Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Joe Catania]

Rossi's hose may be longer but the 25W/m cooling rate is much to small to 
explain Levi's  statement that 50% of the steam is condensing in the hose.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Horace Heffner 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:22 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates




  On Aug 23, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Alan Fletcher  wrote:

  a.. Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- 
at 3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.)
  This is operating as a TUBE Boiler.



Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of 
the top? I am sure this is the case. You can see that from the temperatures as 
well.


  You can not tell there is overflowing from the temperature traces, as far as 
I can see.  The outlet temperature (the red curve) remains flat, stabilizing at 
the boiling temperature at that elevation of about 94.5 degrees.  The 
temperature in the lower part of the boiler becomes unstable when cold water is 
pumped in, but this does not indicate whether water is overflowing at the top 
or not. 






This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan.


  How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the E-Cat?






I think Rossi's hose is much longer than Cantwell's so it gives off more 
heat and holds more condensed water.


- Jed




  Best regards,



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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner  wrote:


> This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan.
>
>
> How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from the
> E-Cat?
>

In some of the videos he showed the hose removed from the bucket for a few
minutes with steam emerging. There were no periodic slugs of water (or
"percolating") during this time. As Alan Fletcher points out, at 7 L/h and
only 800 W there should be percolating every 7 s or so, and at 5 L/h it
should happen roughly every 30 s, assuming it works like the Cantwell
simulation. Even if these numbers are off, there would be some percolation.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 5:35 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Alan Fletcher  wrote:

Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet --  
at 3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.)

This is operating as a TUBE Boiler.


Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring  
over of the top? I am sure this is the case. You can see that from  
the temperatures as well.


You can not tell there is overflowing from the temperature traces, as  
far as I can see.  The outlet temperature (the red curve) remains  
flat, stabilizing at the boiling temperature at that elevation of  
about 94.5 degrees.  The temperature in the lower part of the boiler  
becomes unstable when cold water is pumped in, but this does not  
indicate whether water is overflowing at the top or not.





This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by  
Lewan.


How is it shown by Lewan's videos that water does not overflow from  
the E-Cat?





I think Rossi's hose is much longer than Cantwell's so it gives off  
more heat and holds more condensed water.


- Jed



Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Joe Catania]

I disagree that what happens in the horizontal tube is nor relevant. If steam 
bubbles up through cold water rather than hot makes much difference. Also if 2g 
of water is turned into dry steam the volume of steam is ~ 3.5L. 3.5L per 
second of gas bubbling through a small volume of liquid will be able to entrain 
most of the liquid and carry it out of the E-Cat. This takes very little energy.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Alan J Fletcher 
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates


  At 05:43 AM 8/23/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:

Some consolidated and clarified text follows.

  ... I'm heading out for a couple of days, so I don't have time to check your 
method or numbers


(assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of:

  Isn't that a bit low?

  You still need to take into account the fact that the output in mode 1 is VD 
(Vapour+Drops), and in modes 2 and 3 it's FVD(Fluid+Vapour+Drops)



In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with  
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about  
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect,  
should be more apparent.

  The "percolator" effect is a bit confusing, because it depends on a) a 
build-up of water and b) enough steam to blow the accumulated water up the tube 
(in the flow regimes I'd call it a "slug" of water.)

  From your separate post, I'd put in a transparent outlet and collect fluid 
water at two points.

  Schematically  (you need a non-proportional font here)

 hose (sloping)
Chimney ==#=#==  Gas (Vapor+Drops) ---> sparge
 || T   || T
 || ||
 || ||
   | || | | || |
   |W||W| |W||W|
   |W||W| |W||W|
   |W||W| |W||W|
   |W||W| |W||W|
   |W||W| |W||W|
   || ||
   ** **
   Overflow Fluid Condensed Fluid

  The hose should slope, with NO valleys/kinks that could collect water.
  "T" is a T-junction (possibly with a tap). Would be good to have a 
thermometer here, too.
  Catch the Overflow fluid and condensed fluid separately.

  You could sparge the final output. (With Jed's method sparge into a tank with 
a lower water height than the traps I've shown.)


  >Joe Catania
  > Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:21 -0700
  >I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant 
for this type of experiment. >Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much 
higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good >comparison with this 
aspect of Rossi's device.

  What happens in the horizontal tube is only of academic interest. The 
vertival tube is the most important for considering flow regimes.


  > Jouni Valkonen
  > Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:52:49 -0700


> Alan, you should explain more. I fail completely see your
point, how does it
> confirm your hypothesis? 

See my reply to Jed.

> Or at least you cannot make any calculations from
> your idea of "dryout", 

*I* can't calculate the dryout points at the moment ... but others HAVE
for different situations.

> therefore it seems to be rather irrelevant concept.
If everything had been done right it wouldn't be necessary. 

My aim here is to "eliminate" the left-half of NASA's
Temp-Enthalpy diagram.

> You also are misusing physical concepts. E-Cat produces always high
quality
steam and hot water, but never low quality steam. You can only make low
quality steam by cooling rapidly high pressure steam and these
conditions
might happen in steam turbines. But E-Cat is working roughly at constant
pressure (3.3kPa pressure difference is insignificant), therefore the
steam
quality is there always ca. 98% (±0.015).

That 98% is true for a kettle boiler, but I don't think it IS for a TUBE
boiler.
You can't NOT boil a kettle, but you can cut off a tube at any suitable
point.
(In nukes, to AVOID dryout = burnout).

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Alan J Fletcher]

At 05:43 AM 8/23/2011, Horace Heffner wrote:
Some consolidated and clarified
text follows.
... I'm heading out for a couple of days, so I don't have time to check
your method or numbers
(assuming a 94 °C boiling point)
of:
Isn't that a bit low?
You still need to take into account the fact that the output in mode 1 is
VD (Vapour+Drops), and in modes 2 and 3 it's
FVD(Fluid+Vapour+Drops)

In mode 3 it will take longer
for the copper device to fill with  
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates
about  
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect, 

should be more apparent.
The "percolator" effect is a bit confusing, because it depends
on a) a build-up of water and b) enough steam to blow the accumulated
water up the tube (in the flow regimes I'd call it a "slug" of
water.)
 From your separate post, I'd put in a transparent outlet and collect
fluid water at two points.
Schematically  (you need a non-proportional font here)

  
hose (sloping)
  Chimney ==#=#==  Gas (Vapor+Drops)
---> sparge
   ||
T  
|| T
  
||
||
  
||
||
 | ||
|
| || |

|W||W|
|W||W|

|W||W|
|W||W|

|W||W|
|W||W|

|W||W|
|W||W|

|W||W|
|W||W|

||
||

**
**
 Overflow
Fluid Condensed
Fluid
The hose should slope, with NO valleys/kinks that could collect
water.
"T" is a T-junction (possibly with a tap). Would be good to
have a thermometer here, too.
Catch the Overflow fluid and condensed fluid separately.
You could sparge the final output. (With Jed's method sparge into
a tank with a lower water height than the traps I've shown.)

>Joe Catania
> Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:37:21 -0700
>I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably
significant for this type of experiment. >Cantwell's copper tube
diameter may not be much higher than his heater diameter thus it may not
be a good >comparison with this aspect of Rossi's device.
What happens in the horizontal tube is only of academic interest. The
vertival tube is the most important for considering flow
regimes.

> Jouni Valkonen
> Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:52:49 -0700
> Alan, you should explain more. I fail completely see your
point, how does it
> confirm your hypothesis? 

See my reply to Jed.

> Or at least you cannot make any calculations from
> your idea of "dryout", 

*I* can't calculate the dryout points at the moment ... but others HAVE
for different situations.

> therefore it seems to be rather irrelevant concept.
If everything had been done right it wouldn't be necessary. 

My aim here is to "eliminate" the left-half of NASA's
Temp-Enthalpy diagram.

> You also are misusing physical concepts. E-Cat produces always high
quality
steam and hot water, but never low quality steam. You can only make low
quality steam by cooling rapidly high pressure steam and these
conditions
might happen in steam turbines. But E-Cat is working roughly at constant
pressure (3.3kPa pressure difference is insignificant), therefore the
steam
quality is there always ca. 98% (±0.015).

That 98% is true for a kettle boiler, but I don't think it IS for a TUBE
boiler.
You can't NOT boil a kettle, but you can cut off a tube at any suitable
point.
(In nukes, to AVOID dryout = burnout).

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan Fletcher  wrote:


>
>- Percolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the outlet -- at
>3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 seconds.)
>
>  This is operating as a TUBE Boiler.
>
>
Do you mean it is overflowing? Water mixed with steam is pouring over of the
top? I am sure this is the case. You can see that from the temperatures as
well.

This does not happen with the eCat, as shown in the videos made by Lewan.

I think Rossi's hose is much longer than Cantwell's so it gives off more
heat and holds more condensed water.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Joe Catania]

Cantwell should attempt steam quality measurements on his device. This 
should include continuous measurement of steam velocity at exit which can be 
done with a fairly inexpensive probe.
- Original Message - 
From: "Horace Heffner" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates



On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


I've been having some off-vortex action with this.

Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php

My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a  Rick 
Cantwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

(It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the  surface 
of the tubes, not inside).


It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.





It appears to me a significant deficiency with this experiment is
similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations, namely, it
is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially at
the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some that
the water is due entirely to steam condensation which occurs in the
hose. This may not be the case.

Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See:

http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html

Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device
should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an
insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure
water, See

http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html

A smaller (actually probably inconsequential since the experiments
were run to equilibrium conditions), problem might be that Rossi's
more recent demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large
diameter boiler area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical
section, just the opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's
experiment. A short rise narrow tube should be more capable of
supporting a percolator effect - which dumps liquid water into the
hose, i.e. comes to equilibrium flows faster.

It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device
pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid.  No overflow
or percolator effects should be present because the device, at
equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top.
Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and
water condensation in the hose, should be exactly the same.  It is
not.  Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected
into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes.

Now to take a more quantitative look at this.

At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass
flow.  At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow.

In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase
(second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw
(assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of:

   Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W

In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase
(second experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of:

   Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W

In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the
water.

In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the
water.

In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s.

In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s.

In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:

   R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s

In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:

   R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s

In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect,
should be more apparent.

Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of
the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that
all the water is converted to steam.  The controller in the Rossi
device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it,
assuming no power storage in the device.  The input power was
measured as constant.  If the controller maintains a constant power
demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to
resistors in the controller itself.  It is notable that 4 muffin fans
were shown in the E-cat.   If the controller periodically reduces
power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent power of the
device dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped out of the E-
cat and down the hose.  Demonstrating steam production is obviously
best accomplished when

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

Some consolidated and clarified text follows.

It appears a significant deficiency of Rick Cantwells experiment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

is similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations; namely,  
it is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially  
at the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some  
individuals that the output water is due entirely to steam  
condensation which occurs in the hose. This may not be the case.


Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use  
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is  
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See:


http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html

Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device  
should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an  
insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure  
water, See


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html

A smaller problem (probably inconsequential since the experiments  
were run to equilibrium conditions) might be that Rossi's more recent  
demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large diameter boiler  
area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical section, just the  
opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's experiment. A short  
rise narrow tube should be more capable of supporting a percolator  
effect - which dumps liquid water into the hose, i.e. should come to  
equilibrium flows faster.


It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device  
pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid.  No overflow  
or percolator effects should be present because the device, at  
equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top.  
Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and  
thus water condensation in the hose, should be greatest in mode 1,  
because no energy is being used to heat the water once equilibrium is  
reached in mode 1.  More steam production should result in more  
condensation in the hose.  Much less condensation happens in mode 1  
than in modes 2 and 3.  Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water  
is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in the  
second two run modes.


Now to take a more quantitative look at this.

At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass  
flow.  At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow.


In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase  
(second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw  
(assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of:


   Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W

In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase  
(third experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of:


   Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W

In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the  
water.


In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the  
water.


In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s.

In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s.

In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:

   R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s

In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:

   R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s

In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with  
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about  
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect,  
should be more apparent.


Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of  
the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that  
all the water is converted to steam.  The controller in the Rossi  
device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it,  
assuming no power storage in the device.  The input power was  
measured as constant.  If the controller maintains a constant power  
demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to  
resistors in the controller itself.  It is notable that 4 muffin fans  
were shown in the E-cat controller.   If the controller periodically  
reduces power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent output  
power of the E-cat dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped  
out of the E-cat and down the hose.  Demonstrating steam production  
is obviously best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to  
actually boiling water, as opposed to heating water, in the E-cat.   
To perpetrate a fraud using a device like the one demonstrated by  
Rick Cantwell, but using a controller, an operator would have to know  
when maximum power were being supplied by the controller, perhaps by  
sound, or have to have a manual switch to change modes. This is not  
to sa

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 22, 2011, at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



Regarding the video, Rick does good work.

- Jed




Yes, indeed!

However, it appears he forgot to wear his lab coat!  8^)

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

I just now wrote: "It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown in the  
E-cat."


This should have said: "It is notable that 4 muffin fans were shown  
in the E-cat controller."


Sigh.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

I just now wrote: "Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the  
steam generation, and water condensation in the hose, should be  
exactly the same.  It is not.  Therefore it is reasonable that liquid  
water is being injected into the hose when flowing water is used in  
the second two run modes."


This should have said:"Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs,  
the steam generation, and thus water condensation in the hose, should  
be greatest in mode 1, because no energy is being used to heat the  
water once equilibrium is reached in mode 1.  More steam production  
should result in more condensation in the hose.  Much less  
condensation happens in mode 1 than in modes 2 and 3.  Therefore it  
is reasonable that liquid water is being injected into the hose when  
flowing water is used in the second two run modes."



Best regards,

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

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Horace Heffner]

On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote:


I've been having some off-vortex action with this.

Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php

My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a  
Rick Cantwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

(It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the  
surface of the tubes, not inside).


It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.





It appears to me a significant deficiency with this experiment is  
similar to a major deficiency of Rossi's demonstrations, namely, it  
is not possible to tell what is happening in the hose, especially at  
the exit of the copper device. It appears to be assumed by some that  
the water is due entirely to steam condensation which occurs in the  
hose. This may not be the case.


Something that would obviously be helpful for demos would be the use  
of translucent tubing, such as polyamide (nylon) tubing, which is  
good up to 100 °C, instead of black rubber. See:


http://www.graylineinc.com/tubing-materials/nylon.html

Any means of clearly observing what comes out of the copper device  
should be useful. As I noted earlier, steam quality is almost an  
insignificant issue compared to the potential of overflow of pure  
water, See


http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48633.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg48653.html

A smaller (actually probably inconsequential since the experiments  
were run to equilibrium conditions), problem might be that Rossi's  
more recent demo, filmed by Steve Krivit, has a horizontal large  
diameter boiler area, followed by a short smaller diameter vertical  
section, just the opposite of the arrangement of Rick Cantwell's  
experiment. A short rise narrow tube should be more capable of  
supporting a percolator effect - which dumps liquid water into the  
hose, i.e. comes to equilibrium flows faster.


It is notable that, in mode 1, when no water flows into the device  
pure steam comes out of the hose and very little liquid.  No overflow  
or percolator effects should be present because the device, at  
equilibrium operation, is not filled with water to near the top.  
Since 800 W is used for each of the 3 runs, the steam generation, and  
water condensation in the hose, should be exactly the same.  It is  
not.  Therefore it is reasonable that liquid water is being injected  
into the hose when flowing water is used in the second two run modes.


Now to take a more quantitative look at this.

At 7 liters per hour water flow there is roughly 1.94 gm/s mass  
flow.  At 5.5 kg per hour there is 1.53 gm/s water flow.


In mode 2, at 1.94 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase  
(second experiment mode) we have a heating power of water Pw  
(assuming a 94 °C boiling point) of:


   Pw = (1.94 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(72 K) = 586 W

In mode 3, at 1.53 gm/s flow rate, and 78 K temperature increase  
(second experiment mode) we have heating power of water Pw of:


   Pw = (1.53 gm/s)*(4.2 J/(gm K))*(74 K) = 476 W

In mode 2 this leaves 800 W - 586 W = 214 W for actually boiling the  
water.


In mode 3 this leaves 800 W - 476 W = 324 W for actually boiling the  
water.


In mode 2 we have a boiling rate of (214 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.095 gm/s.

In mode 3 we have a boiling rate of (324 J/s)/(2260 J/gm) = 0.143 gm/s.

In mode 2, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:

   R = 1.94 gm/s - 0.095 gm/s = 1.85 gm/s

In mode 3, at equilibrium, we have a water percolation/overflow rate R:

   R = 1.39 gm/s - 0.14 gm/s = 1.25 gm/s

In mode 3 it will take longer for the copper device to fill with  
water, i.e. come to equilibrium. However, since mode 3 creates about  
50% more steam, the percolator effect, vs a simple overflow effect,  
should be more apparent.


Note that if the power were reduced the *apparent* power and COP of  
the device would grow larger, if the false assumption is made that  
all the water is converted to steam.  The controller in the Rossi  
device can only reduce power supplied to the device, not increase it,  
assuming no power storage in the device.  The input power was  
measured as constant.  If the controller maintains a constant power  
demand, the excess power not fed to the E-cat would have to be fed to  
resistors in the controller itself.  It is notable that 4 muffin fans  
were shown in the E-cat.   If the controller periodically reduces  
power to the E-cat, this then *increases* the apparent power of the  
device dramatically, by resulting in water being pumped out of the E- 
cat and down the hose.  Demonstrating steam production is obviously  
best accomplished when maximum power is supplied to boiling water in  
the E-cat.  To perpetrate a fraud using a device like the one  
demonstrated by Rick Cantwell, but using a controller, an operator  
would have to know when maximum power were being supplied by the  
controller, perhaps by sound, or hav

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Jouni Valkonen]

Alan, you should explain more. I fail completely see your point, how does it
confirm your hypothesis? Or at least you cannot make any calculations from
your idea of "dryout", therefore it seems to be rather irrelevant concept.

You also are misusing physical concepts. E-Cat produces always high quality
steam and hot water, but never low quality steam. You can only make low
quality steam by cooling rapidly high pressure steam and these conditions
might happen in steam turbines. But E-Cat is working roughly at constant
pressure (3.3kPa pressure difference is insignificant), therefore the steam
quality is there always ca. 98% (±0.015).

Coffee maker does not produce ultra low quality steam, but very little high
quality steam and lots of hot water. Same logic applies to E-Cat, although
high quality steam and hot water ratio was higher in most demonstrations.

—Jouni

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Alan Fletcher]

>From 410E :  (Sorry for the pre-post reply format)He runs it in three modes:

 A) 800W input, with NO input water flow.

Significant Visible SteamLittle water collected in the tube (no 
percolation)
 This is operating as a KETTLE Boiler, and produces Gas only 
(Water vapour and drops). The fact that there was no (or only a little) 
fluid water in the outlet means that there was very little condensation 
in the outlet hose.
 
B) 800W input, 7 l/hr water flow
Little visible SteamPercolator effect happens quickly (Lots of water at the 
outlet -- at 3:30 he empties the hose, and it refills in about 7 
seconds.) 
 This is operating as a TUBE Boiler. The fact that there was 
lots of fluid water in the outlet (and still little condensation) means 
that it was operating BELOW the Dryout Point..
 
C) 800W input, 5 l/hr water flow
Some visible SteamDelayed Percolator effect (Less fluid water at the 
outlet. 
At 3:47 -- it refills in about 30 seconds )
 With a lower mass flow the eCat-simulator can progress 
further along the pipe/flow regime, and LESS fluid water goes down the 
hose (takes longer to "percolate"). But it is still operating below the 
Dryout Point.



This experiment confirms my "Dryout Point" hypothesis.  - -- - - - - - - -

At least below the Dryout Point.  He didn't get it ABOVE the Dryout point, so 
it's not totally confirmed.  
His only control method is to reduce the flow rate, so it's not quite the same 
as increasing the power.

I wish he'd put in a honking-big 2KW heater in that unit, and control V with a 
Variac (or just a chopping-power controller).

- Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>Alan J Fletcher  wrote: 
> My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick Cantwell

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

>

> (It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface of 
> the tubes, not inside).

>

> It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.

I don't quite follow. How does it confirm this hypothesis? Please explain in 
somewhat more detail.
Regarding the video, Rick does good work.
>
- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Jouni Valkonen]

2011/8/23 Alan J Fletcher :
> It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.

It really does not confirm your hypothesis.^^ But it does indeed
confirm my hypothesis that water inflow rate was 1-3 kg/h and total
heating power was around 810 W, i.e. only electric heater active, and
steam overpressure explains the heat anomaly that was probably above
100.0°C. (However exact temperature is unknown, because thermometer
calibration is unknown)

I hope that Rick will publish more videos and try to replicate also
those demonstrations, where we actually have measured data available.
In June experiment, our best figure was Rossi's claim for voltage that
was only off the mark by 10-15 volts. Therefore, Rossi did not only
show to Krivit a dummy E-Cat, but the whole experiment was dummy
experiment, i.e. noting significant was measured, but only working
principles was shown.

I think that I will rest with my psychological interpretation, and
Rossi did not like Krivit and did not want show him the real thing.

–Jouni

E-Cat replication with 800W heating element (Rick Cantwell)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Jed Rothwell]

Alan J Fletcher  wrote:

>
> My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick
> Cantwell
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=yXTl8z_2Uqo
>
> (It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface of
> the tubes, not inside).
>
> It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.
>

I don't quite follow. How does it confirm this hypothesis? Please explain in
somewhat more detail.

Regarding the video, Rick does good work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Joe Catania]

I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant 
for this type of experiment. Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much 
higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good comparison with 
this aspect of Rossi's device.
- Original Message - 
From: "Alan J Fletcher" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:16 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates



I've been having some off-vortex action with this.

Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php

My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick 
Cantwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

(It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface 
of the tubes, not inside).


It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.

Re: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates

[Joe Catania]

I think that tube diameter in the horizontal section is probably significant 
for this type of experiment. Cantwell's copper tube diameter may not be much 
higher than his heater diameter thus it may not be a good comparison with 
this aspect of Rossi's device.
- Original Message - 
From: "Alan J Fletcher" 

To: 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:16 PM
Subject: [Vo]:Rossi Steam Quality Updates



I've been having some off-vortex action with this.

Latest version is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_steam_v410E.php

My attention was drawn to an excellent Rossi eCat simulator by a Rick 
Cantwell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXTl8z_2Uqo

(It's main deficiency is that he's measuring temperatures on the surface 
of the tubes, not inside).


It CONFIRMS my "dryout point" hypothesis.