Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on this one? The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look pretty good as a start. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 10:43 am Subject: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the Energy Produced calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to close the loop by converting that heat to electricity.
RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
From: David Roberson It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on this one? ;-) http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/resources/core/images/wink.png The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look pretty good as a start. Dave What about the COP of 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven) That is according to Rossi. or is this too a translation error, or in need of a conversion factor ? Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ? Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that corrects all of this silliness? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the Energy Produced calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to close the loop by converting that heat to electricity.
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
I am pretty sure the decimal in the first number should be a comma. Rossi is mixing up numbering conventions. On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** ** ** *From:* David Roberson ** ** It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on this one? [image: ;-)] ** ** The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look pretty good as a start. ** ** Dave What about the “*COP* of 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)” That is “according to Rossi”… or is this too a translation error, or in need of a conversion factor ? Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ? Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that corrects all of this silliness? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? ** ** Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. ** ** http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ ** ** I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the Energy Produced calculation ? ** ** After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to close the loop by converting that heat to electricity. ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com Author, The Secret Power Beneath https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
The comments in the referenced link address these issues and more. There is also this link: http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/science_and_the_media/media_outlets_consider_cold_fusion_and_low-energy_nuclear_reactions Which is a summary of LENR in the news.
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
OK, you are right in pointing that out. That is another of his games as far as I know. My interpretation is that he ran the device in what he calls a self sustaining mode for a shorter period of time. (118 hours) During this time he drove the device with a peak power input of 5 kWatts at a duty cycle of approximately .5. This is where he gets the 2.4 kWattt number. All of these figures are in line with his earlier statements in his journal. And, if you take the output power of 14.337 kWatts and divide it by the peak input of 5 kWatts, you get a number very close to what he speaks of as well. I suspect that he allowed the CAT to go into a latched mode at full power for a portion of the time shown for the test. This is a case where it is basically out of control and putting out the maximum power possible. This required no input power since it is truly self sustaining due to internal heat production being enough to keep the temperature above a critical value. I can only guess that he allowed this operation to continue until stopped with some form of heat extraction to defeat the process and allow the unit to cool down. Here it might only take a large fan or other fluid flow to take out enough heat. Is this what he did? Only a few know for sure, but I suspect that the large COP reflects active cooling of some sort as I have suggested to him on many occasions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 11:43 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? From:David Roberson It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 toconvert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in hiscalculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on thisone? The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numberslook pretty good as a start. Dave What about the “COPof 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven)” That is “according to Rossi”… or is this too atranslation error, or in need of a conversion factor ? Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ? Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that correctsall of this silliness? -OriginalMessage- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the Energy Produced calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to close the loop by converting that heat to electricity.
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
It looks as though they have taken the temperature of the device of 1050 C and subtracted the room temperature of 25 C before converting into Kelvin at 1298.15, which is inserted into the radiation equation. The non linearity of the temperature effect upon the radiation makes this not accurate. The radiation from the surroundings into the device should have been calculated separately and then subtracted. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
Well, it's too bad that Physics Today is giving a bit of credence to the field at the same time this Rossi crap comes out . It could not be called 'crap,' and would be easier to believe if Rossi had included data and did not include this warning at the top of the document (ironically labeled as data): DATA Please take note of the data format: a period . is used to indicate the decimals and a comma , to indicate the thousands, not vice versa as in many countries; for instance, 2,000.00 means two thousand point zero hundredths. So . although Rossi proclaims prominently in the same document that a comma represents thousands, but there is a period at this important place - so that it is clearly 3 point 268 (3.268) and not 3 thousand +268. yet. [best Jon Stewart smirk]. we are asked not to think that this period means what it says, but instead give Rossi benefit of doubt? Why? . because he has been so forthcoming with the data :-) Wouldn't it be a bit easier to give benefit of the doubt if he had included the data itself along with the calibration runs? As it stands now, AR is grabbing numbers out of the aether, so to speak - essentially from nowhere. Same old Rossi. Same old BS. From: Frank I am pretty sure the decimal in the first number should be a comma. Rossi is mixing up numbering conventions. From: David It looks as though he used the conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to square meters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include the area of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to be conservative on this one? Error! Filename not specified. The data is hard to interpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look pretty good as a start. Dave What about the COP of 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven point seven) That is according to Rossi. or is this too a translation error, or in need of a conversion factor ? Can Rossi really be this big of a fool ? Or is there a new revision (of the prior revision) that corrects all of this silliness? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the Energy Produced calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to close the loop by converting that heat to electricity. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com Author, The https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/ Secret Power Beneath
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
Jones, lets give Rossi an opportunity to clean up the messy numbers. Of course we all want to get our hands upon the actual data collected during the test and I hope that this will happen before too much time and damage has been done. Would it suit us better if we did not have any inputs at all for another few months? A little taste of poor quality food is better than starvation. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 12:20 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? Well, it’s too badthat Physics Today is giving abit of credence to the field at the same time this Rossi crap comes out … It could not be called ‘crap,’and would be easier to believe if Rossi had included data and did not includethis warning at the top of the document (ironically labeled as “data”): DATA Pleasetake note of the data format: a period “.” is used toindicate the decimals and a comma “,” to indicate the thousands,not vice versa as in many countries; for instance, 2,000.00 means “twothousand point zero hundredths”. So … although Rossi proclaimsprominently in the same document that a comma represents thousands, but thereis a period at this important place - so that it is clearly 3 point 268 (3.268) and not3 thousand +268… yet… [best Jon Stewart smirk]… we are askednot to think that this period means what it says, but instead give Rossibenefit of doubt? Why? … because he has been so forthcoming with the dataJ Wouldn’t it be a biteasier to give benefit of the doubt if he had included the data itself alongwith the calibration runs? As it stands now, AR isgrabbing numbers out of the aether, so to speak – essentially from nowhere.Same old Rossi. Same old BS. From:Frank I am pretty sure the decimal in the first numbershould be a comma. Rossi is mixing up numbering conventions. From:David It looks as though he usedthe conversion factor of .0001 to convert the square centimeters to squaremeters which is a valid calculation. I wonder why he does not include thearea of the end caps in his calculation? Do you suppose he wants to beconservative on this one? Error!Filename not specified. The data is hard tointerpret as usual for Rossi, but the numbers look pretty good as a start. Dave What about the “COP of 3.268/278.4 = 11.7 (eleven pointseven)” That is “accordingto Rossi”… or is this too a translation error, or in need of aconversion factor ? Can Rossi really be thisbig of a fool ? Or is there a new revision(of the prior revision) that corrects all of this silliness? -Original Message- From: Jones Beene Amidst all the hoopla over Rossi's recent hot-cat claims, and the first retraction - and the notable lack calibration data, or lack of real data - did Rossi also make a devastating math error? Last night, in the comments - it looks like Ahern suggests that Rossi's own calculations are off by four orders of magnitude. The Stephan-Boltzmann calculation involve multiplying by the surface are in meters squared It should be 0.0891 (m^2) not 891 (cm^2). Someone else then implies Rossi made the correction, but he seems to make a similar error. http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-por denone-hot-cat-report/ I'm not so sure if there is a real error or not at this stage; since it is far from clear what Rossi is doing in these calculations: can anyone defend Rossi's math and explain what he is doing in the Energy Produced calculation ? After all - if he is getting a COP of 11 at 1000 degrees, then it should only take a few weeks to close the loop by converting that heat to electricity. -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World Author, TheSecret Power Beneath
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
I agree he has been less than careful in the delivery of his data! I have not seen any evidence that he is storing output power in any type of device to use as an input heating source. One could suggest that the heat is being stored within the active mechanism itself at a level that keeps its temperature sufficiently high to regenerate the lost heat due to radiation, etc. This would certainly be considered a self sustaining mode to my way of thinking. A device of the above description could be forced to cool downward by extracting heat from its surface at a rate that overcomes the internal generation level. In the case at hand, a blast of cool air might be all that is required to do the task. The other option is to allow input power drive that comes at a duty cycle as I have simulated. In this mode, the internal temperature is prevented from reaching the critical level where self generated heat exactly balances and then exceeds the demand from the loading or extraction of energy. You have control of the device since you can stop your input on demand which, if adjusted properly, leads to a gradual cooling of the core until it needs to be replenished. I believe that Rossi considers this to be his self sustaining mode from his journal entries and descriptions concurrent with his last year demonstrations. If we consider the HOT CAT as it would be operating within a real life environment, heat will be absorbed by the system for output to generate electricity or for whatever is required. If the flow rate of the transfer fluid is adequate then the exchange medium could take away the excess heat keeping the device below the actual self sustaining level of an unloaded unit. A dynamic load of this nature would constitute the active cooling that I favor. I feel confident that operation of this type would impact the stability of the positive feedback device in a way that requires input power control particularly if a reasonable COP is desired. As usual, my speculation is based upon a simulation model and may not be accurate. The model can be improved significantly if the relevant data is obtained from Rossi and his testers. Eric, you mention that LENR devices tend to shut down by themselves in the HAD mode. Rossi has insisted that his units only reach this state if they run uncontrolled and self destruct by melting. I would consider this type of operation a defect that needs to be corrected. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Oct 13, 2012 1:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error? On Oct 13, 2012, at 9:00, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I can only guess that he allowed this operation to continue until stopped with some form of heat extraction to defeat the process and allow the unit to cool down. Assuming what Andrea Rossi is saying is basically true, there may or may not be a need for active cooling. LENR is known to just shut off, on its own, for unknown reasons, during heat after death. Heat after death is when LENR continues after the input drive has been turned off; e.g. current or gas pressure. There is a legitimate sense in my opinion in which a device can continue in self-sustaining mode, where there continues to be an input drive of some kind, and nonetheless we are not in heat after death; namely, when the entire unit is off the grid and part of the output power is being redirected into a battery that is used to feed the input drive. In this scenario there need not be an active quenching of some kind to quench the reaction -- simply disconnect the battery, at which point the system will enter heat after death and eventually peter out. My current assumption is that Andrea Rossi's numbers are basically correct, once amended, if skewed to lead to a generous interpretation, and he's just been less than careful on the delivery. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, you mention that LENR devices tend to shut down by themselves in the HAD mode. Rossi has insisted that his units only reach this state if they run uncontrolled and self destruct by melting. I would consider this type of operation a defect that needs to be corrected. It occurs to me now that I was only addressing the general situation -- what we mean by self-sustaining, and whether it implies that a device has to be in heat after death. But now that you draw my attention to Rossi's setup, I think you are right. He no doubt means something else by self-sustaining mode, since we don't see a sterling engine or some comparable mechanism to convert heat into electricity -- assuming there is no such setup that we are simply ignorant of. You are probably right that by this he intends short perturbations in the input drive that kick the reaction up so that it can coast along for another period of time. In the absence of a mechanism to redirect the output power to a battery, those impulses would need to come from outside of the system, and a critical detail is that they will sum up over time to something significantly less than the power that is emitted; there is, of course, a claim to this effect, but nonetheless this setup is not necessarily what one would think of by the term self-sustaining. An interesting detail in the case of Rossi's setup is the apparent input drive, where hydrogen is released by heat, if I have understood what I have read. The input drive, then, seems to be rather complex -- current through the device leads to Joule heating, which in turn leads to gas pressure. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Eric, you mention that LENR devices tend to shut down by themselves in the HAD mode. Rossi has insisted that his units only reach this state if they run uncontrolled and self destruct by melting. I would consider this type of operation a defect that needs to be corrected. To this point, specifically, about Andrea Rossi's device going on indefinitely unless there is a power excursion that damages it -- I have no idea if this is true. Rossi is the only person I know to have made such a claim, so it is unique, at least, if not altogether fanciful. Since he is storing hydrogen in the substrate and releasing it through heat, I it seems theoretically possible. He would have to have an efficient hydrogen storage mechanism, or he would have to make efficient use of what hydrogen there is, since it is common for LENR experiments to die down when the loading drops below a threshold. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
Rossi's numbers in a spreadsheet: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109919735/Rossi-Validation On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Eric, you mention that LENR devices tend to shut down by themselves in the HAD mode. Rossi has insisted that his units only reach this state if they run uncontrolled and self destruct by melting. I would consider this type of operation a defect that needs to be corrected. To this point, specifically, about Andrea Rossi's device going on indefinitely unless there is a power excursion that damages it -- I have no idea if this is true. Rossi is the only person I know to have made such a claim, so it is unique, at least, if not altogether fanciful. Since he is storing hydrogen in the substrate and releasing it through heat, I it seems theoretically possible. He would have to have an efficient hydrogen storage mechanism, or he would have to make efficient use of what hydrogen there is, since it is common for LENR experiments to die down when the loading drops below a threshold. Eric -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
RE: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
From: Patrick Ellul Rossi's numbers in a spreadsheet: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109919735/Rossi-Validation There is a data file on this linked page called hot-cat-data: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105325449/Hot-Cat-Data The assumption seems to be that this is the data in question but maybe not. Problem is - this is 15 months old - from July 2011 If one waited to try to validate data via IR blackbody assumptions - which data had been available for over a year, and if the COP was really anywhere close to 11+, as claimed - then is it not fair to ask - why not validate by closing the loop instead of a method that is even more suspect than the prior wet steam fiasco? Closing the loop will essentially stuff it down the throats of skeptics and make Rossi an instant billionaire. That's a pretty good incentive for an egotist like AR. Here are quite a few small turbines with more than enough efficiency to easily close the loop at 1000C. http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System_For_Sale.html
Re: [Vo]:Another Rossi error?
Another typo, I'm afraid. The hot-cat-data file was an addendum to the validation report Rossi presented in Zurich -- the test was done on July 16, 2012. Both these files are in my Scribd account where I have uploaded various documents . On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Patrick Ellul ** ** Rossi's numbers in a spreadsheet: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109919735/Rossi-Validation ** ** There is a data file on this linked page called “hot-cat-data”: ** ** http://www.scribd.com/doc/105325449/Hot-Cat-Data ** ** The assumption seems to be that this is the data in question but maybe not. ** ** Problem is – this is 15 months old – from July 2011 ** ** If one waited to try to validate data via IR blackbody assumptions - which data had been available for over a year, and if the COP was really anywhere close to 11+, as claimed - then is it not fair to ask – *why not validate by closing the loop* instead of a method that is even more suspect than the prior “wet steam” fiasco? ** ** Closing the loop will essentially “stuff it down the throats” of skeptics and make Rossi an instant billionaire. That’s a pretty good incentive for an egotist like AR. ** ** Here are quite a few small turbines with more than enough efficiency to easily close the loop at 1000C. ** ** http://www.infinityturbine.com/ORC/IT10_ORC_System_For_Sale.html ** ** -- Frank Acland Publisher, E-Cat World http://www.e-catworld.com Author, The Secret Power Beneath https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/
