subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:E\-cat news at Nyteknik"

Oops - my mistake .

 

Should have been "Dear Daniele"

 

blog http://22passi.blogspot.com/

 

 

From: Daniel Rocha 

 

Well, I am used to read computer news, so a little bit of Rossi-mania is
good for a change.

 



Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column?

("Dear Daniel":)

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-16 Thread Daniel Rocha

Well, I am used to read computer news, so a little bit of Rossi-mania is
good for a change.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jones Beene 
Date: 2011/9/16
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column?

("Dear Daniel":)

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-16 Thread Stephen A. Lawrence




On 11-09-16 12:36 PM, Jones Beene wrote:

Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column?

("Dear Daniel":)

The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that
further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just
re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of
what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as "News"
these days.

When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the
so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym)


Eh ... CIHT?

  Chromed Inside Diameter Honed Tube?

The reactor consists of a bit more than just /that/, I would think!
But then, maybe it's one of these:

  Certified Industrial Hygiene Technician?
  Central Institute of Hand Tools?
  Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation?

A little hard to see how any of these relate to BLP, to be honest.
Oh, wait, how about this one:

  Career Institute of Health and Technology

That kind of covers Randy's company, doesn't it?  After all, he's a 
doctor, which gets you the "Health" part, it's a high tech firm, which 
gets you the "Technology" part, and it's certainly become his career.


In any case, it's nice to hear they're still on the verge of delivering 
something, even after all these years.  (A lot like the hot fusion 
community, come to think of it.)

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Hey guys - isn't Rossi-mania already reading like a geek gossip column? 

("Dear Daniel":)

The bogosity level hovering around the E-Cat is already so extreme that
further speculation pushes into the realm of Sci-Fi ... after all, I am just
re-interpreting a few published News stories already out there, in view of
what could transpire. OTOH anyone can get a PR story published as "News"
these days.

When you toss in the possibility that BLP is on the verge of introducing the
so-called CIHT (my favorite apropos-acronym) it all starts to pick up a
peculiar odor ...

-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner 

Mark Iverson wrote:

> Jones, you're such a teez! :-)
> -M

I'll second that!  8^)

Tell us more Jones!

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-16 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Nice to see you back in the sand box, Jones. I wuz beginning to get
concerned that you may have been abducted by aliens... perhaps for
"consultation" purposes concerning your legal expertise on human
affairs. Rumor has it that the Pleiadians and Zeta Reticulians are
sparing over the possession rights to modify the human genome. I heard
that the Zeta Reticulians were planning on rolling out another upgrade
sometime in 2012, whereas the Pleiadians claim the Reticulians had
outright stolen the revised code from their own scientists. Shoot! I
was getting ready to mainline Kosmic Consciousness via channeled
messages from the Ashtar Command, simply by simply "tuning in", but
now I guess I'll have to wait another hundred years until this mess is
sorted out. Litigation is a bitch.

Meanwhile... back in the LENR field. Product placement is everything! ;-)

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-16 Thread Horace Heffner



On Sep 16, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:


Jones, you're such a teez! :-)
-M


I'll second that!  8^)

Tell us more Jones!




-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]

Horace

Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano-
capacitors.  Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for
EVs and renewable energy projects.


I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months.  
It is a
fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the  
groups

biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans.


Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this.


It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be  
making an

associated product for LENR energy conversion.

Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted  
at a

semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of
semi-coherency in photonic emission.

Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the  
exact IR

spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum
converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion  
limitations are

avoided.

Jones




Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-16 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

Jones, you're such a teez! :-)
-M
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 

Horace
> Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- 
> capacitors.  Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for
> EVs and renewable energy projects.  

I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a
fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups
biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. 

> Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this.

It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an
associated product for LENR energy conversion. 

Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a
semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of
semi-coherency in photonic emission. 

Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR
spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum
converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are
avoided.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Horace
 
> Too bad the money that went into Solyndra didn't go into nano- 
capacitors.  Energy storage is the key stumbling block now for EVs  
and renewable energy projects.  

I predict that this factory will be back in operation in 6 months. It is a
fabulous facility but with the wrong product initially. One of the groups
biding in the bankruptcy proceedings has grand plans. 

> Who knows, maybe LENR devices will overwhelm all this.

It is not out of the question that this particular plant will be making an
associated product for LENR energy conversion. 

Imagine a Ni-H reaction device where the anomalous heat is emitted at a
semi-coherent IR frequency. Graphene coatings permit this kind of
semi-coherency in photonic emission. 

Photovoltaic thin film panels are then tailored to convert the exact IR
spectrum into current, and far more efficiently than full spectrum
converters. This is NOT a heat engine per se, and conversion limitations are
avoided.

Jones

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

From: Colin Hercus 

*   Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW
reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little steam
orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes
out that orifice. There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that
can be made. I'm totally disappointed and disillusioned.


The scenario that best explains many (if not all) of the seemingly
irreconcilable issues, including these:

1)  the numerous design compromises (is there even a finalized unit?) 
2)  the perceived need for many units operating together instead of one
rock-solid machine
3)  the confusing and variable operating results over time, some
extremely positive, some not so good (and a few glossed-over null results)
4)  occasional unpowered cells producing huge amounts of heat
5)  the premature shut-down of some experiments and short runs of other
experiments
6)  the strange and difficult personality of the inventor

...is no secret when viewed historically. 

All of these phenomena are consistent with what has been the one keynote
issue in LENR and Ni-H for the past twenty+ years: which is that good
results are possible, but inconsistent over time - and never "on demand".

The way Rossi intends to accommodate and overcome this unfortunate truth is
that he proposes to effectively present to the public, in his MW unit, what
can be described as the "average results" expected for a chosen number of
E-Cats operating together !

This is with the underlying assumption that at any given point in time there
will be a distribution of cells performing well, but with lots of them not
performing well at all... IOW - he wants to demonstrate the average gain of
many cells - and thus avoid the major (historical) impediment of output
which is not "on demand".. He may realize that on occasion, any cell can
produce 20 KW for periods, but more often it will produce far less, and
sometimes it can be lossy. So he has designed a compromise that will hide
the individual irregularities (in the average results) and yet he must
design any individual cell as if it will hit the best results periodically. 

However, he has never pulled this off this kind of averaging before, as far
as we know, so getting positive results is this fashion is now his pipe
dream for October.

Logically, if all of the units performed at their best, then something like
4-5 MW (instead of 1 MW) would be possible (giving him full benefit of the
doubt), but statistically this never happens - and the control unit must be
programmed to actually avoid it. I suspect that any individual cell will
provide far more than the expected average for prolonged periods. The
effective duty cycle could be somewhere around 25%. In fact if you look at
past results in LERN you would find something very similar in the
performance of many experiments in terms of statistical probability.

Again - this is giving Rossi full benefit of the doubt, and even then I am
convinced that due to costing issues glossed over by the inventor, and
longer-term operating degradation, that it will be considerably cheaper for
any investor to buy the equivalent heat output from solar troughs - than
from E-Cats.

IOW, there nothing of lasting economic value as the E-Cat device in the form
it is currently conceived; but it is still a breakthrough. The real
breakthrough (if the Rossi strategy of "energy averaging" proves out) is
being able to move from "hundreds of watts on occasion" (which has happened
going back 20 years) to "megawatts on demand" and to have this result
prominently exposed in the public mentality. This is far more important to
the rest of us than you might be thinking, even if the device is an economic
disaster.

The fact that heat produced this way will cost approximately double the heat
from solar troughs will be the issue facing the purchaser of the technology,
not Rossi - and by the time this becomes clear: Ing. Rossi will be enjoying
his retirement on Miami Beach.

Jones


<>

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Colin Hercus

Mmm.. So you think if they'd used a smaller orifice and changed nothing else
the power would have jumped to 27KW?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:

> Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a
> 1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little
> steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam
> squeezes out that orifice. »
>
> Rossi has said that his megawatt plant will produce steam with 200°C and
> thus pressure is 1.6 megapascals. I think that modules are connected
> paraller, therefore one individual module will operate at 1.6 MPa pressure.
> This should be in line as demonstrated E-Cat was peak producing 7kW ± 1kW
> heat, then final product would boost up to 200°C with 27 kW output.
>
> i think that the small orifice was there only for demonstration purposes,
> in order to simulate e.g. steam turbine that is connected into MW-plant.
> Right now outlet hose was not connected into anything that would cause
> backpressure or demand work from steam. Therefore work had to be simulated
> with small orifice.
>
> —Jouni
>

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Jouni Valkonen

Colin wrote: « Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a
1MW reactor and if it was then how much back pressure would that little
steam orifice generate and how much energy would the system lose as steam
squeezes out that orifice. »

Rossi has said that his megawatt plant will produce steam with 200°C and
thus pressure is 1.6 megapascals. I think that modules are connected
paraller, therefore one individual module will operate at 1.6 MPa pressure.
This should be in line as demonstrated E-Cat was peak producing 7kW ± 1kW
heat, then final product would boost up to 200°C with 27 kW output.

i think that the small orifice was there only for demonstration purposes, in
order to simulate e.g. steam turbine that is connected into MW-plant. Right
now outlet hose was not connected into anything that would cause
backpressure or demand work from steam. Therefore work had to be simulated
with small orifice.

—Jouni

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Finlay MacNab

Interesting observations.  I agree you should publish your findings.
I too am disappointed with the demonstration.  All they really need to do is 
vent the hydrogen during operation to convince me.  If they had vented the 
hydrogen at 15mins after power off and observed a change in the cooling rate I 
would be convinced.

From: colinher...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:00:25 +0800
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Hi Finlay,

I mean if you take temperature of two chambers to be 130C at time power is 
turned off, and allow cold water to flow in at 11l/h and hot water to flow out 
based on the simulated temp in the chimney then the rate of drop in temperature 
is virtually identical to that reported by Mats. This simulation used a two 
chamber model with 12kg water equivalent thermal mass in chamber 1 and 21kg in 
chamber 2.

During start up, when the reported the power is added to chamber 1 the 
simulated temperature matches very well with what is seen until we reach 100C 
in the chimney, so it looks like the thermal mass estimate is fairly accurate. 
From the 100C point, if you allow 600W heat loss due to steam the temperature 
curve is also a very good fit without any added heat from CF.

I need to do a little work on the simulation before I can publish it. But I'm 
convinced the whole temperature curve can be explained without any CF heat 
being added.

However I can't explain why we have back pressure of 1 bar, there would have to 
be a pretty small opening for the steam. And i can't explain the volume of 
overflow water measured as this would indicate more steam than 600W.

Funny that this module should produce 20Kw if it's part of a 1MW reactor and if 
it was then how much back pressure would that little steam orifice generate and 
how much energy would the system lose as steam squeezes out that orifice. 
There's so much unexplained and so many assumptions that can be made. I'm 
totally disappointed and disillusioned.

Colin

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Finlay MacNab  wrote:

Colin,
Excellent analysis! Thank you very much for posting this information.
Could you clarify what you mean when you say  "BUT only if during this power 
off period there is not much power being used to make steam"?

Are you saying that the result is consistent with the simulation only if all 
the outflow from the device is liquid water?
Thank you again for your well reasoned and detailed post.

Hi,

I haven't posted here before, I've just been lurking.

A few months ago I wrote a simple finite element simulation for the eCat, it's 
a simple model based on two chambers each with a thermal equivalent of water 
with cold water entering chamber 1, being heated by the heater and reactor and 
then the same water flowing into a second chamber and supplying heat to it. By 
adjusting the thermal masses I could get this model to pretty accurately 
predict the temperatures on the ECat during the warm up period and then I 
needed to add excess heat beyond the electrical supply to get the temperature 
charts from Rossi's experiments. 

This pretty well convinced me that Rossi was onto something. I'll paste a 
couple of charts from the simulation but I'm not sure if they'll come through.
The simulation is not perfect but I think it's close enough. The major issue is 
that as the reactor chamber heats above boiling we have a mix of steam & water 
in it and moving into chamber 2. Rather than simulate this I just model chamber 
1 as water >100C with no steam. That's why the red line goes over 100C, you can 
think of it as the amount  of heat going into the next chamber rather than 
temperature. 

Below is simulation from 16 Dec Test. It uses 900W input power with increase to 
1800W at 17:47 and two chamber model of thermal mass 0.7kg and 1.3kg. The model 
also has power dropping to 0 at 18:00, Levi reported that the reaction self 
sustained for 15 minutes. An interesting point is fast cool down of the real 
reactor at 18:15 vs the slow cool down predicted by the model. This is 100 
consistent with Levi report that water flow was increased to stop the reaction. 

And now the simulation from 14th Jan test. This first chart shows simulated 
temperature based on zero excess power. The simulation is overlaid over actual 
power and temperature charts from the report. The interesting point is that the 
simulation fits the initial temperature rise and the fall at the end of the 
experiment. The only explanation for the actual temperature graph is excess 
heat.

These simulations, though not perfect, have convinced me there is excess energy.

Now comes this new demo so I just entered all the data provided by Mats, 
adjusted the thermal mass (33kg) to get the initial rise in temperature to 
match the data, and ... The charts are pretty consistent with there being no 
exce

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Colin Hercus

Hi Jed,

But Mats did not measure steam during that 35 mins and if heat loss was just
the cold water in and hot out then the temp would decrease quite slowly.
Note we have at least 23kg of hot water and only 11kg/hr in. so 17% change
of water in 30 minutes. Input temp is 29C and if we allow another 10kg of
thermal mass plus 23kg of water then an approx temp drop of around 12% in 30
min 12%(130 -29) = 12C drop

But then how could we have 130C water? Maybe a pressure relief valve?  It's
very hard to explain this demonstration, too many assumptions.

Colin

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Colin Hercus  wrote:
>
>
>> Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a
>> major disappointment.
>>
>
> I tend to agree, because power input was high and they did not measure
> total enthalpy. However, the last 35 min. with no input power redeemed the
> test. I do not think there is anyway you can explain that except as massive
> anomalous energy.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Colin Hercus

uring this power off period there is not
> much power being used to make steam!
> Now the simulation didn't fit this eCat as well as earlier experiments
> which I think is because we don't know the geometry of the device or the
> exact placement of the thermometer.
>
> The only evidence for excess heat is the one measurement of overflowing
> water. Mat later calculates a "Worst Case Scenario" and I think he messed up
> a bit, my "worst Case" is:
> 1) Under "Water Flow Inlet" he reports flow as 11.08 kg/hr during boiling
> 2) At 21:50 he measures water overflow as 5.0 to 6.5 kg/hr
> 3) So "worst" estimate of steam is 11.08 -6.5 = 4.58 kg/hr
> 4) if this was 90% steam (distinctly possible for a boiler) then we get
> about 4.1 kg/hr of steam
> 5) Times heat of vapourisation (628wh/kg) = 2600Watts
> 6) And heating 11.08 kg/hr to boiling = 11.08 * 81.3 = 900W
> so as input power is close to 2600W we only have 900W excess energy. Not
> very convincing for a module of a 1MW plant!
>
> I'd also like to address the fact that temperature rose after power was
> turned off. This can be explained by thermal inertia if the point where heat
> being applied was not the same point where temperature was being measured.
> The point where heat was being applied could be quite a bit hotter than 130C
> and even after power was cut we could could continue to get output
> temperature rising. Just imagine a steel bar and we heat one end and measure
> the temperature at the other end, there is a lag as heat transfers along the
> bar, turning off the heat and the the cool end of the bar continues to
> increase in temperature for a while.
>
> Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a
> major disappointment.
>
> Colin
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joe Catania  wrote:
>
> **
> You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not
> giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been
> ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its
> thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a
> first principle. It is accepted without proof.
>
> If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up
> to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the
> temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates
> this simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that
> through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput
> at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a difference?
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Finlay MacNab 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
>
>
> Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER
> EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have only
> discredited your argument about thermal inertia.  Congratulations!
>
> I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please describe
> in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the
> observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of
> heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat
> capacities of the various materials.  Also, please account for the energy
> inputs and outputs to the device during its operation.
>
> 5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what
> you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do everyone
> here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can
> explain the rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up your
> claims.
>
> If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and
> distracting from more interesting discussion.
>  --
>
> Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as
> temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik
>
>  JC stated:
> “(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”
> Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s
> internal temperature on startup…
>
> Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s
> resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of
> ‘5’ and RAMPE

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Horace Heffner



On Sep 15, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:


Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down  
inside the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry  
purposes.  It likely is directly heated by its metal  
surroundings.  The water pulsing out of the device is clearly  
not 130°C.


I think with this new method this is not so important.


With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a  
hidden place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry.



There cannot be a large temperature difference between water  
steam and metal.


This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than  
required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through  
insulation losses).  The excess energy has to go into heating the  
steam.


If more energy is supplied, this will not give false overunity  
results. It is absolutely unnecessary to know the temperature  
inside. It is absolutely sufficient if we know the input and the  
final output.

.
.
How does your response relate to my statement above?  I am pointing  
out that the temperature of the steam can differ greatly from that of  
the metal, and can be way above that of boiling water, even at  
atmospheric pressure?  The temperature of most of the metal can be  
way different from that of the water in the system.


I certainly agree that it is sufficient if the total *energy* of the  
output and input can be directly measured.  The measurement of  
momentary *power* of a highly dynamic system is not sufficient.

.
.






So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more.
The pressure is above air pressure always.


We can assume no such thing.  The water shown coming out of the  
exit port at the top was clearly not at 130°C.  The pressure  
clearly was not high.  The pressure appears highly variable,  
indicating the possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism.


If water at 130° comes out it will immediately start to boil and  
vaporize until it is cooled down to 100°. Therefore we can assume,  
that the water that finally comes out of the hose is at 100 degrees.

.
.
The water in the video at the top outlet did not do this. There was  
no sign of flash boiling.

.
.





When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will  
immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100  
degrees.


This did not happen at the top exit port in the video.
I think this process is very fast and happened already at the  
pressure reduction valve.

.
.
What pressure reduction valve?  Are you saying you know there is a  
pressure reduction valve between the boiler and the outlet at the top  
of the new E-cat?

.
.
It did happen, when they finally opened the input valve. Steam and  
water came out. This valve is at the bottom water level and at the  
coldest level. So if the water where 100° or colder then there  
wouldnt have been any steam.

.
.
That to me is a sign that both the input water flow and output flow  
at the top was stopped.

.
.
Of course you can assume this is a tricky fraud, but this is  
impossible to prove via internet. Only time and Rossi can answer  
this question, I cannot. Therefore I dont assume fraud or tricks,  
because this is impossible via internet.

.
.
I did not say there was any fraud or trick.   I've seen a lot of self  
deception in the free energy field over the last 15 years. Some  
researchers, when they observe an apparent excess energy effect,  
manipulate the variables to enhance the apparent effect, without  
regard for the possibility that it is merely an artifact that is  
being amplified. Other researchers do everything they or anyone else  
can think of to rule out artifacts. Rossi and associates appear to  
fall more into the first group than the second, regardless of whether  
the effect is all artifact or not

.
.




Best regards,

Peter



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Horace Heffner

 of steam

5) Times heat of vapourisation (628wh/kg) = 2600Watts
6) And heating 11.08 kg/hr to boiling = 11.08 * 81.3 = 900W
so as input power is close to 2600W we only have 900W excess  
energy. Not very convincing for a module of a 1MW plant!


Yes, not convincing with regard to practicality.  Also, only direct  
total energy balance measurements for each test provide any degree of  
credibility due to the highly dynamic nature of the black box  
functioning.  Power measurements are not meaningful in this case  
because the thermal power through the various elements changed with  
time.





I'd also like to address the fact that temperature rose after power  
was turned off. This can be explained by thermal inertia if the  
point where heat being applied was not the same point where  
temperature was being measured. The point where heat was being  
applied could be quite a bit hotter than 130C and even after power  
was cut we could could continue to get output temperature rising.  
Just imagine a steel bar and we heat one end and measure the  
temperature at the other end, there is a lag as heat transfers  
along the bar, turning off the heat and the the cool end of the bar  
continues to increase in temperature for a while.


Yes indeed.



Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and  
is a major disappointment.


Yes.




Colin


On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Joe Catania   
wrote:
You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because  
I'm not giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal  
inertia has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical  
error. It means its thermal inertia but I haven't given you the  
equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It is accepted  
without proof.


If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp  
goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ  
will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're  
saying flow complicates this simple picture but its far from  
certain that you've established that through proof or equations.  
For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same rate and  
temperature so why should there be a difference?

- Original Message -
From: Finlay MacNab
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING  
WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have  
only discredited your argument about thermal inertia.   
Congratulations!


I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please  
describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could  
account for the observed changes in temperature taking into account  
the well known rate of heat exchange between water and metals/other  
materials and the heat capacities of the various materials.  Also,  
please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the device  
during its operation.


5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain  
that what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!   
Please do everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of  
how "thermal inertia" can explain the rossi device.  Please use  
equations and data to back up your claims.


If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message  
board and distracting from more interesting discussion.


Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes  
as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.

- Original Message -
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

JC stated:

“(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”

Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E- 
Cat’s internal temperature on startup…



Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E- 
Cat’s resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at  
a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the  
time progression for resistance heater power…



Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

-  ---   --

18:59 5 0

19:10 611

19:20 710

19:30 810

19:40 910


We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we  
do not know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the  
MAXimum setting, and Lewan states ‘power was at this point  
constantly switched on’, then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100%  
duty cycle. (?)



Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting  
of ‘5’ is 50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty  
cycle. So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:


On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:


Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside 
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes.  It 
likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings.  The water 
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C.


I think with this new method this is not so important.


With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a hidden 
place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry.



There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam 
and metal.


This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than 
required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through insulation 
losses).  The excess energy has to go into heating the steam.


If more energy is supplied, this will not give false overunity results. 
It is absolutely unnecessary to know the temperature inside. It is 
absolutely sufficient if we know the input and the final output.




So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more.
The pressure is above air pressure always.


We can assume no such thing.  The water shown coming out of the exit 
port at the top was clearly not at 130°C.  The pressure clearly was 
not high.  The pressure appears highly variable, indicating the 
possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism.


If water at 130° comes out it will immediately start to boil and 
vaporize until it is cooled down to 100°. Therefore we can assume, that 
the water that finally comes out of the hose is at 100 degrees.




When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately 
start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees.


This did not happen at the top exit port in the video.
I think this process is very fast and happened already at the pressure 
reduction valve.
It did happen, when they finally opened the input valve. Steam and water 
came out. This valve is at the bottom water level and at the coldest 
level. So if the water where 100° or colder then there wouldnt have been 
any steam.
Of course you can assume this is a tricky fraud, but this is impossible 
to prove via internet. Only time and Rossi can answer this question, I 
cannot. Therefore I dont assume fraud or tricks, because this is 
impossible via internet.


Best regards,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Horace Heffner



On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:


Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:


Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside  
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes.   
It likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings.  The water  
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C.


I think with this new method this is not so important.


With only one thermometer for measuring output, located in a hidden  
place, what it reads does not make for credible calorimetry.



There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam  
and metal.


This is false when more energy is being continually supplied than  
required to boil all the water to steam (ignoring through insulation  
losses).  The excess energy has to go into heating the steam.





So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more.
The pressure is above air pressure always.


We can assume no such thing.  The water shown coming out of the exit  
port at the top was clearly not at 130°C.  The pressure clearly was  
not high.  The pressure appears highly variable, indicating the  
possibility of some kind of flow control mechanism.





When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will  
immediately start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees.


This did not happen at the top exit port in the video.




Fortunately they do now measure the amount of water coming out.  
This opens a simple method for calculating:
To calculate the energy we dont need to know all these values. We  
must only know how much water /finally/ comes out of the hose,  
because the hose is thermical isolated. We must measure at the end  
of the hose, then the water has time to vaporize and the steam has  
time to expand its volume or time to condense until the temperature  
is 100 centigrade and the pressure is air pressure.
So we can assume the outcoming water is at 100 degrees and the  
(almost dry) steam is at 100. degrees.
If we know the input water flow and temperature and the output  
water flow the and temperature then we can calculate the energy  
because the difference must be vaporized at airpressure and 100  
degrees.
(When output flow < input flow then temperature of steam and water  
at air pressure must be about 100 centigrade. If this is not the  
case, then something is wrong)


Best,

Peter



I'll have to agree with Jed on this one, regarding using a barrel.   
Much easier to put a kWh meter on the input and sparge all the output  
into an insulated barrel. Not exactly a professional or high level of  
calorimetry, but way better than what has been done. Could use two  
barrels and switch to permit long term operation.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread ecat builder

It would have been nice to see two identical E-Cats, one is chosen at random
and charged with hydrogen, the other not... and power is added to both units
the same way. If the "active" one is clearly spewing more heat and steam,
anomalous heat would be assured.

Lets imagine that the next test shows conclusive proof of a new energy
source... 6 to 10 COP... When do the oil companies react and how? Solar and
wind power becomes much less competitive.. What else can we expect? Stock
prices, desert real estate prices, etc.   The skeptics vision of failure is
pretty easy to imagine! But the magic of this technology is the "what if"
factor...

- Brad

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Jed Rothwell

Colin Hercus  wrote:

> Of all the demos reported this new one is the least convincing and is a
> major disappointment.
>

I tend to agree, because power input was high and they did not measure total
enthalpy. However, the last 35 min. with no input power redeemed the test. I
do not think there is anyway you can explain that except as massive
anomalous energy.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Finlay MacNab

equation of everything dosen't mean thermal 
inertia 
has been ruled out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its 
thermal inertia but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a 
first 
principle. It is accepted without proof. 
 
If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and 
its temp goes up to 500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ 
will take the temp back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow 
complicates this simple picture but its far from certain that you've 
established 
that through proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput 
at the same rate and temperature so why should there be a 
difference?

  ----- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Finlay MacNab 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at 
  Nyteknik
  

  
Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with 
  no FLOWING WATER EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you 
  have only discredited your argument about thermal inertia. 
   Congratulations!
  

  I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please 
  describe in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for 
  the observed changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate 
of 
  heat exchange between water and metals/other materials and the heat 
capacities 
  of the various materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and 
  outputs to the device during its operation.
  

  5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that 
  what you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do 
  everyone here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal 
inertia" 
  can explain the rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up 
  your claims.  
  

  If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
  distracting from more interesting discussion.

  
  
  

  
  

  Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp 
  rise in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after 
  power-off.
  
    ----- Original Message - 
From: 
Mark 
Iverson-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 
4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at 
Nyteknik



JC 
stated:
“(and note that 
this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”
Where 
he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal 
temperature on startup…
 
Mr. 
Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of 
‘5’ and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression 
for resistance heater power…
 
Timestamp  
PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)
-  
---   --
18:59 
5 
0
19:10 
6 
   11
19:20 
7 
   10
19:30 
8 
   10
19:40 
9 
   10
 
We 
know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know 
exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan 
states ‘power was at this point 
constantly switched on’, 
then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  
 
Since 
the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% 
or 
60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up 
phase.
     
    -Mark 
    
     

    
From: Joe Catania 
[mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 
11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat 
news at Nyteknik
 

I think it caused 
a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power 
off 
is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of 
an 
E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in 
the 
ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously 
drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is 
much 
too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the 
fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power 
down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF 
regime to have begun.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:


Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the 
device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes.  It 
likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings.  The water 
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C. 


I think with this new method this is not so important.
There cannot be a large temperature difference between water steam and 
metal.


So we can assume the water and the steam are at 120 degree or more.
The pressure is above air pressure always.

When 120 degree water comes out, at air pressure it will immediately 
start to boil until the water temperature is 100 degrees.


Fortunately they do now measure the amount of water coming out. This 
opens a simple method for calculating:
To calculate the energy we dont need to know all these values. We must 
only know how much water /finally/ comes out of the hose, because the 
hose is thermical isolated. We must measure at the end of the hose, then 
the water has time to vaporize and the steam has time to expand its 
volume or time to condense until the temperature is 100 centigrade and 
the pressure is air pressure.
So we can assume the outcoming water is at 100 degrees and the (almost 
dry) steam is at 100. degrees.
If we know the input water flow and temperature and the output water 
flow the and temperature then we can calculate the energy because the 
difference must be vaporized at airpressure and 100 degrees.
(When output flow < input flow then temperature of steam and water at 
air pressure must be about 100 centigrade. If this is not the case, then 
something is wrong)


Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-15 Thread Joe Catania

>From the report:"The impression was that the loss of heating power was minor. 
>Consequently the heat produced by the E-cat in self sustained mode should have 
>been clearly larger than the heat from the power that was lost when the 
>electric resistance was switched off. " What a crock! A minor loss of heating 
>power is exactly what one expects from thermal inertia. There is no anomalous 
>heat.



Also since 1.8 grams were collected as overflow and only ~3 grams flowed in we 
have 1!.2 grams at most converted to steam. This means about 2700W. That's 
close enough for me to the 2600W input.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Finlay MacNab 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



  Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER 
EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have only discredited 
your argument about thermal inertia.  Congratulations!


  I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please describe 
in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed 
changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange 
between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various 
materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the 
device during its operation.


  5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what 
you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do everyone 
here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can 
explain the rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up your 
claims.  


  If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
distracting from more interesting discussion.


--


  Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as 
temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
- Original Message - 
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


JC stated:

“(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”

Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s 
internal temperature on startup…



Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ 
and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for 
resistance heater power…



Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

-  ---   --

18:59 5 0

19:10 611

19:20 710

19:30 810

19:40 910



We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not 
know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and 
Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting 
of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  



Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.



-Mark 



From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
    To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The 
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece 
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes 
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature 
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline 
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I 
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a 
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over 
and the CF regime to have begun.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

You're trying to be too exacting. I'm pointing out facts. Because I'm not 
giving you a equation of everything dosen't mean thermal inertia has been ruled 
out. Thus you've made a grave philosophical error. It means its thermal inertia 
but I haven't given you the equation. Thermal inertia is a first principle. It 
is accepted without proof. 

If I add 1 megajoule to a hunk of metal at room temp and its temp goes up to 
500C then it seems safe to assume that removing that 1MJ will take the temp 
back down to room temp. I'll admit that you're saying flow complicates this 
simple picture but its far from certain that you've established that through 
proof or equations. For instance in both cases cold water is imput at the same 
rate and temperature so why should there be a difference?
  - Original Message - 
  From: Finlay MacNab 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



  Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER 
EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have only discredited 
your argument about thermal inertia.  Congratulations!


  I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please describe 
in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed 
changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange 
between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various 
materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the 
device during its operation.


  5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what 
you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do everyone 
here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can 
explain the rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up your 
claims.  


  If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
distracting from more interesting discussion.


--


  Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as 
temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
- Original Message - 
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
    Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


JC stated:

“(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”

Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s 
internal temperature on startup…



Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ 
and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for 
resistance heater power…



Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

-  ---   --

18:59 5 0

19:10 611

19:20 710

19:30 810

19:40 910



We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not 
know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and 
Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting 
of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  



Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.



-Mark 



From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
    To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The 
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece 
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes 
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature 
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline 
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I 
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a 
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over 
and the CF regime to have begun.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Its a first principle.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Finlay MacNab 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

  Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER 
EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have only discredited 
your argument about thermal inertia.  Congratulations!

  I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please describe 
in detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed 
changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange 
between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various 
materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the 
device during its operation.

  5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what 
you describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do everyone 
here a favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can 
explain the rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up your 
claims.  

  If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
distracting from more interesting discussion.

--

  Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as 
temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
- Original Message - 
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
    Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

JC stated:

“(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)”

Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s 
internal temperature on startup…

Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ 
and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for 
resistance heater power…

Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

-  ---   --

18:59 5 0

19:10 611

19:20 710

19:30 810

19:40 910

We know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not 
know exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and 
Lewan states ‘power was at this point constantly switched on’, then a setting 
of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  

Since the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.

-Mark 

From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
    Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The 
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece 
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes 
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature 
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline 
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I 
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a 
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over 
and the CF regime to have begun.

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Finlay MacNab



Excellent observation!  If this was a closed system with no FLOWING WATER 
EXITING THE SYSTEM you would have a point.  As it is you have only discredited 
your argument about thermal inertia.  Congratulations!
I find your hand waving arguments completely unconvincing.  Please describe in 
detail the geometry of the system you propose could account for the observed 
changes in temperature taking into account the well known rate of heat exchange 
between water and metals/other materials and the heat capacities of the various 
materials.  Also, please account for the energy inputs and outputs to the 
device during its operation.
5 minutes with a text book will convince anyone with half a brain that what you 
describe is more improbable than cold fusion itself!  Please do everyone here a 
favor and give a rigorous explanation of how "thermal inertia" can explain the 
rossi device.  Please use equations and data to back up your claims.  
If you don't want to do this please stop spamming this message board and 
distracting from more interesting discussion.










Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise 
in 35 minutes as temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Mark 
  Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at 
  Nyteknik
  

  
  JC 
  stated:
  “(and note that this 
  takes considerable time in the ramp up)”
  Where 
  he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat’s internal 
  temperature on startup…
   
  Mr. 
  Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat’s resistance 
  heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of ‘5’ and RAMPED 
  UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for resistance 
  heater power…
   
  Timestamp  
  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)
  -  
  ---   --
  18:59 
  5 
  0
  19:10 
  6 
 11
  19:20 
  7 
 10
  19:30 
  8 
 10
  19:40 
  9 
 10
   
  We 
  know that the ‘Setting’ is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know 
  exactly what the relationship is… since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan 
  states ‘power was at this point 
  constantly switched on’, 
  then a setting of ‘9’ is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  
  
   
  Since 
  the PLC’s are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of ‘5’ is 50% or 
  60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
  calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up 
  phase.
   
  -Mark 
  
   
  
  
  From: Joe Catania 
  [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 
  11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat 
  news at Nyteknik
   
  
  I think it caused a 
  rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The temperature at power off is 
  too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece of metal the size of an 
  E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes considerable time in the 
  ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature will not instantaneously 
  drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline slowly. There is much 
  too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the 
  fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down 
  you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to 
  have begun.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Rich Murray

If the input water is municipal water, then it contains minerals,
which will deposit out as boiler scale within the device, changing its
temperature flow characteristics and internal geometry -- for
instance, partially blocking and thus constricting the smallest outlet
diameter, increasing the resistance to water flow, increasing the
internal water/steam pressure within the device, causing increases of
temperatures both of water and also of the heater resistor deep within
the device, along with the mass of metals, storing increased heat
energy in materials at various locations and temperatures -- if the
heating resistor starts to deteriorate from overheating and corrosion,
developing cracks, then it can short out the input electric voltage,
electrolyzing the water into H2 and O2 bubbles, and causing many other
complex electrochemical reactions with the impurities and dissolved
metals in the water at various locations, temperatures, and pressures
within the "witch's cauldron" -- eventually runaway short circuits can
destroy the heater resistor and explode the device...

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Joe Catania  wrote:
> If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself.

I have read the Art of War three times in my career of three decades
and learned much each time.

Regarding SVJ's "ken", his art is his self awareness and his
objectivity.  His Art is impressive.

You also impress me.  Impressions fill the spectrum.

T

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

When Aristotle explains in general terms what he tries to do in his 
philosophical works, he says he is looking for "first principles" (or 
"origins"; archai):
 In every systematic inquiry (methodos) where there are first principles, 
or causes, or elements, knowledge and science result from acquiring 
knowledge of these; for we think we know something just in case we acquire 
knowledge of the primary causes, the primary first principles, all the way 
to the elements. It is clear, then, that in the science of nature as 
elsewhere, we should try first to determine questions about the first 
principles. The naturally proper direction of our road is from things better 
known and clearer to us, to things that are clearer and better known by 
nature; for the things known to us are not the same as the things known 
unconditionally (haplôs). Hence it is necessary for us to progress, 
following this procedure, from the things that are less clear by nature, but 
clearer to us, towards things that are clearer and better known by nature. 
(Phys. 184a10-21)
- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Catania" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. If you have 
nothing to say why refer me to Sun Tzu. Are you saying he does have 
something to say?
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:


The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is
that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own
crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes.


It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere
in his analysis.

I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond.  Maybe
he is Sun Tzu reincarnated?  At least *that* would understandable.

T

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

If you want the response from Sun Tzu study it yourself. If you have nothing 
to say why refer me to Sun Tzu. Are you saying he does have something to 
say?
- Original Message - 
From: "Terry Blanton" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is
that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own
crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes.

It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere
in his analysis.

I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond.  Maybe
he is Sun Tzu reincarnated?  At least *that* would understandable.

T

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

What was personally communicated to me by JR is, of course, beyond SVJ's 
ken. You seem to keen to overllok data which shows up the obvious flaw in 
your CF bias.
- Original Message - 
From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

From Catania:

For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better
understand that from first principles not from a typo.

From: Jed Rothwell
Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once
Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and
then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input
at a flow rate of 185 ml/min.

See my message "Video time synced to real time." I will confirm
this with Lewan.

It has been a constant observation of mine that when Mr. Rothwell's
has suspected a potential mistake or perhaps a "typo" in published
data he has been quick to express his suspicions. Jed often quickly
seeks to correct previous assumptions, even if it contradicts previous
assessments he may have made.

Meanwhile, I noticed that Mr. Catania's response to Mr. Rothwell's
retraction appears to hinge on assuming a position of superiority by
challenging Jed - such that Jed had better understand the "first
principals". The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is
that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own
crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes.

I could say something about that, such as: we are only human. Some
more than others.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Terry Blanton

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
 wrote:

> The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is
> that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own
> crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes.

It does seem to imply that there is an inflated ego involved somewhere
in his analysis.

I suggested he study Sun Tzu and he did not bother to respond.  Maybe
he is Sun Tzu reincarnated?  At least *that* would understandable.

T

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

>From Catania:

> For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better
> understand that from first principles not from a typo.
>
>> From: Jed Rothwell
>> Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once
>> Catania is correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and
>> then rise. I expect it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input
>> at a flow rate of 185 ml/min.
>
>> See my message "Video time synced to real time." I will confirm
>> this with Lewan.

It has been a constant observation of mine that when Mr. Rothwell's
has suspected a potential mistake or perhaps a "typo" in published
data he has been quick to express his suspicions. Jed often quickly
seeks to correct previous assumptions, even if it contradicts previous
assessments he may have made.

Meanwhile, I noticed that Mr. Catania's response to Mr. Rothwell's
retraction appears to hinge on assuming a position of superiority by
challenging Jed - such that Jed had better understand the "first
principals". The implication I derive from Mr. Catania's response is
that he does not often seem to consider the possibility that his own
crafted assessments might occasionally be prone to similar mistakes.

I could say something about that, such as: we are only human. Some
more than others.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

They probably go from 80 to 100% in going from 8 to 9. So its obvious that 
thermal inertia would take it out about 2hrs.
- Original Message - 
From: "Alan J Fletcher" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

At 01:55 PM 9/14/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not 
know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and 
Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a 
setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)

Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.

Lewan did report that at setting "5" the "ON" and "OFF" times were equal.
So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Akira Shirakawa


On 2011-09-14 23:18, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Lewan wrote that PLC/9 is full cycle. Also, that is a single digit
decimal display. It don't go any higher than 9. Nine is it. Back in the
day it would have gone all hexadecimal on you: "9, A, B, C, D, E, F."
The programmers would smile knowingly and the civilians would wonder
what the heck that was doing in a numeric display.


By the way, that PLC works in 1/20 steps, not 1/10. Half steps are 
denoted by dotted numbers.


Cheers,
S.A.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Wrong, nothing like that mass is necessary.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011/9/14 Jed Rothwell :

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting
thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that
thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature
initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had
been cut off.

Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is
correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it
did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 
ml/min.

Indeed that temperature graph is suggesting that thermal inertia could
explain the behavior. This would work, if there is no inlet water
pumped. But as there is pumped about 5 kg of inlet water into E-Cat
during the self-sustaining mode, this would require that there is
metallic thermal mass something like in order of one ton. Of course as
there is lots of water, requirements are not that high, but still
thermal inertia cannot explain the behavior of E-Cat not, by two
orders of magnitude.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Well, at a setting of 9 you have the same temp rise in 35 minutes as 
temperature fall in 35 minutes after power-off.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:55 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

  JC stated:

  "(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)"

  Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's 
internal temperature on startup.

  Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's 
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of '5' 
and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for 
resistance heater power.

  Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

  -  ---   --

  18:59 5 0

  19:10 611

  19:20 710

  19:30 810

  19:40 910

  We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not know 
exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and Lewan 
states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a setting of '9' 
is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  

  Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is 
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful 
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.

  -Mark 

  From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

  I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The 
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece 
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes 
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature 
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline 
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I 
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a 
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over 
and the CF regime to have begun.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Horace Heffner



On Sep 14, 2011, at 12:44 PM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


2011/9/14 Horace Heffner :

I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever
going to actually do calorimetry on the output?


I will do it soon. Actually I am right now writing it. There are
plenty of ways to do calorimetry. Not all ways are written in the
engineer's manual.
[snip]
–Jouni



Interesting!  You are associated with Rossi?


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

For once? I only been saying that one thing- many times. But you'd better 
understand that from first principles not from a typo.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 4:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

  OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal 
measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia 
had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from 
131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off.

  Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is 
correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it did 
drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min.

  See my message "Video time synced to real time." I will confirm this with 
Lewan.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

Lewan did report that at setting "5" the "ON" and "OFF" times were equal.
> So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.
>

Lewan wrote that PLC/9 is full cycle. Also, that is a single digit decimal
display. It don't go any higher than 9. Nine is it. Back in the day it would
have gone all hexadecimal on you: "9, A, B, C, D, E, F." The programmers
would smile knowingly and the civilians would wonder what the heck that was
doing in a numeric display.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Alan J Fletcher


At 01:55 PM 9/14/2011, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint wrote:
We know that the Setting is referring to the 
duty cycle, but we do not know exactly what the 
relationship is since 9 is the MAXimum setting, 
and Lewan states power was at this point 
constantly switched on, then a setting of 9 
is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)


Since the PLCs are programmable, we cannot 
assume that a setting of 5 is 50% or 60%; it 
could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. 
So no useful calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.


Lewan did report that at setting "5" the "ON" and "OFF" times were equal.
So taking the duty cycle as PLC/9 is about as good as we can guess.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 09:52 AM 9/14/2011, Rich Murray wrote:
Richard M.  <  Any relation, I wonder?

September 14th, 2011 at 3:33 AM 
Dear Mr. Andrea Rossi,
If you could spare a bit of time, I have a few questions.
1)Could you please inform us as to the reactor core volume of the new
E-Cat modules? Have they increased in size from 50 cubic centimeter
modules? If so, what is their size and volume?
AR: 1- same density as before
2) Will the home or domestic units you mention utilize the same reactor
cores as the units in the one megawatt system?
AR: 2- no info about this is available
3) Will the self sustaining home or domestic units have to utilize an
input every 30 minutes, or will they be able to run continually without
input?
AR: 3- automatic operation
4) In the system featured by NyTeknik (very impressive by the way), is
all the liquid water coming out from the system condensed steam that has
cooled down while traveling down the tube? If so, the output energy is on
the high side of Nytekniks estimates.
AR: 4- yes 
Congratulations on the success you are having with the E-Cat! I hope you
obtain the funding you need so the expenses will not have to come out of
your own pocket.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011/9/14 Jed Rothwell :
> OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting
>> thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that
>> thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature
>> initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had
>> been cut off.
>
> Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is
> correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect it
> did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 ml/min.
>

Indeed that temperature graph is suggesting that thermal inertia could
explain the behavior. This would work, if there is no inlet water
pumped. But as there is pumped about 5 kg of inlet water into E-Cat
during the self-sustaining mode, this would require that there is
metallic thermal mass something like in order of one ton. Of course as
there is lots of water, requirements are not that high, but still
thermal inertia cannot explain the behavior of E-Cat not, by two
orders of magnitude.

–Jouni

RE: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint

JC stated:

"(and note that this takes considerable time in the ramp up)"

Where he is referring to the long time it takes to ramp up the E-Cat's
internal temperature on startup.

 

Mr. Catania, do you realize that the electrical power into the E-Cat's
resistance heater was NOT started at 100%, it was started at a setting of
'5' and RAMPED UP slowly over 40 minutes!  Here is the time progression for
resistance heater power.

 

Timestamp  PLC Setting   DeltaTime (minutes)

-  ---   --

18:59 5 0

19:10 611

19:20 710

19:30 810

19:40 910

 

We know that the 'Setting' is referring to the duty cycle, but we do not
know exactly what the relationship is. since 9 is the MAXimum setting, and
Lewan states 'power was at this point constantly switched on', then a
setting of '9' is presumably a 100% duty cycle. (?)  

 

Since the PLC's are programmable, we cannot assume that a setting of '5' is
50% or 60%; it could even be programmed to be 10% duty cycle. So no useful
calculations OR conclusions can be made during this ramp-up phase.

 

-Mark 

 

From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

 

I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a
piece of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this
takes considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the
temperature will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same
temperature and decline slowly. There is much too much mass for what your
talking about to happen. I have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the
temp drop even a hundredth of a degree at power down you would have declared
the thermal inertia regime over and the CF regime to have begun.

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011/9/14 Horace Heffner :
> I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever
> going to actually do calorimetry on the output?

I will do it soon. Actually I am right now writing it. There are
plenty of ways to do calorimetry. Not all ways are written in the
engineer's manual.

> Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the
> device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes.

Untrue.

>  It likely is
> directly heated by its metal surroundings.  The water pulsing out of the
> device is clearly not 130°C.  What is likely indirectly being measured by
> the thermometer is the build-up of temperature in the large masses of lead,
> and copper, etc. within the insulation.

Water contains most of the thermal mass, therefore metal temperature
is the same as water temperature.

I suggest for you to toy around with autoclave. E-Cat behaves here
exactly like autoclave. Pay especially attention when they opened the
pressure valve and released 121°C water out of the E-Cat. If you have
ever operated autoclave you will find this feeling very familiar.
There is just something fascinating in high pressure steam.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson > wrote:


   Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting
   thermal measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact
   that thermal inertia had already been taken into account when the
   temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon
   after input power had been cut off.


Okay, that's probably a typo, as shown in the video. For once Catania is 
correct. The temperature did not drop suddenly and then rise. I expect 
it did drop soon, given the loss of 2.5 kW input at a flow rate of 185 
ml/min.


See my message "Video time synced to real time." I will confirm this 
with Lewan.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Horace Heffner



On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:11 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:


See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

[snip]

This video also disproofs "wet steam hypothesis" as steam and hot
water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's
"atomization" of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should
be according normal steam physics.

–Jouni



"The quality of steam can be quantitatively described by steam  
quality (steam dryness), the proportion of saturated steam in a  
saturated water/steam mixture.[4] i.e., a steam quality of 0  
indicates 100% water while a steam quality of 1 (or 100%) indicates  
100% steam."  See:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_quality

Steam quality chi is given by:

   chi = (mass of vapor)/(mass total)

"Mass total" clearly includes liquid water, because a steam quality  
of 0 indicates 100% water by mass.


It would have been interesting to see the hose pulled off the older E- 
cats.  I have no doubt whatsoever water poured out of them and out  
the hose.  I see my calculations and assertions thoroughly  
vindicated.  The hose was pulled off as I suggested and water gushed  
out along with the steam.


I have to wonder if anyone associated with Rossi ever going to  
actually do calorimetry on the output?


Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside  
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes.  It  
likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings.  The water  
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C.  What is likely  
indirectly being measured by the thermometer is the build-up of  
temperature in the large masses of lead, and copper, etc. within the  
insulation. I expect the thermometer is probably still in a metal  
well. The only difference this time is the thermal resistance is much  
lower between that well and the large metal thermal mass.  Before the  
thermal wicking into the thermometer well easily could have accounted  
for a few °C, now it likely accounts for 30°C.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

They admit themselves that steam quality could be as low as 59%. The 
pressure in the E-Cat is probably near atmospheric.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011/9/14 Alan J Fletcher :

50% fluid water 2.5% drops 47.5% vapour

This must be noted that these estimations are when temperature was ca.
118 °C or 90 kPa overpressure. After that temperature rose to 133°C
and overpressure to 170 kPa. Therefore 60-80% of water was evaporated
and E-Cat did work exactly as it should work. Actually I am somewhat
puzzled that indeed E-Cat is working such a perfect way that Rossi can
push output power so close to the maximum of the enthalpy absorption
ability of cooling water. This is either sure sign that technology is
very commercially mature or it is a hoax. It is no more just a lab
prototype, but commercially ready prototype.

I was glad to see that he DOES have a simple water trap in the outlet 
hose,

which separates the fluid water.

I wonder if there is now enough evidence for the "steam quality"
people to see that even after such high pressure difference hot water
and steam are clearly separated. I wonder how history will remember
this steam quality chapter, when prominent people (such as Krivit and
Ekström) were violently discussing about steam quality without knowing
what steam quality actually means.

When Rossi opens the outlet the pressure of the water and steam is clearly
greater than atmospheric.

Indeed, for me it is very consistent pressure difference that of in
autoclave although I have never dared to open the valve that fast as
they did.

I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April)
and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming
a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose.
(I used an online calculator)

Actually the diameter of the orifice where the hose is attached is
probably the tightest place. And of course for steam backpressure, the
tightest place is what counts most. The diameter of the orifice is
considerably less than the inner diameter of the hose. I would
estimate it to be 5-10 mm. This should be consistent with ca. 1.0°C /
3.2 kPa overpressure and the steam volume that was produced ca. 2 kW
total power.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

>At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water 
>and steam comes out with remarkable pressure.
>Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open?

This troubled me too and I found it unexplainable until I thought that the 
valve, valve stem and metal were probably hot from having been previously 
heated by heater core. If their temperature had'nt dropped below 100C there 
could be considerable flahing to steam upon exit of water through the valve.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Peter Heckert 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:36 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


  Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck: 
a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode 


http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece 


  Here my Analysis:

  At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of water 
and steam comes out with remarkable pressure.
  Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open?
  Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure reduction 
valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it closes when the 
pressure sinks.
  This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure.

  Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated:
  (This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure)
  1 bar -> 120.2°
  1.5 bar -> 127.4°
  2.0 bar ->  133.5°
  2.5 bar -> 138.9°

  Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it has a 
temperature of 120°.
  Wenn it flows out it will vaporize partially and produce steam.

  This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose:
  The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a 
temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade.
  When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand to air 
(over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the steam will cool 
down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the output water flow at 
the steam outlet.

  So far my qualitative steam & temperature & pressure analysis.
  There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in 
self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop the 
pump and why?

  Best,

  Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

I think it caused a rise. There is no rise. Its your imagination. The
temperature at power off is too low and must be discarded. If I bring a piece
of metal the size of an E-Cat to some temperature (and note that this takes
considerable time in the ramp up) and then I cut the power, the temperature
will not instantaneously drop. It will stay at the same temperature and decline
slowly. There is much too much mass for what your talking about to happen. I
have to laugh at the fact that if you saw the temp drop even a hundredth of a
degree at power down you would have declared the thermal inertia regime over
and the CF regime to have begun.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:

Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal
measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal inertia
had already been taken into account when the temperature initially dropped from
131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off.

That data is from:

Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011 Analysis of calorimetry

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29

I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in
this report. We could have used that in previous reports.

As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in
self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after all.

I am still working through this report.

Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the
thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment attached
to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies and magnetic
fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple performance, the
people observing the experiment would have seen that happen immediately when
the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this could not explain the
temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off.

Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to
rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow rate
(rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Thermal
inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The highest
temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was turned off.

I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut
the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011/9/14 Alan J Fletcher :
>
> 50% fluid water  2.5% drops 47.5% vapour
>

This must be noted that these estimations are when temperature was ca.
118 °C or 90 kPa overpressure. After that temperature rose to 133°C
and overpressure to 170 kPa. Therefore 60-80% of water was evaporated
and E-Cat did work exactly as it should work. Actually I am somewhat
puzzled that indeed E-Cat is working such a perfect way that Rossi can
push output power so close to the maximum of the enthalpy absorption
ability of cooling water. This is either sure sign that technology is
very commercially mature or it is a hoax. It is no more just a lab
prototype, but commercially ready prototype.

> I was glad to see that he DOES have a simple water trap in the outlet hose,
> which separates the fluid water.
>

I wonder if there is now enough evidence for the "steam quality"
people to see that even after such high pressure difference hot water
and steam are clearly separated. I wonder how history will remember
this steam quality chapter, when prominent people (such as Krivit and
Ekström) were violently discussing about steam quality without knowing
what steam quality actually means.

> When Rossi opens the outlet the pressure of the water and steam is clearly
> greater than atmospheric.

Indeed, for me it is very consistent pressure difference that of in
autoclave although I have never dared to open the valve that fast as
they did.


> I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April)
> and hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming
> a 2cm internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose.
> (I used an online calculator)

Actually the diameter of the orifice where the hose is attached is
probably the tightest place. And of course for steam backpressure, the
tightest place is what counts most. The diameter of the orifice is
considerably less than the inner diameter of the hose. I would
estimate it to be 5-10 mm. This should be consistent with ca. 1.0°C /
3.2 kPa overpressure and the steam volume that was produced ca. 2 kW
total power.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Peter Heckert


Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck:

a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode



http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece


Here my Analysis:

At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of 
water and steam comes out with remarkable pressure.

Now, how can we have pressure when the steam outlet is still open?
Answer: The steam outlet is not open. Probably there is a pressure 
reduction valve in the oulet. This opens at 1-2 bar pressure and it 
closes when the pressure sinks.

This means inside the ecat is always 1-2 bar overpressure.

Saturated steam temperatures versus pressure tabulated:
(This is the over-pressure that is more than air pressure)
1 bar -> 120.2°
1.5 bar -> 127.4°
2.0 bar ->  133.5°
2.5 bar -> 138.9°

Now this explains why water and steam come out. Water comes out and it 
has a temperature of 120°.

Wenn it flows out it will vaporize partially and produce steam.

This also explains the water output flow at the steam hose:
The steam inside of the ecat has a pressure between 1 and 2 bar and a 
temperature between 120 and 133 centigrade.
When the steam passes the pressure reduction valve then it will expand 
to air (over) pressure of 0 bar. To do this, work must be done and the 
steam will cool down to 100° and partially condensate. This explains the 
output water flow at the steam outlet.


So far my qualitative steam & temperature & pressure analysis.
There is one thing that irritated me. When they show the e-cat in 
self-sustained mode, then I cannot hear the pump anymore. Did they stop 
the pump and why?


Best,

Peter

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Hello again, Mr. Catania,

I realize I'm just as guilty of using this term as you, but IMO the
continued use of the phrase, "thermal inertia" to explain the
interesting thermal temperature changes tends to confuse the issue
more than it helps. Technically speaking, what's happening here has
little to do with "inertia", certainly not in a mechanical sense.
"Inertia" implies that there are Newtonian/mechanical forces at play.
What we are trying to assess here are the effects of Thermal
Propagation - how heat transfers (migrates) throughout Rossi's eCat
configuration.

A more objective study of query would be to perform a Finite Element
Method simulation of the thermal effects in order to observe how
temperatures are alleged to propagate through Rossi's eCats.
Obviously, the computer model would have to be based on the physical
properties of Rossi's eCats as accurately as possible. Alas, I suspect
there are none on this forum that might possess the
dimensional/physical specifications of Rossi's eCats, or the technical
know-how on how to run the appropriate FEM s/w. As for me, I have
performed thousands of FEMM, (Finite Element Method Magnetic)
simulations, but never on the effects of thermal migration. Alas, I
can't be of much assistance.

With that said, I have read your comments several times. Your first
sentence starts out stating: "The data after power off are not
consistent with a temperature increase from before power off." You
continue with additional comments that confuse me even more. Perhaps
your command of the English language is not terribly good. I know I'm
dyslexic at times, so I try to give allowances the literary &
grammatical eccentricities of others. All I know is that I have yet to
understand what you are trying to say. I do know that you end by
saying I'm "...confused if [I] think [I] see anomalous production
after power off. That part I "get". ;-)

Indeed, perhaps I am confused, Mr. Catania. But then, perhaps the
confusion is at the other end.

Time will tell. I'm content to wait it out and see what develops.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson  wrote:

> Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original comment by posting thermal
> measurements that apparently reveal the interesting fact that thermal
> inertia had already been taken into account when the temperature initially
> dropped from 131.9 C down to 123.0 C soon after input power had been cut
> off.

That data is from:

*Test of Energy Catalyzer, Bologna, September 7, 2011* Analysis of
calorimetry

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29

I am glad to see Lewan included a fairly detailed time-stamped data log in
this report. We could have used that in previous reports.

As Lewan remarks, it is a shame they did not let it run another hour in
self-sustaining (heat after death) mode. But it was late at night, after
all.

I am still working through this report.

Someone here suggested that the power supplies might have affected the
thermocouples. I don't think so. Thermocouples and interface equipment
attached to them are designed to work around machines with power supplies
and magnetic fields. If the power supplies produced affected thermocouple
performance, the people observing the experiment would have seen that happen
immediately when the power went on, and again when it went off. Also this
could not explain the temperature rise 10 minutes after the power went off.

Catania apparently thinks that thermal inertia can cause a temperature to
rise when there is no internal power production and no change in the flow
rate (rate of heat loss). This is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
Thermal inertia can only produce a temperature that falls at some rate. The
highest temperature would have to be recorded just before the power was
turned off.

I believe the temperature could rise because of thermal inertia if you cut
the flow rate and if there were a very hot body inside the cell.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

The data after power off are not consistent with a temperature increase from 
before power off. In fact there is a steady decline from before power of 
which is completely consitent with thermal inertia. The thermal inertia is 
of course more than a two minute effect in this E-Cat as examination of the 
heat-up data and post power-down data confirm. Also this is inline w/ 
estimates of the mass of metal in E-Cat. You're confused if you think you 
see anomalous production after power-off.
- Original Message - 
From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



Mr. Catania,

What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did
nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the
effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been
accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original
comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the
interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into
account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to
123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five
minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only
that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded
temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2
degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal
inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of
thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER
particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the
temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make
no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be
responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input
power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been
previously recorded to have been dropping.

BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a "fool" is no way to go about
winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect
your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most
here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the
thermal inertia situation than you.

Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of
this forum.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson

Mr. Catania,

What I found interesting about latest reply was the fact that you did
nothing more than restate your previous comment, basically that the
effects of thermal inertia in the recorded measurements have not been
accounted for. Meanwhile, Mr. Rothwell replied to your original
comment by posting thermal measurements that apparently reveal the
interesting fact that thermal inertia had already been taken into
account when the temperature initially dropped from 131.9 C down to
123.0 C soon after input power had been cut off. But amazingly, five
minutes later, measurements recorded a 10 degree increase. Not only
that, this sudden increase was apparently HIGHER than the recorded
temperature when the input power was still on - by approximately 2
degrees. This implies that any residual effects pertaining to thermal
inertia had already been accounted for long ago. The effects of
thermal inertia cannot magically make a device suddenly become HOTTER
particularly if previous measurements were revealing the fact that the
temperature was already in the process of dropping. It therefore make
no sense to imply that the effects of thermal inertia could be
responsible for a sudden 10 C increase five minutes after all input
power had been cut off - especially when the temperature had been
previously recorded to have been dropping.

BTW, proclaiming that Mr. Rothwell is a "fool" is no way to go about
winning friends and influencing people to your POV. In fact, I suspect
your latest actions have done nothing more than to suggest to most
here that Jed has probably done a far better job of analyzing the
thermal inertia situation than you.

Learn to be civil in the presentation of you POVs or get kicked out of
this forum.

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Alan J Fletcher



At 05:00 AM 9/14/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
These test results are indeed
difficult to explain. 
And (regrettably) incomplete. We know that the power to the resistor was
being cycled on and  off, but not the actual duty ratio!
Water came out -- but we don't know its temperature.
I have one
question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam
engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at
boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course.
However, I cannot explain 130Â°C temperature if assumed low pressure
inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low
so
that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input
power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature
graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by
the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130Â°C/170 kPa pressure
requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it
is
not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is
consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous
e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support
the
idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point
temperature
at local pressure.
I plugged a couple of values into my calculator just to see the shape of
things (I used the total input water flow, and a 100% power duty
cycle).
First, presuming it boiled at atmospheric pressure, and was then
superheated to 130


http://tinyurl.com/ecat-lewan-sep-superheated 
This is what would happen if it boiled at 130 and produced steam quality
of 0.5 (all the overflow water)

http://tinyurl.com/ecat-lewan-sep-boil130 
The "chimney" could act as a pressure-reducer.

Could someone calculate the size
of orifice for steam exit, to explain
130Â°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is
assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using
previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite
small,
just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that
it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps
water
with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the
data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why
the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating,
because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure
IIRC.
I estimated the pressure drop through the mini eCat (March/April) and
hose -- it only came out to be (as I recall) about 3% -- assuming a 2cm
internal diameter pipe in the reactor and a 1cm diameter hose. (I used an
online calculator)
It's hard to explain a temperature increase by thermal storage.

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

No. Admittedly the temperature drop at powerdown may or may not be valid. In 
fact if there's any magnetic field associated with the heating coils there 
could be some EMF from shutting it down. It would seem to be an anomaly if we 
assume it was measuring anything with thermal mass. Just notice that the next 
valid reading is at the level it was before power off. There does seem to be 
some inaccuracy (or at least variation) in the thermometry. For instance the 
anomalous drop in T1 to 21.4 at 21:10. Aside from a couple of obvious glitches 
there is nothing thyere that dosen't suggest the temperature decay expected 
from thermal inertia causes. In fact it is not possible to rule out thermal 
inertia at all as it must exist. It's as likely that the gravitational field 
suddenly ceased to exist as thermal inertia was eliminated. In any case even if 
this was a demo of anomalous heat the explanation certainly wouldn't be CF. 
There's no way to justify that. In my opinion more study needs to be done on 
the heating core.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Roarty, Francis X 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:32 PM
  Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik


  Any mass  has a certain gradient described in temp/time for thermal gain or 
loss. I think Jed was specifying the period where the temperature rebounded 
higher than it existed while being heated by input power. That seems anomalous 
to me made more curious by the initial drop in temp when the input power is 
initially removed - the extra temp would seem to indicate the reaction has 
reinitiated without the resistive heating. My posit is that the active heating 
has opposite effects on the reaction cavities where the dominant heat is being 
generated by  nominal nano scale cavities while there also exist some  hot 
spots of sub nano geometry that are held from runaway by the pulse width 
modulation - I suspect that these pockets can finally start to run away when 
the PWM is removed and quickly grow to the point where they start to reignite 
the larger cavities in place of the PWM. This would also explain Rossi's 
concern about damage - not only to the pico cavities melting down and losing 
the ability to operate closed loop but also over stimulating the larger 
cavities to plastic hot conditions where the stiction forces would alleviate 
the Casimir geometries.[melting closed or growing perpendicular whiskers]

  Fran

   

  From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:11 AM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

   

  A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It 
certainly does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent 
withy thermal inertia being the cause. 

- Original Message - 

From: Jed Rothwell 

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM

    Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

 

Joe Catania  wrote:

   

  The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell 
you that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long?

 

At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at 
this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the 
expected amount.

 

At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it 
was with electric power input.

 

By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C.

 

Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law 
of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot 
rise without some source of energy production within the cell.

 

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Rich Murray

Amazing persistence with consistence by Rossi and unskilled observers,
as yet again a flawed demo that provides partial and inadequate
evidence and information for settling the issue of whether there is
indeed any excess heat or other anomalies...

Naturally, a pragmatic skeptic will consider how the electric heater
would be the source of the temperature fluctuations...

There needs to be detailed information about the location of the
thermister, the actual mass and geometry of the interior of the
device, and tests to determine its thermal mass and average heat
capacity -- also heat capacity may vary with flow rate, temperature,
and pressure -- if the heater heats a local region with substantial
mass to temperatures much higher than the 130 deg C (water, steam,
both?) outside the local region, then with electric power shut off,
that heat in the hot local region will continue to flow into the wider
region where the water flows, increasing its temperature a few
degrees... so not a heat after death LENR miracle, but just complex
thermal inertia...

As Spock often noted, human behavior is constantly facinating in the
variety of its strangeness...

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Roarty, Francis X

Any mass  has a certain gradient described in temp/time for thermal gain or 
loss. I think Jed was specifying the period where the temperature rebounded 
higher than it existed while being heated by input power. That seems anomalous 
to me made more curious by the initial drop in temp when the input power is 
initially removed - the extra temp would seem to indicate the reaction has 
reinitiated without the resistive heating. My posit is that the active heating 
has opposite effects on the reaction cavities where the dominant heat is being 
generated by  nominal nano scale cavities while there also exist some  hot 
spots of sub nano geometry that are held from runaway by the pulse width 
modulation - I suspect that these pockets can finally start to run away when 
the PWM is removed and quickly grow to the point where they start to reignite 
the larger cavities in place of the PWM. This would also explain Rossi's 
concern about damage - not only to the pico cavities melting down and losing 
the ability to operate closed loop but also over stimulating the larger 
cavities to plastic hot conditions where the stiction forces would alleviate 
the Casimir geometries.[melting closed or growing perpendicular whiskers]
Fran

From: Joe Catania [mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:11 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly 
does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy 
thermal inertia being the cause.
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell<mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Joe Catania mailto:zrosumg...@aol.com>> wrote:

The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you that 
the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long?

At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at 
this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the 
expected amount.

At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it was 
with electric power input.

By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C.

Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law of 
thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot 
rise without some source of energy production within the cell.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

A) You're a fool to tell me that the E-Cat has no thermal inertia. It certainly 
does. This is unavoidable. B) The data given are certainly consistent withy 
thermal inertia being the cause. 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Jed Rothwell 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

  Joe Catania  wrote:

The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you 
that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long?

  At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at 
this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is the 
expected amount.

  At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it 
was with electric power input.

  By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C.

  Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law 
of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature cannot 
rise without some source of energy production within the cell.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Joe Catania  wrote:

The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you
> that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long?


At 22:35 input electric power was 2.5 kW. All electric power was cut off at
this time. The temperature dropped from 131.9°C down to 123.0°C, which is
the expected amount.

At 22:40, 5 minutes later, the temperature rose to 133.7°C, higher than it
was with electric power input.

By 23:10 when the run ended, the temperature had fallen to 122.7°C.

Stored heat cannot explain this behavior. That would violate the second law
of thermodynamics. Since the flow rate remained stable, the temperature
cannot rise without some source of energy production within the cell.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

The E-Cat ran for 35 minutes without electrical power? Did anyone tell you 
that the thermal inertia will run the E-Cat for that long?
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

This video confirms my previous assumption above, that new E-Cat is
operating approximately 170 kPa overpressure. Also it confirms that
roughly 5 kW excess heat was produced. I have not yet made accurate
analysis for calorimetry, but I think that we have now even better
data than previously and we can calculate total enthalpy by at least
one significant number.

This video also disproofs "wet steam hypothesis" as steam and hot
water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's
"atomization" of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should
be according normal steam physics.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece

This video confirms my previous assumption above, that new E-Cat is
operating approximately 170 kPa overpressure. Also it confirms that
roughly 5 kW excess heat was produced. I have not yet made accurate
analysis for calorimetry, but I think that we have now even better
data than previously and we can calculate total enthalpy by at least
one significant number.

This video also disproofs "wet steam hypothesis" as steam and hot
water are clearly separated. There is definitely not Abd's
"atomization" of water, but steam quality is ca. 99-98% as it should
be according normal steam physics.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Good catch. Yes I've commented about how I dtested this method of weighing 
before. I seem to have forgotten how he did it but I can see it is prone to 
inaccuracy. He only fills it to 20 bars. He'd have to buy me many dinners to 
convince me of this. All in all the rest of the report is sloppy or full on 
inconsistencies. A seemingly bad temperature measurement shows up. He admits 
to water overflow. He guesses about the 130 degree temperature. The curreny 
number seems to bounce around from 11A to .11A even when the power is off 
but most glaringly he attributes what is clearly thermal inertia to CF in so 
many words!
- Original Message - 
From: "Man on Bridges" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik



Hi,

On 14-9-2011 15:05, Joe Catania wrote:
I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik 
Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling 
with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas 
hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain.


It seems you misunderstood the term "filling".
It means filling the Rossi rector and NOT the Hydrogen bottle.
These numbers apply to the Hydrogen bottle only and not the Rossi reactor.
So filling in this case means removing or better said using from the 
bottle of Hydrogen.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 14-9-2011 15:05, Joe Catania wrote:
I have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik 
Preliminary Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling 
with hydrogen. But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas 
hydrogen at 60 bar weighs 120 so you should see a gain.


It seems you misunderstood the term "filling".
It means filling the Rossi rector and NOT the Hydrogen bottle.
These numbers apply to the Hydrogen bottle only and not the Rossi reactor.
So filling in this case means removing or better said using from the 
bottle of Hydrogen.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29, I 
have to laugh at the hydrogen weight measurement in the Nyteknik Preliminary 
Report. The report a 2.7 gram drop in weight after filling with hydrogen. 
But an average air molecule weighs about 28 whereas hydrogen at 60 bar 
weighs 120 so you should see a gain.
- Original Message - 
From: "Jouni Valkonen" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

These test results are indeed difficult to explain. I have one
question to those who have some or partial expert knowledge on steam
engineering: Does they use superheated steam or steam that is at
boiling point of local pressure? My guess is latter of course.

However, I cannot explain 130°C temperature if assumed low pressure
inside E-Cat, because specific temperature of steam is just too low so
that it could produce such a smooth temperature graph. E.g. input
power cut off should cause huge bump into graph. Smooth temperature
graph should be only plausible, if steam temperature is regulated by
the boiling point at local pressure. But for 130°C/170 kPa pressure
requirements are quite high, higher than in autoclave, although it is
not out of question. Also 5 kg/h water collected from outlet, is
consistent that 60-80% of water was evaporated, just like previous
e-Cat experiments (excluding March experiment). This would support the
idea that steam temperature is regulated by boiling point temperature
at local pressure.

Could someone calculate the size of orifice for steam exit, to explain
130°C temperature corresponding 170 kPa over pressure? If it is
assumed that E-Cat produces steam in ca. 9 kW total power. Using
previous E-Cat demonstrations as reference, it should be quite small,
just few millimeters. Unlike what Mats Lewan estimated, I think that
it may be big enough to enable water to overflow, as pump pumps water
with sufficient pressure. Also I have not yet carefully studied the
data, but I would guess that 170 kPa over pressure could explain why
the water pumping rate was decreased after E-Cat started operating,
because pump pumps water only with 300 kPa pressure IIRC.

But, this seems more plausible 1MW production plant. I think that
later development can boost individual module output power at least
few orders of magnitude. It should be possible, if sufficient cooling
is arranged, that there is 1 GW power plant fitted to the similar
sized container. Anyways, my confidence for E-Cat has increased
somewhat due to this new experiment. This really is starting to look
commercially viable prototype. This would also decrease the main
problem with Rossi that he chose very irrational method for bringing
this cat out of the closed. He really seems to be ready to go directly
into market without spending lots of public resources for R&D.

–Jouni

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

Peter Heckert  wrote:

> Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 grams
> of hydrogen between April and September.
> Does this make sense?
> How much H2 is typically inside the bottle?

It is probably leaking a little. I have not seen the hardware, but based on
Rossi's other devices, I doubt it is as gas-tight as something like a
laboratory-grade Swagelok connector.

Also, it is hard to measure such small amounts of gas accurately.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik

2011-09-14 Thread Man on Bridges


Hi,

On 14-9-2011 12:05, Peter Heckert wrote:
Can this be? The Hydrogen bottle lost 25 bar of pressure and about 42 
grams of hydrogen between April and September.

Does this make sense?


Well the following table is what the conditions might have been of the 
bottle;
Presumed the contents of the bottle is 150 liter and the constant for 
this specific case is assumed 40;
other numbers work as well, as long as the data in all fields in the 
same column for Volume and Constant is kept all the same.

I leave it up to you to decide if this is feasible.

DatePressureVolume  Boyle   Temp
Bottle  P*V/T   P*V/c
(bar)   (liter) (deg. K)(deg. C)
April 19, 2011  85  150 40  318,75  45,6
April 28, 2011  85  150 40  318,75  45,6
September 7, 2011   60  150 40  225 -48,15


The difference in 42 grams is easily explained; Rossi has done several 
other tests in the period between April 28 and September 7, in fact 
between April 19 and April 28 most likely also a test was performed by 
Rossi, due to the difference of 0.3 grams.


Kind regards,

MoB

Re: [Vo]:E-cat news at Nyteknik