in my life is hero worship. It's been my experience that anyone perceived as the quintessential hero for today can just as easily be demoted to the role of a villain for tomorrow. All this hero worship... You seem to set yourself up to be disappointed, over and over. But then... perhaps that's one of the major lessons you have set yourself up to experience in this life-time. It's a doozey of a lesson too! Have a happy Turkey day. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
whew! got that one out of the gate... Here's another example, closer to what I'm really doing in life... Murray's Law: Eternal Exponential Expansion of Science: CSICON, Rich Murray 1997.04.05 2001.06.22 2008.06.04 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/message/76 Rich Murray April 5 1997 CSICON Communion for the Subjective Investigation of Claims of the Normal Room For All 1943 Otowi Road Santa Fe, NM 87505 rmfor...@comcast.net 505-501-2298 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmforall/ Murray's Law: Eternal Exponential Expansion of Science Millennia of worldwide commonsense traditions have culminated in a recent few centuries of exponential scientific work. Since 1660, the number of scientists has grown from about 100 to about 10,000,000. Likewise, the volume of accumulated scientific literature, both doubling unstoppably every twenty years, rather like Mickey Mouse's hordes of relentlessly marching brooms in Disney's The Sorcerer's Apprentice. This global orchestration of thought and practice has been firmly founded on certain principles, rarely questioned and widely held to be unquestionable. Experience is held to be entirely based on and derived from a basic reality, itself external to experience: physical, or more abstractly, time-space-energy. This base reality is universally assumed to be impersonal, consistent, orderly, lawful, causal, uniform, single, measurable, describable and communicable, continuous, contiguous, inherently simple, and based on a small set of unchangeable (in themselves) logical-mathematical operations. Therefore this reality can be modeled and predicted by the self-qualifying global society of scientists, based solely on communication by the external senses. In short, the primary reality, and its derivative, conscious experience, are absolutely normal. The primary image of this paradigm is that of the machine, or the modern embodiment, the computer: well-defined elements interacting in three-dimensional space along a single one-way track of causality to produce utterly normal results, however marvelous, varied, valuable, or unpredictable they may be in practice. This towering structure of established normality paradoxically both hides and makes even more significant any hints of nonnormality. Hitherto, anomalies, such as random variations in offspring, the fogging of sealed photographic plates by uranium ore, or slight static in sensitive radios, have become mere fodder for the assimilation program of science, leading to vast extensions of the range of the normal, including evolution, quantum mechanics, and the Big Bang. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated-- the implacable marching song of the Borg juggernaut. Willem of Occam proclaimed, Thou shalt not multiply entities needlessly. Indeed, hordes of angels, demons, ghosts, spirits, influences, and innate qualities have been relegated to that final dustbin of our race's mythic heritage, children's Saturday morning cartoons. Mature minds, entranced by ever more lofty and subtle theoretical visions, fed feasts of observation and experimentation on every level, constrained by principles of parsimony, generality, and elegance, have exuberantly, soberly created in a mere century: at the ever tapering tail of the dragon, atoms that are .99 empty space, said empty space as a fully occupied negative energy sea of prodigious density, with incessant particle pair production-annihilation within that good old vacuum, the equivalence of mass and energy, the relativistic variation of observed time, with irreducible randomness, fuzziness, discontinuity, and, feh!, nonlocality at the very core of reality, the weird phenomena of superconductivity and superfluidity, the ever fecund boson-fermion zoo of baryons, mesons, quarks, gluons, neutrinos, WIMPs, gravitons, Higg's, magnetic monopoles, and their antis, and their superpartners, all cascading into actuality as infinitesimal loops or membranes vibrating within that most spacious crystal of abstraction, E8XE8 Group (The Monster) Symmetry, while now 7 additional dimensions of space are parsimoniously mandated. Whew! meanwhile, at the ever bigger end of said dragon, suddenly the galaxy!, sprinkled with pulsars and quasars, oh!, then an expanding universe of galaxies, salted with gamma-ray bursters, oh!, that all sprang into being as a space-time bubble with zero total energy as an infinitesimal quantum vacuum fluctuation in something, oh!, our bubble of galaxies extends 10E+25 further than the present observable size after 13.7 billion years expansion (that's 10E+75 greater volume, folks), oh!, might be untold zillions of universe bubbles, forever disconnected, each with unique intrinsic properties, effervescing cheerily within something, just the facts, Mam, heh, heh. Funny what the principle of parsimony leads to... gee whiz, I near forgot, black holes, them's weird nuff, huh? Lot of 'em, too, all sizes! Oops, they evaporate! Blow up too! Wow!
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact. As the diagram shows, heat flow into water depends extremely non-linearly on the temperature differential. It is non-linear with the temperature difference between the surface and the water, because of the complication of the phase change. But the heat flow in the solid metal of the ecat is proportional to the temperature gradient. And whatever heat is removed from the surface has to be replaced by conduction through the ecat heating elements. It also depends more or less linearly on area of contact. We don't know what the inner geometry of the devices, No, but we don't need to know that to know that the heat flow is proportional to temperature differentials (absent phase changes in the metal). and we don't know how the water level changes. But we can put limits on the *increase* in the water level based on the input flow rate. And on the scale of minutes, you can ignore this. So you cannot say that an increase in power transfer of x times requires an increase in core temperature of x times, because that can be achieved by a small increase in temperature, or a proportional increase in area of contact. I think you can say it. You only need a small increase in the surface temperature, but if you remove heat from the surface 7 times faster, then you need to supply heat *to* the surface 7 times faster. That means you need a temperature gradient 7 times steeper, and since the surface temperature doesn't change much, the core temp (less 100C) would have to increase by 7 times. Also, do you know what the thermal mass of the reactor is? I don't. What we know is how long it takes to heat it up to the point necessary for the onset of boiling. That time constant is *determined* by the thermal mass. So we can use the rate it heats up during pre-heating to estimate the rate it would heat up to reach full vaporization. This is not perfect, because we don't know the actual temperatures at the boiling onset. But the required rate is so much greater increasing the rate of heat transport by a factor of 7 in 1/60th of the time that detailed knowledge isn't needed to realize it is not plausible. Thus, in principle, the area of contact can be increased easily by changing the water level as demonstrated in the following example. No it can't. At the input flow rate of 675 kg/h, in two minutes, each ecat gets about .2 L added, which changes the depth by less than 1 %. You can't get 7 times the area coverage in a few minutes by changing the depth. And even if you could, it doesn't change the fact that when you remove the heat 7 times faster, it has to be replaced 7 times faster. You still need to transport the heat through the thermal mass of the ecat. Control the heating element using feedback from the thermocouple to keep T constant above the boiling point of water. By matching the flow rate to the evaporation rate using the water level sensor, you keep the water level l constant. The flow rate was fixed. The customer measured it with gauges he added at the last minute, and then a constant flow rate was used for the calculations. To the first approximation, the power transfer should be proportional to the area of contact which is proportional to the water level. An electric heating element can have quite a small thermal mass. The current can be ramped up very quickly. But then why does it take 2 hours before the water flowing through is at the boiling point? So if you start pumping more, the water level rises, and so does the evaporation rate and the power transfer. The pumps were run close to capacity, so there is no way you can account for 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water. In principle, you just have to control the pumps and provide enough power to have a dQ/dt as high as you wish (within limits, of course). Right, and the limits of the flow rate and the heat transport through the ecat mean it would take hours to reach 470 kW from 70 W.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; It was 160 kW from 10:30 to 12:30. the corresponding amount of water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l of water per sub-module. Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60 l. So each sub-module is less than 20 l. Having 3.43 l of water in a 20 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full. If we're free to assume any flow rate during the pre-heat, then the ecats could start at any level at all, and considering it takes almost 5 hours to fill them up, very little steam would have to come out. If it's wet steam, it corresponds to 9 kW average power, and even if it's dry, it's only 66 kW average output. Evidence for 470 kW just isn't there.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I have been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a short time that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not that is a real problem but the following theory easily eliminates that issue. First, the pooled water is being evaporated by the initial hot vapor entering the steam pipes. This shows up as the relatively long shoulder period that is visible just before the big bang in temperature reading of the thermocouple within the steam pipe. The evaporating pooled water at low pressure holds the temperature down until it is dispersed. At that time, the much hotter vapor that is collected within the ECATs can begin to escape the output valve and quickly raise the steam pipe temperature since it is no longer restrained by the pooled water. I think this makes perfect sense and matches the temperature data collected. Now, the power output does not have to instantly show up as 470 kW since the water level within the ECATs is not overflowing. Why would it not be reasonable to assume that the water level continues to rise more slowly as time progresses until the final 470 kW is achieved? If the output now exceeds 470 kW then the average levels within the ECATs will start to decline. Of course, I suspect that the ECATs are actually operating in the driven mode for most of the large initial temperature pulse since the report mentions 66 kWh of input throughout the 5.5 hour test period. So, the water levels within the ECATs compensates for the unusual power requirements and essentially every measurement can be explained. The quality of the steam has been suggested to be low. This is not the case since kettle boilers that have a reasonable space above the liquid to hold vapor deliver high quality steam. Anyone who wants to prove this to themselves can study boilers and determine that this is true. With this latest theory, I suggest that a coherent description exists which fits the data that was collected during the October 28 test. The bottom line is that the 1 MW system test demonstrated a working cold fusion device. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 12:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that he external temperature was around 15 degrees. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. Yes. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. And that will also cause temperature and pressure to rise and then ossibly push water that obstructs smaller pipes, clearing the way and reating a pressure/temperature drop. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring ater from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; the corresponding amount f water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l f water per sub-module. Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60 . So each sub-module is less than 20 l. Having 3.43 l of water in a 0 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full. That also gives a good safety margin, since the power per module when unning at 470 kW is 1.46 kW. That will evaporate 2.23 kg of water in ne hour, enough time to find or fix a problem or shut the thing down. So Dave's theory is that condensed water in the pipes causes clogs nd thus pressure and thus temperature fluctuations. I like that idea, but aybe someone knows better. - erke Durak
RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Are the numbers and slow temperature gradient not entirely consistent with overflowing E-Cats as well? You take a great deal of time and expend a great deal of effort constructing intellectually fascinating models. Consider, though, if the E-Cats are overflowing, and the actual steam vaporization is lower than the rate at which new water is introduced, the kettle boiler construction is completely irrelevant. The incoming water will be displacing the water at boiling, regardless of its phase. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:58:26 -0500 There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I have been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a short time that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not that is a real problem but the following theory easily eliminates that issue. First, the pooled water is being evaporated by the initial hot vapor entering the steam pipes. This shows up as the relatively long shoulder period that is visible just before the big bang in temperature reading of the thermocouple within the steam pipe. The evaporating pooled water at low pressure holds the temperature down until it is dispersed. At that time, the much hotter vapor that is collected within the ECATs can begin to escape the output valve and quickly raise the steam pipe temperature since it is no longer restrained by the pooled water. I think this makes perfect sense and matches the temperature data collected. Now, the power output does not have to instantly show up as 470 kW since the water level within the ECATs is not overflowing. Why would it not be reasonable to assume that the water level continues to rise more slowly as time progresses until the final 470 kW is achieved? If the output now exceeds 470 kW then the average levels within the ECATs will start to decline. Of course, I suspect that the ECATs are actually operating in the driven mode for most of the large initial temperature pulse since the report mentions 66 kWh of input throughout the 5.5 hour test period. So, the water levels within the ECATs compensates for the unusual power requirements and essentially every measurement can be explained. The quality of the steam has been suggested to be low. This is not the case since kettle boilers that have a reasonable space above the liquid to hold vapor deliver high quality steam. Anyone who wants to prove this to themselves can study boilers and determine that this is true. With this latest theory, I suggest that a coherent description exists which fits the data that was collected during the October 28 test. The bottom line is that the 1 MW system test demonstrated a working cold fusion device. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 12:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that the external temperature was around 15 degrees. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. Yes. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. And that will also cause temperature and pressure to rise and then possibly push water that obstructs smaller pipes, clearing the way and creating a pressure/temperature drop. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; the corresponding amount of water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l of water per sub-module. Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60 l. So each sub-module is less than 20 l. Having 3.43 l of water in a 20 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full. That also gives a good safety margin, since the power per module when running at 470 kW is 1.46 kW. That will evaporate 2.23 kg of water in one hour, enough time to find or fix a problem or shut
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I gave the model you mentioned a great deal of consideration as well. The evidence does not support that concept for several reasons. I could not see any explanation for the lack of water being captured by the trap set by the engineer as one example. He states that he collected all of the water exiting the ECATs and obtained 5 liters. If the water is being constantly moving throughout the system this is not possilbe. I do not think it is fair to say he is lying about his measurements as some suggest. Also, an explanation for the large, fast rising temperature pulse after the shoulder can not be explained by the constant water theroy. I also think that that shoulder ahead of the large pulse is explained quite convinceingly by my hypothesis. There are far too many problems associated with the water runs through it theory. The only requirement for my hypothesis to be true is for the water to be slightly below full during the test. No one needs to be a liar and the readings do not need to be fudged. Why should we not use logic to arrive at the correct answer if it fits? Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 10:10 am Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy Are the numbers and slow temperature gradient not entirely consistent with overflowing E-Cats as well? You take a great deal of time and expend a great deal of effort constructing intellectually fascinating models. Consider, though, if the E-Cats are overflowing, and the actual steam vaporization is lower than the rate at which new water is introduced, the kettle boiler construction is completely irrelevant. The incoming water will be displacing the water at boiling, regardless of its phase. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:58:26 -0500 There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I have been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a short time that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not that is a real problem but the following theory easily eliminates that issue. First, the pooled water is being evaporated by the initial hot vapor entering the steam pipes. This shows up as the relatively long shoulder period that is visible just before the big bang in temperature reading of the thermocouple within the steam pipe. The evaporating pooled water at low pressure holds the temperature down until it is dispersed. At that time, the much hotter vapor that is collected within the ECATs can begin to escape the output valve and quickly raise the steam pipe temperature since it is no longer restrained by the pooled water. I think this makes perfect sense and matches the temperature data collected. Now, the power output does not have to instantly show up as 470 kW since the water level within the ECATs is not overflowing. Why would it not be reasonable to assume that the water level continues to rise more slowly as time progresses until the final 470 kW is achieved? If the output now exceeds 470 kW then the average levels within the ECATs will start to decline. Of course, I suspect that the ECATs are actually operating in the driven mode for most of the large initial temperature pulse since the report mentions 66 kWh of input throughout the 5.5 hour test period. So, the water levels within the ECATs compensates for the unusual power requirements and essentially every measurement can be explained. The quality of the steam has been suggested to be low. This is not the case since kettle boilers that have a reasonable space above the liquid to hold vapor deliver high quality steam. Anyone who wants to prove this to themselves can study boilers and determine that this is true. With this latest theory, I suggest that a coherent description exists which fits the data that was collected during the October 28 test. The bottom line is that the 1 MW system test demonstrated a working cold fusion device. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 12:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that he external temperature was around 15 degrees. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. Yes. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:58 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis I put forward. I have been following a discussion about the large power output rise in a short time that some suggest is not possible. I do not know whether or not that is a real problem but the following theory easily eliminates that issue. First, the pooled water is being evaporated by the initial hot vapor entering the steam pipes. This shows up as the relatively long shoulder period that is visible just before the big bang in temperature reading of the thermocouple within the steam pipe. The evaporating pooled water at low pressure holds the temperature down until it is dispersed. At that time, the much hotter vapor that is collected within the ECATs can begin to escape the output valve and quickly raise the steam pipe temperature since it is no longer restrained by the pooled water. I think this makes perfect sense and matches the temperature data collected. It doesn't make sense to me. If the steam coming from the ecat is at the boiling point, as you have already agreed, then that means the pressure is above atmosphere, and so there is nothing keeping the pooled water at 100C. It can increase to the boiling point as well. The temperature is only at 100C for a few minutes, and that is consistent with the pressure starting out at atmosphere, and then increasing quite rapidly when boiling begins and the steam begins to form. There is presumably some kind of aperture or even regulator that limits or regulates or in some way determines the pressure for a given power output, and this can have an erratic sort of response, especially when the pressure first kicks in. Basing any sort theory on the that behavior is gross over-interpretation, in an experiment that should require only the safest under-interpretation imaginable. Now, the power output does not have to instantly show up as 470 kW since the water level within the ECATs is not overflowing. Why would it not be reasonable to assume that the water level continues to rise more slowly as time progresses until the final 470 kW is achieved? If the output now exceeds 470 kW then the average levels within the ECATs will start to decline. So, what you're saying is that the measurements are consistent with power initially far below the 470 kW, and that they increase gradually over time to 470 kW or higher. The problem is that once you've admitted the measurements are consistent with 70 kW output at the beginning, then since the measurements don't change over the 5.5 hours, you have no evidence to suggest that the power does increase. And so 70 kW throughout is also consistent with the measured data. Even the dry steam argument (which I reject) doesn't work, Because, if you allow an arbitrary starting level, and assume the ecat is filling up when boiling begins, that means the output starts out far below even 70 kW. In fact, the output power (the power leaving the ecat) starts at (near) zero, and then increases as the vaporization rate increases. And if the ecats start out nearly empty, and end up nearly full, the total amount of dry steam that exits is consistent with an average of 66 kW. If the steam is wet, it can be as low as 9 kW. And even if you consider a more realistic half-full ecat, and the steam starts out dry (so no water is collected at the beginning) at the rate of 70 kW or so, then most of the water (about 90%) stays behind. Within about 3 hours, the ecats will fill up, and the output will necessarily become much wetter, but maybe by this time someone has conveniently closed the valve to the trap. After all, Lewan's video shows that at 3:00 it was closed. This would mean that 70 kW is consistent with the entire run, and you could still have your partially filled ecat and dry steam at the beginning. Anything more than half full, would still require unrealistic increase in power to 470 kW before the ecat fills (less than 3 hours), given the 0 - 70 kW took 2 hours. Finally, your scenario is contradicted by what Rossi and his Engineer say is happening. Namely, constant output flow rate at 470 kW power. You said you didn't want to assume that they are lying or incompetent, but your scenario requires one or the other. The quality of the steam has been suggested to be low. This is not the case since kettle boilers that have a reasonable space above the liquid to hold vapor deliver high quality steam. Anyone who wants to prove this to themselves can study boilers and determine that this is true. But we don't know that there is a reasonable space above the liquid. Boilers regulate the level, by adjusting or cycling the feed water. But Rossi said the flow rate was fixed, and even if the level were detected somehow, regulating the input to 107 ecats would not regulate the levels in individual ecats. If the vaporization rate is far below the input flow rate, then the output (in
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I gave the model you mentioned a great deal of consideration as well. The evidence does not support that concept for several reasons. I could not see any explanation for the lack of water being captured by the trap set by the engineer as one example. Here's one: The valve was closed. Here's another: the liquid was a mist entrained in the steam. He states that he collected *all* of the water exiting the ECATs and obtained 5 liters. But the device could not possibly have trapped entrained mist, especially with the valve closed. If the water is being constantly moving throughout the system this is not possilbe. Again if only 1% of the water by mass is vaporized, the fluid is 95% steam by volume. That means a small droplets can be entrained in the steam and would not be trapped by a simple tee. And if one accepted a partly filled ecat at the beginning to explain the first 5 minutes before boiling (assuming the valve started out open), then by the time the ecat is filled, there will be plenty of steam available to entrain the water as it is forced out. Moreover, the valve could have been closed before the ecats filled up. According to Lewan's video, it is closed at 3:00. I do not think it is fair to say he is lying about his measurements as some suggest. You are suggesting he is lying about the constant output flow rate. He is saying they collected 5 liters, but the statement that they collected *all* the water is clearly unsupportable. Even if the phases were completely separate, some water would surely get past the trap. And if it's a mist, nearly all of it would. This device allows him to claim ignorance, so it is not necessarily a lie to say it collected all the liquid; it is merely not plausible. The closed valve, on the other hand, looks like deliberate deception. But maybe Rossi did it hoping F. would not notice. Also, an explanation for the large, fast rising temperature pulse after the shoulder can not be explained by the constant water theroy. I also think that that shoulder ahead of the large pulse is explained quite convinceingly by my hypothesis. This sort of erratic pressure (which would explain the erratic temperature) in a complicated network of pipes and valves is hardly surprising, and if you are going to base evidence for something as profoundly important as cold fusion on that shoulder, you're not going to get any new believers. The existing believers will lap it up of course. There are far too many problems associated with the *water runs through*it theory. There are no problems at all. And it fits with the claims of Rossi and F. of constant flow rate. The only requirement for my hypothesis to be true is for the water to be slightly below full during the test. To get a plausible increase in power before the ecats fill would require it to be more than slightly below full. For example, if it were 90 % full, then the power would have to reach 470 kW in about a half an hour. Still not plausible, given the time it took to warm up to 70 kW. No one needs to be a liar and the readings do not need to be fudged. The claims of Rossi that the output flow rate is constant and the output power is constant would be lies. And the accurate flow rate selection to maintain the level just below full needs to be assumed. No fudging at all is needed for the constant flow rate model. Why should we not use logic to arrive at the correct answer if it fits? The problem is you need something more than a fit, if there are other possibilities that also fit. The goal here is not to find a way to make Rossi's claims consistent, but to make his claims the only ones that can explain the observations. Otherwise it's not proof. Not only is cold fusion not necessary to explain the (reported) observations, but if you look at it without your foregone conclusion stuck in your mind, they are not needed for the simplest and most likely description.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence supports them. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through without vaporization position. I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that are left unanswered. The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. What would keep water from flowing downward into the trap? I would like for someone to explain the large pulse of temperature at the thermocouple if water is the active medium. This is just one of many problems with the water only model. Again, all of the evidence supports my current hypothesis. There is a question raised about my suggesting that the customer engineer is lying. That is totally bogus as he had no way of knowing whether or not the output flow rate matched the input flow rate but assumed it did. There is a big difference between lying and not knowing. The skeptics are convinced that he fabricated the data which I do not believe. I do wish the skeptics would read the literature about kettle boiling to throw away the false belief that the vapor is extremely wet. Why would they wish to argue vapor wetness when they are convinced that there is no vapor in the first place? The boiler literature points out that water entrapped within the vapor is very bad for a system due to erosion. Old steam locomotives had a structure similar to the ECAT one where the vapor is held above the liquid and they would suffer serious problems if the vapor is of low quality. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I gave the model you mentioned a great deal of consideration as well. The evidence does not support that concept for several reasons. I could not see any explanation for the lack of water being captured by the trap set by the engineer as one example. Here's one: The valve was closed. Here's another: the liquid was a mist entrained in the steam. He states that he collected all of the water exiting the ECATs and obtained 5 liters. But the device could not possibly have trapped entrained mist, especially with the valve closed. If the water is being constantly moving throughout the system this is not possilbe. Again if only 1% of the water by mass is vaporized, the fluid is 95% steam by volume. That means a small droplets can be entrained in the steam and would not be trapped by a simple tee. And if one accepted a partly filled ecat at the beginning to explain the first 5 minutes before boiling (assuming the valve started out open), then by the time the ecat is filled, there will be plenty of steam available to entrain the water as it is forced out. Moreover, the valve could have been closed before the ecats filled up. According to Lewan's video, it is closed at 3:00. I do not think it is fair to say he is lying about his measurements as some suggest. You are suggesting he is lying about the constant output flow rate. He is saying they collected 5 liters, but the statement that they collected *all* the water is clearly unsupportable. Even if the phases were completely separate, some water would surely get past the trap. And if it's a mist, nearly all of it would. This device allows him to claim ignorance, so it is not necessarily a lie to say it collected all the liquid; it is merely not plausible. The closed valve, on the other hand, looks like deliberate deception. But maybe Rossi did it hoping F. would not notice. Also, an explanation for the large, fast rising temperature pulse after the shoulder can not be explained by the constant water theroy. I also think that that shoulder ahead of the large pulse is explained quite convinceingly by my hypothesis. This sort of erratic pressure (which would explain the erratic temperature) in a complicated network of pipes and valves is hardly surprising, and if you are going to base evidence for something as profoundly important as cold fusion on that shoulder, you're not going to get any new believers. The existing believers will lap it up of course. There are far too many problems associated with the water runs through it theory. There are no problems at all. And it fits with the claims of Rossi and F. of constant flow rate. The only requirement for my hypothesis to be true is for the water to be slightly below full during the test. To get a plausible increase in power before the ecats fill would require it to be more
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even considered my arguments, so *you* clearly started with a conclusion. Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that will convince you that Rossi's demos (including the last one) do not need nuclear reactions to explain them. The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output (average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up period. I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence supports them. Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One you clearly failed to absorb in your education. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through without vaporization position. Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another point you don't seem to understand. I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that are left unanswered. All the ones you have mentioned, I have countered. The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. I've been harping on the valve for days, and now finally you give your counter-argument? And this is it? Did you even look at the video? There are 2 valves. One leading to the heat exchanger, which is open. And one leading to the trap, which is clearly closed at 3:00. What would keep water from flowing downward into the trap? Its horizontal momentum. Have you heard of it? If the liquid is in the form of entrained drops, they would have a lot of horizontal momentum. That's why they make steam separators. But Rossi didn't use one. I would like for someone to explain the large pulse of temperature at the thermocouple if water is the active medium. This irregularity is far too little to hang your hat on. If liquid water is flowing through the system at the onset of boiling, then it will be at 100C until the pressure increases. The pressure increase could happen suddenly if the pipes largely filled with water are suddenly cleared by steam pressure behind it. The sort of thing that happens when a radiator bangs; the water-hammer effect. There are enough twists and turns in the plumbing for sudden pressure spikes to be completely plausible. And even if you insist on your highly speculative idea to explain it, it is still consistent with the ecats being very nearly full, and filling up within minutes of the onset of boiling, which is consistent with 70 kW power throughout. (And if the trap valve is open, it also explains why liquid was not trapped in the first 5 minutes.) Your picture fails to *prove* anything, except to those who desperately want it to be true, and who are already convinced that it is, as you stated you were days ago. This is just one of many problems with the water only model. Again, all of the evidence supports my current hypothesis. Again, no. The best you've got is that it is consistent with the evidence, and that does not constitute proof. There is a question raised about my suggesting that the customer engineer is lying. That is totally bogus as he had no way of knowing whether or not the output flow rate matched the input flow rate but assumed it did. There is a big difference between lying and not knowing. But you suggested I accused him of lying about capturing water in the trap. But he had no way of knowing that the trap would capture *all* the liquid (impossible), or for that matter any of it if it was in the form of a mist. Same, same. The skeptics are convinced that he fabricated the data which I do not believe. No. I have not required any data fabrication anywhere to conclude the power output is 70 kW. That's the whole point. Please pay attention. If I just assumed the data was fabricated, what would be the point in even considering it? My point is that *even if you accept the measured data *in the report, it does not support the claim of 470 kW, and is in fact consistent with 70 kW. (If you accept a partially filled ecat, it is consistent with even lower power.) I do wish the skeptics would read the literature about kettle boiling to throw away the false belief that the vapor is extremely wet. Kettle boiling is irrelevant if the ecats are full and the vaporization rate is below the input flow rate. Kettles
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
This is getting a bit out of hand. It does not make sense for me and this poster to continue to state the exact opposites over and over as in the broken record responses that have clogged up the vortex. I am happy to respond to anyone who has a valid point to make, but I do not see any purpose in repeating the same things. Yes, I have read your responses(Cude) and find them lacking. Should I tell you that I find them informative just to make you happy? I fail to see where you come up with your information, as it does not result in a logical sequence of events or explain ECAT performance. Your agreements are inconsistent and attempt to cover both sides of the discussion. Forgive me to say this but you just do not understand what you suggest. I promise to monitor any valid responses that our members require, but will not continue to repeat myself just for your(Cude) convenience. That comes close to the definition of insanity. If you come up with a valid point, I will certainly respond as I intend to seek the truth concerning operation of the ECATs. I have not, and will not defend positions which are not reasonable and the source of any new information will not be discriminated against, even if he is a confirmed skeptic. I just want to make one main comment. The suggestion that the power output is consistent with an average of 70 kW to 470 kW is patently in error. I might consider a range of 350 kW to 500 +kW because of the suggestion that each ECAT has about 8 liters of volume that can be filled by water under the worst case condition. Likewise, the upper limit would be increased if the water level is dropping during the test. The 479 kW average output power calculation obtained by the engineer is acceptable to me and he is an expert at his art. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even considered my arguments, so *you* clearly started with a conclusion. Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that will convince you that Rossi's demos (including the last one) do not need nuclear reactions to explain them. Show me real evidence and I will accept it. Otherwise, it is not going to matter. The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output (average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up period. Saying this over and over does not make it true. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this. I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence supports them. Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One you clearly failed to absorb in your education. That sounds like an insult. Try to improve your tone. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through without vaporization position. Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another point you don't seem to understand. You never explain the trap. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that are left unanswered. All the ones you have mentioned, I have countered. Sorry, but this is just not true. None have been countered effectively. The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. I've been harping on the valve for days, and now finally you give your counter-argument? And this is it? Did you even look at the video? There are 2 valves. One leading to the heat exchanger, which is open. And one leading to the trap, which is clearly closed at 3:00. Please review the video. The trap is between the ECAT system and the closed valve. Closing the valve will stop the high speed vapor you suggest that carries the water past. Water can flow down hill. What would keep water from flowing downward into the trap? Its horizontal momentum. Have you heard of it? If the liquid is in the form of entrained drops, they would have a lot of horizontal momentum. That's why they make steam separators. But Rossi didn't use one. Closed valve slows down any steam rushing past. Is this not correct
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I'm finding Cude's responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn. On Nov 23, 2011, at 17:49, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is getting a bit out of hand. It does not make sense for me and this poster to continue to state the exact opposites over and over as in the broken record responses that have clogged up the vortex. I am happy to respond to anyone who has a valid point to make, but I do not see any purpose in repeating the same things. Yes, I have read your responses(Cude) and find them lacking. Should I tell you that I find them informative just to make you happy? I fail to see where you come up with your information, as it does not result in a logical sequence of events or explain ECAT performance. Your agreements are inconsistent and attempt to cover both sides of the discussion. Forgive me to say this but you just do not understand what you suggest. I promise to monitor any valid responses that our members require, but will not continue to repeat myself just for your(Cude) convenience. That comes close to the definition of insanity. If you come up with a valid point, I will certainly respond as I intend to seek the truth concerning operation of the ECATs. I have not, and will not defend positions which are not reasonable and the source of any new information will not be discriminated against, even if he is a confirmed skeptic. I just want to make one main comment. The suggestion that the power output is consistent with an average of 70 kW to 470 kW is patently in error. I might consider a range of 350 kW to 500 +kW because of the suggestion that each ECAT has about 8 liters of volume that can be filled by water under the worst case condition. Likewise, the upper limit would be increased if the water level is dropping during the test. The 479 kW average output power calculation obtained by the engineer is acceptable to me and he is an expert at his art. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even considered my arguments, so *you* clearly started with a conclusion. Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that will convince you that Rossi's demos (including the last one) do not need nuclear reactions to explain them. Show me real evidence and I will accept it. Otherwise, it is not going to matter. The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output (average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up period. Saying this over and over does not make it true. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this. I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence supports them. Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One you clearly failed to absorb in your education. That sounds like an insult. Try to improve your tone. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through without vaporization position. Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another point you don't seem to understand. You never explain the trap. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? I tried to make this system fit in the beginning, but found many holes that are left unanswered. All the ones you have mentioned, I have countered. Sorry, but this is just not true. None have been countered effectively. The valve being closed issue is false, since the valve is after the trap. I've been harping on the valve for days, and now finally you give your counter-argument? And this is it? Did you even look at the video? There are 2 valves. One leading to the heat exchanger, which is open. And one leading to the trap, which is clearly closed at 3:00. Please review the video. The trap is between the ECAT system and the closed valve. Closing the valve will stop the high speed vapor you suggest that carries the water past. Water can flow down hill. What would keep water
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com wrote: I'm finding Cude's responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn. lookslikeuwuzrite T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Sir, the dispute has not been withdrawn, I have just decided to spare the vortex from the broken record syndrome. It is apparent that Mr. Cude and I will never agree so what is the purpose of repeating the same old arguments? I disagree with you about his position being superior. He must rely upon issues that are not existent. For example, the closed valve, the lying engineer, the extreme increase in power being unexplained. These are glaring inconstancies that can be explained completely by my hypothesis. He offers no explanation that makes any sense. If you have questions about my theory I would hope you would direct them toward me where you will get a fair, honest, no magic required answer. Mr. Cude just makes a big smoke screen. Dave -Original Message- From: Charles Hope lookslikeiwasri...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 6:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy I'm finding Cude's responses informative in this thread, and it seems to me that he's adequately proven his case now that dispute has been withdrawn. On Nov 23, 2011, at 17:49, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This is getting a bit out of hand. It does not make sense for me and this poster to continue to state the exact opposites over and over as in the broken record responses that have clogged up the vortex. I am happy to respond to anyone who has a valid point to make, but I do not see any purpose in repeating the same things. Yes, I have read your responses(Cude) and find them lacking. Should I tell you that I find them informative just to make you happy? I fail to see where you come up with your information, as it does not result in a logical sequence of events or explain ECAT performance. Your agreements are inconsistent and attempt to cover both sides of the discussion. Forgive me to say this but you just do not understand what you suggest. I promise to monitor any valid responses that our members require, but will not continue to repeat myself just for your(Cude) convenience. That comes close to the definition of insanity. If you come up with a valid point, I will certainly respond as I intend to seek the truth concerning operation of the ECATs. I have not, and will not defend positions which are not reasonable and the source of any new information will not be discriminated against, even if he is a confirmed skeptic. I just want to make one main comment. The suggestion that the power output is consistent with an average of 70 kW to 470 kW is patently in error. I might consider a range of 350 kW to 500 +kW because of the suggestion that each ECAT has about 8 liters of volume that can be filled by water under the worst case condition. Likewise, the upper limit would be increased if the water level is dropping during the test. The 479 kW average output power calculation obtained by the engineer is acceptable to me and he is an expert at his art. Dave -Original Message- From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I have reviewed the two responses by this poster to my hypothesis and it is clear that these responses do not represent reality. The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. You expressed your conviction that Rossi was right before you even considered my arguments, so *you* clearly started with a conclusion. Considering what you said, it is clear that there is no level of proof that will convince you that Rossi's demos (including the last one) do not need nuclear reactions to explain them. Show me real evidence and I will accept it. Otherwise, it is not going to matter. The fact is that the reported measurements are consistent with power output (average) from 70 kW to 470 kW, and if you accept partially filled ecats, from 9 kW to 470 kW. Lower power is more plausible given the slow warm-up period. Saying this over and over does not make it true. The evidence is overwhelmingly against this. I stand by all of the statements that I made and all of the evidence supports them. Again, the best you can say is that it is consistent with them. Your description is *not* required by the evidence. That's a big difference. One you clearly failed to absorb in your education. That sounds like an insult. Try to improve your tone. There is no virtually no evidence to support the water continues through without vaporization position. Not without vaporization. Without *significant* vaporization. Another huge difference because of the ratio of 1700 between the volumes. A tiny bit of vaporization means the output is almost all gas by volume. That's another point you don't
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Joshua, it seems to me that you are privy to some insider knowledge about the 1 MW demo. For instance, you wrote: The pumps were run close to capacity, so there is no way you can account for 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water. How do you know that the pumps were run close to capacity? Please explain. What was the capacity of the pumps? How many pumps were on? Do you know how they were they controlled? If you have all that information, why don't you share? Sincerely, -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The pumps were run close to capacity, so there is no way you can account for 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water. How do you know that the pumps were run close to capacity? Please explain. What was the capacity of the pumps? How many pumps were on? Do you know how they were they controlled? If you have all that information, why don't you share? The information is all in the report. There is a little more about input power in Lewan's column. Unfortunately, I remembered the capacity wrong. They were not run close to capacity. But it's moot anyway, because the report makes it pretty clear the input flow rate was constant, and so the notion of covering 7 times the area in a few minutes by adding water doesn't, um, hold water. Two pumps (dab jet 82m) were run at 350 L/h, but measured flow rate was reported as 675 L/h. The pump capacities are 3000L/h according to the report (but 3600 L/h from the web site).
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Joshua Cude offers sensible and convincing explanations, straightforwardly and simply based on the available public data...
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude offers sensible and convincing explanations, straightforwardly and simply based on the available public data... We always look forward to your editorial comments, Rich. Warmest Regards, T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Cude's service is similar to Obama's huge and naturally adroit strategic and tactical success, improvising with purpose and style and daily persistence, gradually herding feckless cats -- what he somehow manages to do is much more impressive than any advertisement of personal skill and quality -- I am captivated by his exceptional lucidity of mind -- soon, he will give the Defkalion delusion an equally exquisite shave -- say, now I have found an ambition for my senior years, competing with my wife Sondra in weekly Scrabble -- to someday add exqui and ly to site to use seven letters to make exquisitely, with the u and the y on triple word squares... and the word describes the creation !!! O, how the MITey have meandered... class of '64, physics and history double major On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote: Joshua Cude offers sensible and convincing explanations, straightforwardly and simply based on the available public data... We always look forward to your editorial comments, Rich. Warmest Regards, T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: The poster is convinced that Rossi is scamming and there is no level of proof that will be accepted otherwise. I find that assertion annoying. Several others including, IIRC, Cude, and I have said under what criteria Rossi's claims would be credible and those criteria are both entirely reasonable and easy to fulfill. Nor, as some assert, would proper testing in any way risk revealing Rossi's secret. On the other hand, selling E-cats in batches of 50 or more as a plant certainly does risk his secrets. Rossi has now categorically refused *public* pleas from four strong supporters of LENR/cold fusion -- Josephson, Celani, McKubre and Rothwell to get independent testing and I am sure many others have asked him as well by personal communications. I don't recall anyone here saying categorically that Rossi is scamming. Can you quote such a statement from a regular participant in this email list? I think Rossi's critics say he's *acting* like a scammer and he most certainly is for reasons I have carefully outlined here before. M.Y.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Correction: the quotation in my last post should be attributed to David Roberson about Cude and was not written by Cude. I regret that this editing error which I made slipped by me on proof reading.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:14 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: (7) So Fioravanti had good reasons to believe that the steam was dry. He is obviously assuming dry steam. But if we're (or his company is) simply supposed to accept that he had good reasons to believe that, then why bother with the report at all? He could simply have said: The megacat works. It produced 470 kW for 5.5 hours without input. I have good reason to believe that. I suppose he might have added details about size and absence of emissions etc. But there would be no point in giving flow rates and temperatures. And there would have been no point in inviting the press to an event to show them anything at all. After all, if Fioravanti says Rossi has demonstrated a cold fusion device producing .5 MW, then it must be so, and they could go and publish their articles. Because otherwise Fioravanti would have to be a fake or senile or conspiring with Rossi. Since the report *does* give observations that are intended to support his conclusions, he is apparently not expecting the reader to simply accept that he had good reasons to believe something, but is actually trying to provide the reasons. We still have to trust that his report is honest, but at least we can check it to see if the claimed observations support the conclusion. The evidence he presents for dry steam are that water is not collected in the trap, and that the temperature is above 100C, the latter in conversation with Lewan, as reported in the comments in Lewan's column. But that trap would be useless for a mist entrained in fast-moving steam, and in any case, from Lewan's video, the valve to it was closed at 3:00. When asked about that, Rossi said it was closed after the run, but Lewan clearly states the time in the video. And since the pressure is not measured, the temperature at 105C could have been, and probably was, at the boiling point inside the pipe. Therefore the evidence he supplies in the report is insufficient to support the assumption that the steam is dry. Which indicates he didn't do his job very well. I find your rate of change of power transfer too high vs thermal inertia argument intriguing, but it would be nice if you could explain it logically and numerically. Currently, your explanations are entangled with a multitude of hypotheses and suppositions. I assure you, I didn't try to explain it illogically and innumerately, and I'm hurt that you find it thus. I don't think I can do better than I have already done. I don't have the luxury of temperature measurements of the ecat core or the heating element inside the ecat, or the actual mass or heating capacity of the heating element and its infrastructure, all of which has to be heated up in order to pass thermal energy to the water. I used all the numbers that are available to us, and as much logic as I could summon. I think it's pretty clear that an 8-fold power transfer increase can't happen in a minute or two. Here's another go at explaining it. I'll make it longer, but if you don't find it more logical, or more numerate, my apologies. To transfer thermal energy (heat) to the water as it passes through the ecat, the heating elements (hereafter, simply the ecat) have to be hotter than the water. And the rate of transfer (the power transfer) is proportional to this temperature difference. (This is a bit of over-simplification, because there will be a temperature gradient in the ecat elements from the core to the place where the water makes contact, and of course the water is changing temperature, but one could identify an effective temperature as some average, which would be proportional to the power transfer.) In the pre-heat phase, the temperature of the ecat is raised by electric heating to the point at which it transfers just enough power to bring the water to the boiling point at the given flow rate. That's the sensible heat or power, because it results in a change in temperature of the water. We don't know the effective temperature of the ecat or the core when this happens, but it is clear the core must be considerably hotter than the water, or the heat transfer wouldn't be fast enough. To reach that stage, the thermal mass of the ecat has to be heated up. With a power input of about 160 kW, it took 2 hours to bring the ecat to the necessary temperature. That represents considerable thermal mass. Now to vaporize the water at the rate it is flowing in, requires about 8 times as much power transfer, because in addition to the sensible heat, you have to provide the latent heat (that does not result in a temperature change). That means that the (average) difference between the effective temperature of the ecat and the water would have to increase by a factor of 8 or so. In the most favorable case, the ecat turns on to 470 kW just when the boiling starts (a coincidence in itself). So, the heating of the infrastructure would happen about 3 times as fast. But it has about 8 times as
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Joshua, I do not think that you have any means to tell what was the power output profile of ecat during the test, because detailed data was ommitted from the report. Therefore your argument about mysterious eight fold instant power increase is nonsense. On average ecat array's total power output was something between 300-550 kW and peak power was perhaps as high as 1000 kW. Here is the temperature graph of the test and that is pretty much all the data we have: http://db.tt/0rOwuGle —Jouni
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote: Joshua, I do not think that you have any means to tell what was the power output profile of ecat during the test, because detailed data was ommitted from the report. Therefore your argument about mysterious eight fold instant power increase is nonsense. This is the point. We can't tell what the real power output profile is from the data provided. It could simply increase to 70 kW and then remain stable there. It is Rossi that is *claiming* an 8-fold (actually closer to 7) instant power increase. When the temperature is 99.9 degrees, if we accept Rossi's flow rate, then the output power is about 66 kW. When the temperature is 105 degrees or so, *Rossi* (not me) claims the power output is 470 kW. Since there are only a few minutes between 99.9 C and 105 Celsius, Rossi's claim requires that the power output increase from below 70 kW to 470 kW in a few minutes. *I* claim it is not plausible, and therefore Rossi's claimed power output is probably wrong, and in any case, definitely not proven (accepting the data).
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: It is Rossi that is *claiming* an 8-fold (actually closer to 7) instant power increase. When the temperature is 99.9 degrees, if we accept Rossi's flow rate, then the output power is about 66 kW. When the temperature is 105 degrees or so, *Rossi* (not me) claims the power output is 470 kW. I still don't understand what the hell you're talking about, but you'll have to excuse me, I'm not very familiar with thermodynamics. Meanwhile, while browsing a book on heat transfer, I came across this paragraph: The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the boiling point of the fluid. Figure 9-1 indicates six different regimes for typical pool boiling; the heat flux curve is commonly called the boiling curve. Here is that figure : http://i.imgur.com/1LQwK.png T_s is the temperature of the heating surface. It seems that a couple of degrees of increase for T_s translates to a couple of orders of magnitude increase in power transfer. That, plus the fact that power transfer is proportional to the area of contact. If you pump in water, you may cover more of the heating element if it has vertical surfaces, and thus arbitrarily increase the power transfer. Sincerely, -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the boiling point of the fluid. Figure 9-1 indicates six different regimes for typical pool boiling; the heat flux curve is commonly called the boiling curve. It seems that a couple of degrees of increase for T_s translates to a couple of orders of magnitude increase in power transfer. This is true, but the surface temperature depends on the rate that heat is removed by the vaporization, and the rate that it can be restored from the hotter thermal mass behind it. That's why I mentioned an effective heat differential. When water changes phase, it absorbs a lot of heat, and that heat comes from the surface. The temperature of the surface would then decrease if heat didn't flow from the core heater to replace it. The rate of that heat flow is proportional to the temperature gradient in the ecat. At the onset of boiling, the heat is moving into the water at the total rate of 70 kW, and that's how fast the heat at the surface needs to be replenished from the core. If the rate of vaporization is 675 kg/h (the input flow rate), then the heat is moving into the water at a rate 7 times higher (470 kW), and it has to be replenished from the core at a rate 7 times higher. Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7 times steeper. To produce that change requires a lot of energy and time for the energy to flow into the thermal mass. Rossi claims the transition from 70 kW (boiling onset) to 470 kW (full vaporization) occurs over the period of a few minutes (or instantaneously), but that is not plausible, given that the transition from 0 kW to 70 kW took 2 hours. The fact that the temperature is constant throughout the second transition is deceiving. Rossi makes use of the latent heat of deception to claim much higher output than the data supports. If he monitored some variable that actually depended on the power transfer, like the output volume flow rate (or steam velocity), or the enthalpy (in a heat exchanger), we would have some idea of the power out as a function of time. But he doesn't, and that allows him to claim that the power out changes discontinuously by a factor of 7, right when boiling begins. Note, that if you look at the heat exchanger data from the Oct 6 demo, there is no discontinuous change in the power output that occurs at the onset of boiling. Those temperatures are not reliable for determining absolute power, but they should give some indication of the time dependence of the output power; certainly a 7-fold change in power out in 3 minutes would give an obvious step in the power output. It's not clear where the onset of boiling occurs in that test, but the apparent power out increases gradually over a period of 3 hours. That, plus the fact that power transfer is proportional to the area of contact. If you pump in water, you may cover more of the heating element if it has vertical surfaces, and thus arbitrarily increase the power transfer. You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
If this appeared here before, my apology but I don't think I saw it. Rossi had this to say in his blog: Andrea Rossi November 21st, 2011 at 2:39 PM Dear “XY”: I did not approve your comment, because contains very big stupidities, and I want not to expose you and your name to a bad portrait. But I want to answer to the acceptable questions you have posed, because I think the answers can be interesting for our Readers: 1- In the test of October 28th the water flow has been measured by the two flowmeters that the Consultant of the Customer has put just minutes before the test. He always checked the water flow, and the water trap that collected the non condensed water exiting form the output pipe 2- The Consultant is a 60 years person, who has 30 years of experience as engineer of military organizations; he is specialized in thermodynamics 3- As you can see from the reports, the temperature in the output pipe has always been more than 110 Celsius degrees during the self sustaining mode at room pressure. A.R.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Quoting Rossi: 1- In the test of October 28th the water flow has been measured by the two flowmeters that the Consultant of the Customer has put just minutes before the test. He always checked the water flow, and the water trap that collected the non condensed water exiting form the output pipe It's a shame he didn't check to make sure the valve was open, and to test whether the trap captured mist entrained in the steam. 2- The Consultant is a 60 years person, who has 30 years of experience as engineer of military organizations; he is specialized in thermodynamics Presumably steam was not part of his experience. 3- As you can see from the reports, the temperature in the output pipe has always been more than 110 Celsius degrees during the self sustaining mode at room pressure. A.R. There is no record of a pressure measurement inside the pipe. The temperature was almost always below 110 C, more like 105 on average. He appears to be claiming dry steam based on the temperature above atmospheric boiling point. This would mean that the heating elements must be partly exposed, and therefore the sort of regulation by steam production rate wouldn't work, and therefore the relative temperature stability represents unrealistic power stability (to within +/- .5%). Also, this claim requires a magical, discontinuous 7-fold increase in the output power, and a magical, simultaneous ignition of 107 ecats, all within a few minutes of the onset of boiling. Rossi uses the latent heat of deception to make a 30-year thermodynamics veteran look bad, and to get an audience with archenemies of cold fusion at MIT.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm. However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small. Harry On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: The behaviour of the fluid during boiling is highly dependent upon the excess temperature, delta T = T_s - T_sat, measured from the boiling point of the fluid. Figure 9-1 indicates six different regimes for typical pool boiling; the heat flux curve is commonly called the boiling curve. It seems that a couple of degrees of increase for T_s translates to a couple of orders of magnitude increase in power transfer. This is true, but the surface temperature depends on the rate that heat is removed by the vaporization, and the rate that it can be restored from the hotter thermal mass behind it. That's why I mentioned an effective heat differential. When water changes phase, it absorbs a lot of heat, and that heat comes from the surface. The temperature of the surface would then decrease if heat didn't flow from the core heater to replace it. The rate of that heat flow is proportional to the temperature gradient in the ecat. At the onset of boiling, the heat is moving into the water at the total rate of 70 kW, and that's how fast the heat at the surface needs to be replenished from the core. If the rate of vaporization is 675 kg/h (the input flow rate), then the heat is moving into the water at a rate 7 times higher (470 kW), and it has to be replenished from the core at a rate 7 times higher. Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7 times steeper. To produce that change requires a lot of energy and time for the energy to flow into the thermal mass. Rossi claims the transition from 70 kW (boiling onset) to 470 kW (full vaporization) occurs over the period of a few minutes (or instantaneously), but that is not plausible, given that the transition from 0 kW to 70 kW took 2 hours. The fact that the temperature is constant throughout the second transition is deceiving. Rossi makes use of the latent heat of deception to claim much higher output than the data supports. If he monitored some variable that actually depended on the power transfer, like the output volume flow rate (or steam velocity), or the enthalpy (in a heat exchanger), we would have some idea of the power out as a function of time. But he doesn't, and that allows him to claim that the power out changes discontinuously by a factor of 7, right when boiling begins. Note, that if you look at the heat exchanger data from the Oct 6 demo, there is no discontinuous change in the power output that occurs at the onset of boiling. Those temperatures are not reliable for determining absolute power, but they should give some indication of the time dependence of the output power; certainly a 7-fold change in power out in 3 minutes would give an obvious step in the power output. It's not clear where the onset of boiling occurs in that test, but the apparent power out increases gradually over a period of 3 hours. That, plus the fact that power transfer is proportional to the area of contact. If you pump in water, you may cover more of the heating element if it has vertical surfaces, and thus arbitrarily increase the power transfer. You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Rossi uses the latent heat of deception to make a 30-year thermodynamics veteran look bad, and to get an audience with archenemies of cold fusion at MIT. Heh! Love that latent heat of deception. But I don't quite get how a meeting with some really smart people from MIT would help Rossi (if that's what happens). Unless he won't give them any information, they reject him, and he claims it was because of their prejudice. But I don't like to try to predict what may happen. It's more fun to watch it unfold. What I like about this whole story is the twists and turns. This should be a fund next few weeks if Rossi actually meets with MIT people and if Defkalion actually issues some real information!
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: This is like saying that because a theatre gradually filled with people over two hours it is implausible to believe the same theatre emptied of people in minutes after a fire alarm. However it is only implausible based on the assumption there is only one entrance/exit or the entrance/exit is small. It's not really like that at all. In the Rossi scenario, the rate of input powers are known. The input power is 160 kW or so during pre-heat. And it heats up to the level required to transfer 70 kW to the water in 2 hours. During the self-sustain, Rossi claims the input power (from the ecat core) is 470 kW, and it heats up to the level required to transfer the full 470 kW to the water in a few minutes. So, it's more analogous to the theatre filling up gradually over 2 hours with people coming in on average at 10 persons per minute. Then it empties out in 2 minutes with people leaving at 30 persons per minute. It doesn't compute. (If you take account of heat leaving as during the heating process, it becomes even more implausible.)
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Mary Yugo wrote: But I don't like to try to predict what may happen. Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again, and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught. You have reached the point where I and others are on the verge of blocking you. You do like to play both sides. You wrote: It is not in the interest of the US Patent Office or the US government to suppress cold fusion devices -- to the contrary, discovery of a robust energy generator that worked with cold fusion . . . What is that supposed to mean? The Patent Office agrees with you. They say that cold fusion does not exist. They say it is a scam and a delusion. They are upholding the views and policies that you yourself advocate. Now all of a sudden you say they should not do what _you and other skeptics have urged them to do_ since March 1989. Ditto the DoE; they uphold your point of view: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf The Patent Office also resembles you and Robert Park in as much as they know nothing about cold fusion and they refuse to read anything. Your hypocrisy is unbecoming. I prefer opponents such as Robert Park who are proud of the fact that they have helped suppress this field, and who brag about the lives they have disrupted and destroyed. That is despotism . . . taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy as Lincoln put it. You go around attacking people and spreading toxic falsehoods that honest scientists are engaged in fraud, and then you pretend to be shocked when people believe you and act on your beliefs. It is sickening. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I prefer opponents such as Robert Park who are proud of the fact that they have helped suppress this field, and who brag about the lives they have disrupted and destroyed. Are you making stuff up again, or do you have some examples of Park bragging about destroying lives?
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Mary Yugo wrote: But I don't like to try to predict what may happen. Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again, and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught. My recollection is that she has always said that he *acts* like a scammer. Which is what anyone who is not a True Believer would say, in my humble opinion, given the way he acts.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Oh come now. You have incessantly predicted what would happen! Again, and again you have predicted that Rossi is a scammer who will be caught. If you quote me, please do it accurately. I have said Rossi *behaves* in manner indistiguishable from that of a scammer and if he is, he will *likely* be caught. The words between asterisks are essential qualifiers which you left out. I also said I strongly think he's a scammer based entirely on his past history and his current behavior. My thoughts about Rossi have absolutely nothing to do with cold fusion. I have never given an opinion about the likelihood that cold fusion is real because I don't have one. I simply don't know and I admit it. That's not based on not looking for evidence. It's based on not finding any which I think is simple and clear enough. That view is shared by far more than Park, haters of cold fusion and pseusoskeptics (whatever those are). I've also said I am not certain and I have no proof about Rossi scamming and I won't say I am certain until I do. Next time you cite what I said, please include the qualifiers because not to do so changes the meaning. You're welcome to block anyone you want. I try to be polite and follow the rules and I've cut down on frequency of posting. I respond to issues that are addressed me directly or are of interest. If you find my posts disturbing, it may be that they shake your confidence.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
vorl bek wrote: My recollection is that she has always said that he *acts* like a scammer. Which is what anyone who is not a True Believer would say, in my humble opinion, given the way he acts. In that case there are no true believers here, since we all agree he acts like a scammer. I have said that countless times. However, your recollection is wrong. She has predicted time after time that he will be caught Any Day Now. Perhaps she has predicted this in other forums and not so often here. I do not keep track. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In that case there are no true believers here, since we all agree he [Rossi- M. Y.] acts like a scammer. I have said that countless times. To make that complete, you have to add that he acts like a scammer yet you believe he really has cold fusion and his E-cat works more or less as advertised, probably fairly closely to what Rossi claims for it. In fact you've said you're absolutely convinced of it. First principles prove it (whatever that means).Right? However, your recollection is wrong. She has predicted time after time that he will be caught Any Day Now. Perhaps she has predicted this in other forums and not so often here. I do not keep track. My predictions are similar in all forums. In Moletrap, they're just a bit spicier. I think the overwhelming probability is that Rossi is a scammer and a conscienceless sociopath. I think he is most likely bamboozling a lot of well intentioned people who should be more cautious. I hold out a tiny hope that he may be legitimate and that the E-cat is real in which case I will be delighted. However, in that event, I have no attention to apologize to Rossi or anyone else. The stupidity and thoughtlessness and lack of consideration for others with which he would have brought forth the invention, if he's honest, will have been totally astounding and inappropriate. Why he would act exactly like a free energy scammer and follow their scripts if the invention is real would be very hard to explain. I don't buy the theories that he can't properly protect the invention and benefit from it. Thousands of inventors before him, some with equally startling claims have done so.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: My predictions are similar in all forums. In Moletrap, they're just a bit spicier. Can you say Bhut Jolokia (ghost) pepper? :-) T
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Heat flow depends on temperature differentials, so the gradient in temperature between the surface and the core would have to be 7 times steeper. and also wrote: You would need to cover 7 times the area in a matter of minutes, also not plausible, and it would still require 7 times the heat transport rate from the core, which doesn't depend as simply on the area of contact. As the diagram shows, heat flow into water depends extremely non-linearly on the temperature differential. It also depends more or less linearly on area of contact. We don't know what the inner geometry of the devices, and we don't know how the water level changes. So you cannot say that an increase in power transfer of x times requires an increase in core temperature of x times, because that can be achieved by a small increase in temperature, or a proportional increase in area of contact. Also, do you know what the thermal mass of the reactor is? I don't. Thus, in principle, the area of contact can be increased easily by changing the water level as demonstrated in the following example. Consider a vertical heating element, partially in contact with water fed from a pump. Let there be a thermocouple sensing the temperature T of the heating element, and a water level sensor. Control the heating element using feedback from the thermocouple to keep T constant above the boiling point of water. By matching the flow rate to the evaporation rate using the water level sensor, you keep the water level l constant. To the first approximation, the power transfer should be proportional to the area of contact which is proportional to the water level. An electric heating element can have quite a small thermal mass. The current can be ramped up very quickly. So if you start pumping more, the water level rises, and so does the evaporation rate and the power transfer. In principle, you just have to control the pumps and provide enough power to have a dQ/dt as high as you wish (within limits, of course). -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:26 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. Right, especially given that the pipes are connected to the air cooler, and that the external temperature was around 15 degrees. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. Yes. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. And that will also cause temperature and pressure to rise and then possibly push water that obstructs smaller pipes, clearing the way and creating a pressure/temperature drop. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. If 60 kW was expended during 1.5 hour (from 11:00 to 12:30) to bring water from 30 to 100 degrees, that's 324 MJ; the corresponding amount of water is 1102 kg. Since there are 321 sub-modules, that's 3.43 l of water per sub-module. Each module is about 30 x 40 x 50 cm3 or 60 l. So each sub-module is less than 20 l. Having 3.43 l of water in a 20 l sub-module sounds perfectly reasonable without them being full. That also gives a good safety margin, since the power per module when running at 470 kW is 1.46 kW. That will evaporate 2.23 kg of water in one hour, enough time to find or fix a problem or shut the thing down. So Dave's theory is that condensed water in the pipes causes clogs and thus pressure and thus temperature fluctuations. I like that idea, but maybe someone knows better. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the beginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Then what were they measuring at the output? I'm under the impression that the temperature sensor was connected to the steam pipe, and that therefore Tout is the temperature of the pipe. In fact, the output increases gradually throughout the warmup period from about 30C to the boiling point. This suggests the ecats and pipes etc are filled, and the water is flowing through the system. The pipe is cooled at the other end by the air condensers. Maybe it is slowly heating up with heat transferred by larger and larger amounts of steam, and not water. There is no indication anywhere that the flow rate was changed Why wouldn't it change? Were you there? There are electrical pumps, valves, a control system and sensors. and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate. Which calculation? All you need is the quantity of water vaporized; it doesn't matter if they were vaporized at a constant rate or not. And flow rate may be stable once the stable regime has been reached. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. If the ecats were not full, there would be nothing flowing out of them until the onset of boiling, No, unless you meant empty. As long as the amount of water in the ecats was not zero it is conceivable to get steam. and then there would be a very steep increase in temperature. Very steep is very qualitative. Someone should try to run some numbers. Then, to reach a rate of vaporization of 675 kg/h, from the onset of boiling (0 kg/h) would take much longer than to reach the boiling onset. So, you would see a rapid, almost step increase, then a very much longer plateau. How do you know the water in the ecats wasn't already at boiling temperature for a long time? Or, if the heating elements were not submerged, the steam temperature would exceed the boiling point. And if they started submerged, the boiling would reduce the level, exposing them and then increasing the temperature of the steam. So? The output temperature fluctuates between 105 and 112 degrees. And, again, you assume that there is no mechanism to regulate the water level. In any case, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough time. Nearly all of the pre-heat period (2 hours) is used up in bringing the temperature up to the onset of boiling. That's probably the temperature of the pipe. Increasing the power transfer by another factor of 8 cannot happen in a few minutes. Care to explain this? 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get it (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get it (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system. Well said. Hilarious! Yes, control systems control things. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate. Which calculation? All you need is the quantity of water vaporized; it doesn't matter if they were vaporized at a constant rate or not. The calculation in the report determines the quantity of output from the input flow rate and the time. He assumes it's constant. He doesn't measure the quantity of output vapor. That's probably because it would give a more accurate calculation, which he seems to be trying to avoid. As the power transfer increases, the output volume flow rate increases, the speed of the steam increases, the enthalpy of the fluid increases. All these things he doesn't measure. The one thing that *doesn't* increase as the power transfer increases up to complete vaporization is the temperature. But *that* he decides to measure every few seconds. And his expert seemed to be fine with that. That shows that the company he allegedly works for could have done better. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. If the ecats were not full, there would be nothing flowing out of them until the onset of boiling, No, unless you meant empty. As long as the amount of water in the ecats was not zero it is conceivable to get steam. If there's steam, then that's after the onset of boiling, and then the temperature would be at the boiling point. Then, to reach a rate of vaporization of 675 kg/h, from the onset of boiling (0 kg/h) would take much longer than to reach the boiling onset. So, you would see a rapid, almost step increase, then a very much longer plateau. How do you know the water in the ecats wasn't already at boiling temperature for a long time? Because the temperature was below boiling. Going from the onset of boiling to full vaporization (675 kg/h) would result in an ever increasing rate of steam flow, but steady temperature at the local boiling point. Or, if the heating elements were not submerged, the steam temperature would exceed the boiling point. And if they started submerged, the boiling would reduce the level, exposing them and then increasing the temperature of the steam. So? The output temperature fluctuates between 105 and 112 degrees. Right, but if it's at the boiling point that represents a pretty small fluctuation in pressure which is not difficult to imagine. On the other hand, if the steam is above the boiling point it represents unrealistically stable output power (within +/- 0.5%). And, again, you assume that there is no mechanism to regulate the water level. Right. Because Rossi assumes it. And if there were regulation based on the output temperature, given the time constant, you would see some kind of regular oscillation. (The regulation Roberson refers to requires the heater be submerged, which means the output is at the boiling point.) In any case, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough time. Nearly all of the pre-heat period (2 hours) is used up in bringing the temperature up to the onset of boiling. That's probably the temperature of the pipe. Well, we're told it's the temperature of the output fluid. Increasing the power transfer by another factor of 8 cannot happen in a few minutes. Care to explain this? I have explained this many times, and people here are tired of repetition. Briefly, the power transfer is proportional to the temperature difference between the heating element and the water, So if it takes 2 hours at 170 kW to bring it to the temperature necessary for the onset of boiling, it could not produce a delta T 8 times as large in a few minutes with 470 kW. The thermal mass evident in the warm-up period would prevent that. 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get it (a) he probably did test runs and (b) there is a frigging control system. Possibly, but he was talking 1 MW until the last minute, when he throttled back to 1/2 MW, so that throttling, which he doesn't explain, would have to be pretty accurate. And Rossi himself says the flow rate was constant from 12:30 on. A control system could not have known the output power until it reached its peak, which could not have happened until 12:35 at the very earliest (when the temperature went above 100C). And what would be monitored to control the power? Temperature wouldn't do it, because, like I said, the temperature is the same for 70 kW and 470 kW, and there is no indication in the report that anything else was measured. There could be a lot of behind the scenes stuff, but if it is necessary to prove (or even make plausible) that the power was 470 kW, then it should be in the report. What is in the report doesn't
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and several issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must open before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be air tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor becomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October tests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all. Now add in the fact that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat output thermocouple. ... Thoughts? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500 We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and several issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must open before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be air tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor becomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October tests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all. I believe that was because the pump was small and it took 2 hours to fill the vessel. On Oct. 28 they had much more powerful pumps, albeit more reactors to fill. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I suspect that the input flow rate was larger for the October 6 test when the pressure was low. It is fairly straight forward to calculate the amount of water fed into one of the ECATs during the 3.5 hour period of the 28 test. It should be 6.314 liters/hour * 3.5 hours = 22.1 liters. The 3.5 hour period is derived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started at 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October tests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all. Now add in the fact that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat output thermocouple. ... Thoughts? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500 We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and several issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must open before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be air tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor becomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Yes, but the October 6th test provides some idea of what the Megawatt output may have looked like, had the E-Cats indeed started empty. I was looking for a corollary indication that the E-Cats were full at test commencement. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suspect that the input flow rate was larger for the October 6 test when the pressure was low. It is fairly straight forward to calculate the amount of water fed into one of the ECATs during the 3.5 hour period of the 28 test. It should be 6.314 liters/hour * 3.5 hours = 22.1 liters. The 3.5 hour period is derived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started at 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October tests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), and how long it took for the output to register anything at all. Now add in the fact that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat output thermocouple. ... Thoughts? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500 We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and several issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of the opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period since it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must open before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple readings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know that the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be air tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high humidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. All of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor becomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would immediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated readings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid water pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low of a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would pool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, this initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing within the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about that required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence of events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that exists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the various ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the measurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. Furthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and the HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I fear that we can not translate measurements obtained during the October 6 test directly to those of the October 28 one. The water pump systems are vastly different. I consider the high quality pumps installed for the October 28 test to be more consistent in output than the other small unit used on the 6 th. It is true that Rossi and the customer engineer allowed approximately the same amount of time to pass from start of input pumping to the beginning of the self sustaining mode as for the earlier tests. It is quite clear that the ECAT was completely filled during the September test since Mats collected the overflow water and found the rate to be 13 kg/hour at a time before boiling commenced. The latest test states that the input water flow rate was 6.314 liters/hour during the main portion of the test. There is no mention of any other rates in the document or in Rossi's logs that I have seen. This lower rate is consistent with the position that only vapor is emitted from the ECATs. The evidence is all that we have to work with. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 9:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy Yes, but the October 6th test provides some idea of what the Megawatt output may ave looked like, had the E-Cats indeed started empty. I was looking for a orollary indication that the E-Cats were full at test commencement. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I suspect that the input flow rate was larger for the October 6 test when the ressure was low. It is fairly straight forward to calculate the amount of ater fed into one of the ECATs during the 3.5 hour period of the 28 test. It hould be 6.314 liters/hour * 3.5 hours = 22.1 liters. The 3.5 hour period is erived from the customer acceptance document. It says the total test started t 9:00. So, 12:30 - 9:00 = 3.5 hours. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 3:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy The Ottoman E-Cats appear to be the same from the September and October ests. Think about the October 6th test (where we new the Cat started empty), nd how long it took for the output to register anything at all. Now add in the act that the October 6th thermocouple was much closer that the MegaCat output hermocouple. ... Thoughts? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:26:13 -0500 We have been attempting to understand the initial water capture discrepancy and everal issues come up which need an explanation. Mr. Cude and I have been of he opinion that the ECATs must be full of water during an initiation period ince it seems logical that the check valves at the output of each module must pen before water can escape. According to our previous logic, the thermocouple eadings suggest that these valves are open due to the input water flow. There is an alternate possibility that might explain what is observed. We know hat the ECATs are closed to the world by a gasketing technique which should be ir tight if performing properly. I hypothesize that warm air which is of high umidity must exit the devices as the water inside heats up and displaces it. ll of the air eventually must be expelled through the output port as vapor ecomes dominate. This humid warm air would enter the steam piping and the water would mmediately begin to condense upon every surface. This would lead to elevated eadings of the thermocouple at the steam pipe and also would result in liquid ater pooling within the dissipaters and plumbing. There would be far too low f a pressure at this time to expel the water to the exterior bins so it would ool. Now, when one of the ECATs finally generates enough energy to start to boil, his initial fresh supply of hot vapor would have to vaporize the water standing ithin the output system. This would of course make the temperature hover about hat required to vaporize water at atmospheric pressure or 100 C. This sequence f events would explain the “shoulder” appearing at the boiling temperature that xists for a fairly long time before the standing water becomes overwhelmed. If the process that I have proposed is true, then the water levels within the arious ECAT devices would not have to be at full. The problem with the easurement of liquid water trapped would also become much less of an issue. urthermore, now the output of the 1 MW system could consist of mainly vapor and he HVAC guy most likely performed his task correctly. Dave
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
Rossi assumes the output flow rate is equal to the input flow rate throughout the 5.5 hours of the power calculation. The only way to be sure that the output flow rate is *at least* that value is if the ecats started out full. That also seems most consistent with the temperature profile during preheating, but that's pretty hard to guess. This assumption puts the bounds on the output power between 70 kW and 470 kW depending on the degree of vaporization. The trap is supposed to help with this but as I've argued, I don't believe it does, and at 3:00 it seems pretty clear that the valve was closed anyway. (The power could be even higher if the ecats end up empty at the end, but then the steam would surely have been hotter.) If you allow the possibility that the ecats can be any level at 12:30, depending on when the pumps were started and on the flow rate before 12:30, then it's pretty hard to say anything about the output flow rate. If they start out nearly empty, and end up full, then the total output can be as low as 4.7 L per ecat. Even if all the steam were dry in this case, that still only amounts to 67 kW average power. But if the steam were very wet in this case, the power could be as low as 9 kW average. So this possibility opens up the range of powers consistent with the reported data all the way from 9 kW to 470 kW. And even if only dry steam is considered, from 67 kW to 470 kW. If it's 9 kW, then the megacat is big energy hog. I know I've said before that if the water in the ecats is low, then the steam should be heated above the boiling point, but in the event of a low output flow rate, superheated steam is not necessary to balance the power, and maybe if the churning water keeps the heaters wet, the vapor could still be in equilibrium with the liquid. But really, this is all far too much speculation. What kind of a competent engineer produces a report for which the reported measurements are consistent with output power between 9 kW and 470 kW? And the means to do much better are staring them in the face. They condense the output, so they could very easily have measured the total output volume with a simple flowmeter. They could have measured the steam velocity to get a handle on the steam quality. They could have reduced the flow rate to produce superheated steam, and measured the pressure to verify that it's above the local boiling point, and then the steam quality would not be in doubt. Instead they used exactly the method of their previous steam producing tests which resulted in dozens of people complaining that the output power was indeterminate. It seems clear that Fioravanti did not do his job. Or he did exactly what Rossi wanted, allowing them to claim 470 kW without actually measuring anything incorrectly, but with power far below that.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi assumes the output flow rate is equal to the input flow rate ... Here is how I see it. (1) Fioravanti signed the report. (2) The report has the following equation: Total energy produced : (steam kg x 627.5) + (100 - input water T) x kg of water heated x 1.14 (3) This implies that dry steam was flowing in the pipes, because 627.5 kWh/kg is the enthalpy of vaporization of water at 100 degrees. (4) This is thermodynamics 101. (5) Fioravanti is an engineer hired to check a million-dollar power generator. (6) Therefore he took that course. (7) So Fioravanti had good reasons to believe that the steam was dry. Anyone disputing this is basically claiming that the report is fake and that Fioravanti doesn't exist or isn't an engineer or became senile or was on drugs and/or was conspiring with Rossi. I find your rate of change of power transfer too high vs thermal inertia argument intriguing, but it would be nice if you could explain it logically and numerically. Currently, your explanations are entangled with a multitude of hypotheses and suppositions. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Anyone disputing this is basically claiming that the report is fake and that Fioravanti doesn't exist or isn't an engineer or became senile or was on drugs and/or was conspiring with Rossi. He may also have been careless and/or negligent. Or he may not have known the issues involved in measuring enthalpy from this type of device by methods Rossi allowed. Rossi may have dictated the methodology to be used-- which could have confused Fioravanti. And of course, he could be conspiring with Rossi. That's my favorite theory. Fioravanti supposedly worked for some mystery client. If there was no mystery client, the guy was working for Rossi. If the whole demo was phony, he most likely knew it and had to be a party to it. If that's what happened, I imagine he was very well paid and given some sort of cover story to use if the ruse is discovered eventually.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There is a five minute period during which water would be flowing through the ECATs and into the steam pipes. During this 5 minute period, I would expect (675.6 liters/hour * 1 hour/60 minutes * 5 minutes = 56.3 liters) of water to be captured by the water trap. Maybe the steam pipe was a steam pipe and no significant amount of liquid water flowed in it. This would mean that the water flow rate did not reach the 675.6 l/h value before the cores became warm enough to boil it off at that rate. I don't know how the pumps were controlled. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 8:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I wanted to point out this discrepancy so that other members of the Vortex can indicate my error or verify the problem. I agree. But the results are consistent with the valve to the trap being closed, or with the trap being ineffective at trapping even pure liquid water, let alone when it is only 5% liquid by volume (about 1% steam by mass).
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 9:24 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: There is a five minute period during which water would be flowing through the ECATs and into the steam pipes. During this 5 minute period, I would expect (675.6 liters/hour * 1 hour/60 minutes * 5 minutes = 56.3 liters) of water to be captured by the water trap. Maybe the steam pipe was a steam pipe and no significant amount of liquid water flowed in it. This would mean that the water flow rate did not reach the 675.6 l/h value before the cores became warm enough to boil it off at that rate. I don't know how the pumps were controlled. If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation using the input flow rate is meaningless.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation using the input flow rate is meaningless. Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the input mass flow rate is obviously equal to the output mass flow rate. What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the beginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was very low, just enough to keep a sufficient water level in the reactors. When the reaction then starts, you start increasing the input mass flow rate to match the vaporization capacity. Here is such a scenario: 1) Each module contains a given amount of water. 2) Water flow is initially zero. 3) The reaction slowly ramps up in power. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. 5) The output power is now sufficient to vaporize water at 675 l/h. 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. 7) Condensed, warm water starts flowing back into the reservoirs. The input temperature rises by a few degrees. -- Berke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I was of the impression that the ECAT modules were filled with water before the main test was conducted. Is there any documented evidence that the water level was below fill at 12:30? I would like to find this if you can point me in the right direction. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation using the input flow rate is meaningless. Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the nput mass flow rate is obviously equal to the output mass flow rate. What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the eginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was ery low, just enough to keep a sufficient water level in the eactors. When the reaction then starts, you start increasing the nput mass flow rate to match the vaporization capacity. Here is such a scenario: 1) Each module contains a given amount of water. 2) Water flow is initially zero. 3) The reaction slowly ramps up in power. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts ittle by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. 5) The output power is now sufficient to vaporize water at 675 l/h. 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. 7) Condensed, warm water starts flowing back into the reservoirs. The nput temperature rises by a few degrees. - erke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
I might be able to answer my own question. I just reviewed the final acceptance document and see that the test supposedly started at 9:00. If they started the input water flow at that time to the 6.314 liter/hour rate, then only 22.1 liters would be in the ECATs at 12:30. That would explain the issue as the ECATs hold 30 liters when full. The only problem is that I recall asking that question and being told that the ECATs were preloaded with water. Can anyone verify this important bit of information? Your scenario would be very reasonable if we can determine that the cats are as you say. Many difficult issues would be resolved. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 12:09 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy I was of the impression that the ECAT modules were filled with water before the main test was conducted. Is there any documented evidence that the water level was below fill at 12:30? I would like to find this if you can point me in the right direction. Dave -Original Message- From: Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:38 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote: If this is the case, then the output mass flow rate has no relation to the input mass flow rate, and the power output calculation using the input flow rate is meaningless. Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the nput mass flow rate is obviously equal to the output mass flow rate. What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the eginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Maybe it was ery low, just enough to keep a sufficient water level in the eactors. When the reaction then starts, you start increasing the nput mass flow rate to match the vaporization capacity. Here is such a scenario: 1) Each module contains a given amount of water. 2) Water flow is initially zero. 3) The reaction slowly ramps up in power. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts ittle by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. 5) The output power is now sufficient to vaporize water at 675 l/h. 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. 7) Condensed, warm water starts flowing back into the reservoirs. The nput temperature rises by a few degrees. - erke Durak
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Berke Durak berke.du...@gmail.com wrote: Save for what was required to fill the pipes and the devices, the input mass flow rate is obviously equal to the output mass flow rate. It's not that obvious, considering at the published flow rate (as Roberson corrected me), it takes about 5 hours to fill the ecats. What I meant is that the flow rate may have been lower at the beginning during the starting phase. Maybe it was zero. Then what were they measuring at the output? In fact, the output increases gradually throughout the warmup period from about 30C to the boiling point. This suggests the ecats and pipes etc are filled, and the water is flowing through the system. Maybe it was very low, just enough to keep a sufficient water level in the reactors. When the reaction then starts, you start increasing the input mass flow rate to match the vaporization capacity. There is no indication anywhere that the flow rate was changed, and Rossi's calculation assumes a constant flow rate. 4) Water temperatures in the modules rise. Steam production starts little by little and the sensed output steam temperature increases. The temperature profile does not fit this scenario. If the ecats were not full, there would be nothing flowing out of them until the onset of boiling, and then there would be a very steep increase in temperature. Then, to reach a rate of vaporization of 675 kg/h, from the onset of boiling (0 kg/h) would take much longer than to reach the boiling onset. So, you would see a rapid, almost step increase, then a very much longer plateau. Or, if the heating elements were not submerged, the steam temperature would exceed the boiling point. And if they started submerged, the boiling would reduce the level, exposing them and then increasing the temperature of the steam. In any case, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough time. Nearly all of the pre-heat period (2 hours) is used up in bringing the temperature up to the onset of boiling. Increasing the power transfer by another factor of 8 cannot happen in a few minutes. As a matter of fact, since the temperature was still below boiling at the 12:30 mark, the entire 8-fold increase is claimed to happen during the 5.5 hour run. 5) The output power is now sufficient to vaporize water at 675 l/h. 6) Pumps are turned on. Flow rate matches vaporization capacity. It would be surprising if Rossi would know this rate beforehand, since he doesn't actually calculate the power until the end. He would need to get it to within +/- 5% to avoid exposing the heaters, or filling the ecats. Considering the power was throttled back at the last minute (how?), knowing the output to that accuracy ahead of time seems unlikely, considering the wide variation in (claimed) ecat performance from various reports. The overriding consideration is that all the observations fit perfectly with the simplest scenario of filled ecats ahead of time, a constant input and output mass flow rate, a very low rate of vaporization from 12:35 on, a closed or ineffective trap for the liquid water, and 70 kW power output. So, no matter what mental contortions one can come up with sufficient to fit a higher power output, they are *not necessary*, and therefore, the test does not represent unequivocal evidence of 470 kW power output. The evidence is very strong (accepting reported data) that it is between 70 and 470 kW, and fairly strong that it is close to 70 kW at least for a considerable time after boiling begins.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I might be able to answer my own question. I just reviewed the final acceptance document and see that the test supposedly started at 9:00. If they started the input water flow at that time to the 6.314 liter/hour rate, then only 22.1 liters would be in the ECATs at 12:30. That would explain the issue as the ECATs hold 30 liters when full. It doesn't fit the temperature profile at the output during the pre-heat period. And if they were only 2/3 full at 12:30 when boiling begins, then the heating elements would be exposed, and the steam would be heated above the boiling point. And as I said in the other response... The overriding consideration is that all the observations fit perfectly with the simplest scenario of filled ecats ahead of time, a constant input and output mass flow rate, a very low rate of vaporization from 12:35 on, a closed or ineffective trap for the liquid water, and 70 kW power output. So, no matter what mental contortions one can come up with sufficient to fit a higher power output, they are *not necessary*, and therefore, the test does not represent unequivocal evidence of 470 kW power output. The evidence is very strong (accepting reported data) that it is between 70 and 470 kW, and fairly strong that it is close to 70 kW at least for a considerable time after boiling begins.
Re: [Vo]: ECAT 1 MW Test Discrepancy
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:05 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I was of the impression that the ECAT modules were filled with water before the main test was conducted. Is there any documented evidence that the water level was below fill at 12:30? I would like to find this if you can point me in the right direction. The gradual increase in temperature in the pre-heat period suggests water flowing through the pipes.
