Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
OK, Jed ! Here's a route to storing energy in molten salts in an insulated container, and releasing it under exact control at choice as late as a week later at 99 % restoration of the stored heat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage Molten salt technology Molten salt can be employed as a thermal energy storage method to retain thermal energy collected by a solar tower or solar trough so that it can be used to generate electricity in bad weather or at night. It was demonstrated in the Solar Two project from 1995-1999. The system is predicted to have an annual efficiency of 99%, a reference to the energy lost by storing heat before turning it into electricity, versus converting heat directly into electricity.[2][3][4] The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. It is non-flammable and nontoxic, and has already been used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with such systems exists in non-solar applications. The salt melts at 221 °C (430 °F). It is kept liquid at 288 °C (550 °F) in an insulated cold storage tank. The liquid salt is pumped through panels in a solar collector where the focused sun heats it to 566 °C (1,051 °F). It is then sent to a hot storage tank. This is so well insulated that the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week.[citation needed] When electricity is needed, the hot salt is pumped to a conventional steam-generator to produce superheated steam for a turbine/generator as used in any conventional coal, oil or nuclear power plant. A 100-megawatt turbine would need tanks of about 30 feet (9.1 m) tall and 80 feet (24 m) in diameter to drive it for four hours by this design. Several parabolic trough power plants in Spain[5] and solar power tower developer SolarReserve use this thermal energy storage concept. [ so, 1 hour of 100 MW power would be stored within a tank 9.1 high and 12 m diameter, a volume of about 1000 cubic meters, and so, 1 hour of 1 MW would be stored within a volume of 10 cubic meters, and so, 1/50 MW, the power of a single Fat Ekat, would be stored in a volume of .2 cubic meter, which is about .55 m on each side for a cube -- too large for a Fat Ekat -- but there are a wide range of possible salt mixtures that can be studied to store more energy per volume in the 100 to 200 deg C range useful for a Fat Ekat energy profile output of about 3 KW for 4 hours. The important thing here is that this widely known conventional technology stores heat without meaningful loss for days, and can be released at almost the same temperature easily, at will -- with no weight changes, combustion, exhaust, or large volume reductions -- as the molten salt mixture starts to solidify, the heat of fusion is released gradually -- all that is needed is to open a small hole in the insulating container to allow the infrared radiation to exit. Neat, huh? The high quality insulation can be superinsulation, very light weight thin blankets of multiple layers of thin Ti foil separated by bits of silica fiber, used to keep liquid H2 cold in huge rockets for a half-century. So, an ceramic electric heater could be used to store heat at as much as 1,000 deg C, about 5 times more energy density than at 200 deg for molten salts, which therefore could be 5 times less volume, which gives us the range suitable for existing Fat EKat demos -- and many more molten salt mixtures are available at higher temperatures... Foresee before ye froth -- consult ye tha god Google... ] Reconsider the remarkable messiness of the Oct. 7 demolition derby, including the lack of promised inspection of internal structure, with its purported two unused reactor cores and thick layers of lead, and its limited duration, before proclaiming a fairly well controlled heat anomaly that would launch a global genuine physics pfrenzy... for methinks this not a face fated to sink a thousand ships... All that is really needed is a little tweak to the thermocouple readout device, which measures microvolts of changes... that would be the cold fusion version of the Star Trek phasor... A widely skilled passionate solitary engineer, facing dire financial straits and cursory rejection by a series of courtships of wary sponsors, might well be predicted to resort to conscious duplicity to make the essential next step in his primary life quest to vindicate his personal faith. We recall Bernie Madoff... easy to get on, hard to get off... within mutual confusion, Rich On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This is irrefutable? Unless someone refutes it, I suppose. I have not seen any credible refutations yet. If the Krivit hypothesis is the best the skeptics come up with, I would say the debate is over. I cannot fully believe
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell: As shown in the video, the water condensed from steam in the external heat exchanger is not recycled back into the cell. It goes out the hose into the drain. So it is not accounted for in the flow calorimetry. In the plans for this test, someone mentioned that the condensed water would be recycled back into the cell. The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. This would reduce heat loss. I am sure that the condensed water is still quite hot. As I said, this is not detected by the flow calorimetry. It is not recovered. 2. There is a crinkly internal heat exchanger inside the reactor. I do not understand what its purpose is. Lewan told me it transfers heat from the cell to the steam primary loop. Why do you need a heat exchanger for that? . . . The design of this thing baffles me. I think that is the additional big heat spreader in the fat cat. It increases efficiency and stability, but also increases weight and volume. Rossi often said this in his forum. Of course a heat spreader is also a heat exchanger, but heat spreader is more specific. Peter
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
At 02:00 PM 10/7/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell: The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. The video says NO ... it goes to his usual drain. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. He says so on the video.
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Peter Heckert wrote: The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. I know he did, and this confused me. As you see in the video he changed his mind. You can clearly see the hose form the primary goes down the drain instead. Lewan says this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Am 07.10.2011 23:32, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 02:00 PM 10/7/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 07.10.2011 22:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell: The primary circuit is closed, the condensed watersteam IS recycled. The video says NO ... it goes to his usual drain. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. He says so on the video. Here Rossi says (shouts, because he is embarrased about Krivit) both circuits are closed: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=15#comment-83748 Here Rossi says the primary circuit is closed and doesnt mention the secondary circuit: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=13#comment-81345 Here the same and he mentions the internal heat exchanger: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=12#comment-76009 Here the same: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=11#comment-73188 It is however not always clear to me if he speaks about the latest test or about the upcoming test in Upsalla. Its confusing. Its a waiting game. He promises 100% and then delivers 50% as always. If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously with big success. Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true?
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
I wrote: The secondary circuit is open. The water is not recycled. Rossi explained this /repeatedly/ in his forum. I know he did, and this confused me. As you see in the video he changed his mind. This is in the video at around 1:26. We just get rid of it . . . The camera follows the outlet pipe to the pipe in hole in the wall that serves as a drain an this lab. This video is worth watching several times. It makes many things clear, such as the nature of the flow meter. The video shows why Lewan had to manually log the temperatures from the cooling water loop, instead of recording them on a computer. As you see, the temperature was logged on a multi-input handheld thermocouple. A meter. It is not plugged into a computer so he had to read it manually. I asked Lewan if this is the Testo 177-T3 he lists in his report. I looked that up on the Internet and it does not look the same to me. Anyway, they used some sort of handheld meter that can have up to four thermocouples attached, as you see on the meter's screen in the video. I wish he had held the camera more steady so I could read the make of the meter. (By the way, when you make a video of an experiment, you should let the camera linger for a long time on each component. There is no need to keep moving the camera around. Do not try to make an exciting video. Don't worry about production values.) I think this is the meter that Lewan says had a 0.5°C bias. I cannot imagine why! That's strange. These things are highly reliable and internally consistent. The meter may not show the actual temperature but all of the thermocouples attached to it should show the same temperature when they are all immersed in well-stirred water. Honestly, even though the data had to be manually logged in this case, is a good thing that Rossi used a handheld meter rather his own computer interface. Even the skeptics will have to admit there is no way he can monkey with one of these. It is a clean, stand-alone interface. It could be that all the data points were recorded internally in this meter, and someone can figure out how to dump them over the USB port. That would be nice. They might even be time-stamped! It would be great to move this project right up into 1970s technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Am 08.10.2011 00:35, schrieb Jed Rothwell: I think this is the meter that Lewan says had a 0.5°C bias. I cannot imagine why! That's strange. These things are highly reliable and internally consistent. If they are well maintained. A thermocouple delivers only microvolts that must be amplified and linearized. Lewan also mentioned strange instability. If this is the same meter, it is easily explained: Dirty and contaminated and bended contacts. For example skin-fat can generate electrochemical voltages on a bad contact.
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously with big success. Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true? I can understand why he would not want to recirculate the condensed water from the heat exchanger. It would be difficult to keep track of how much water is in the loop, and what temperature it is. Some would escape. Some might not condense and you might have steam going out of the heat exchanger back into the cell. That would not carry off as much heat as liquid water. Inputting tap water makes things more predictable. He probably tried recirculating, or thought about it, and found that it does not work well. I expect he found you cannot control it, and it might be dangerous, so he changed his plan. This does reduce the recovery rate of the calorimeter by a large margin, but I doubt Rossi cares about that. As long as there is indisputably large excess heat and it exceeds the limits of chemistry during the heat after death, he has proved his point. That is the case. Despite the problems in this test, no rational or plausible skeptical objections have been raised, and I am sure none will be. The best that the skeptics can come up with is a gas canister hidden in the table leg that connects magically to the cell without a tube, or Krivit's magic heat storage, or various other preposterous notions that fly in the face of fundamental physics and common sense. This was a very poorly done test, but the effect is so large, even a poorly done test is irrefutable. It is annoying to me. Intensely annoying, because I like to see things done professionally. Rossi's methods confuse and confound the observer. They force the audience to dig for the answer through the noise and confusion. I prefer elegant tests that make the results obvious. But the truth is, I am quibbling, and as I am sure Rossi would say, my objections have no impact on the conclusions. The debate somewhat resembles the 1980s confrontation between the he-man, text-based computer operating systems with cryptic commands such as grep versus the emerging Mac or Windows icons that made things easy to understand, and intuitive. Rossi is old school. He doesn't care how much work you have to do to understand his experiment. That's your problem. Many elderly cold fusion researchers are like this, especially Arata. They expect YOU to do YOUR homework. They will not life a finger to make it easier for you to understand them. The only criterion that matters to Arata or Rossi is how much effort he himself has to do, and how convenient it is for him to do a test in a certain way. That is not to say that Arata or Rossi are lazy. On the contrary, they are fantastically productive, accomplishing as much as a dozen other people might. Arata has over 100 patents (as I recall). They do not want to waste 5 minutes making it easier for other people to grasp their work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This is irrefutable? Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If he has drained the water from the primary circuit he has wasted energy. He said in august or september, they had done flow calorimetry previously with big success. Why all these confusing modifications and restrictions if this is true? I can understand why he would not want to recirculate the condensed water from the heat exchanger. It would be difficult to keep track of how much water is in the loop, and what temperature it is. Some would escape. Some might not condense and you might have steam going out of the heat exchanger back into the cell. That would not carry off as much heat as liquid water. Inputting tap water makes things more predictable. He probably tried recirculating, or thought about it, and found that it does not work well. I expect he found you cannot control it, and it might be dangerous, so he changed his plan. This does reduce the recovery rate of the calorimeter by a large margin, but I doubt Rossi cares about that. As long as there is indisputably large excess heat and it exceeds the limits of chemistry during the heat after death, he has proved his point. That is the case. Despite the problems in this test, no rational or plausible skeptical objections have been raised, and I am sure none will be. The best that the skeptics can come up with is a gas canister hidden in the table leg that connects magically to the cell without a tube, or Krivit's magic heat storage, or various other preposterous notions that fly in the face of fundamental physics and common sense. This was a very poorly done test, but the effect is so large, even a poorly done test is irrefutable. It is annoying to me. Intensely annoying, because I like to see things done professionally. Rossi's methods confuse and confound the observer. They force the audience to dig for the answer through the noise and confusion. I prefer elegant tests that make the results obvious. But the truth is, I am quibbling, and as I am sure Rossi would say, my objections have no impact on the conclusions. The debate somewhat resembles the 1980s confrontation between the he-man, text-based computer operating systems with cryptic commands such as grep versus the emerging Mac or Windows icons that made things easy to understand, and intuitive. Rossi is old school. He doesn't care how much work you have to do to understand his experiment. That's your problem. Many elderly cold fusion researchers are like this, especially Arata. They expect YOU to do YOUR homework. They will not life a finger to make it easier for you to understand them. The only criterion that matters to Arata or Rossi is how much effort he himself has to do, and how convenient it is for him to do a test in a certain way. That is not to say that Arata or Rossi are lazy. On the contrary, they are fantastically productive, accomplishing as much as a dozen other people might. Arata has over 100 patents (as I recall). They do not want to waste 5 minutes making it easier for other people to grasp their work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:There are two heat exchangers
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat? This is irrefutable? Unless someone refutes it, I suppose. I have not seen any credible refutations yet. If the Krivit hypothesis is the best the skeptics come up with, I would say the debate is over. I cannot fully believe a claim until it is widely replicated. This is experimental science and replication is the acid test. There is no substitute for it. How many replications you need is a matter of taste. I would like to see 4 or 5 other labs observe this before I am fully convinced it cannot be a mistake or fraud. Apparently this claim has been independently replicated by Defkalion. If I see credible proof from them that will pretty much wrap it up. If this was a brand new unprecedented claim such as Steorn's, or an antigravity machine, or a particle moving faster than light, I would probably hold out for 10 or 20 solid replications, rather than 5. However, this is similar to many other cold fusion claims. We already have Mills, Piantelli and several other Ni-H claims, so this is not such a stretch. There is a very slight chance of fraud, but it is so small I do not take it seriously. The likelihood that some skeptic such as Krivit, Murray or Park will come up with a credible, believable explanation is even smaller. They have nothing. Zip. Bupkis to 5 significant digits. I find it hard to believe they themselves take their hypotheses seriously. I thought that Krivit understood more about heat and calorimetry, and he would not come up with that ridiculous notion that you can store heat such that not one joule comes out until you wave a magic wand, and then it comes out in varying levels, rising and falling, in complete disregard for Newton and his silly old law. Ignorant people have been saying that sort of thing since 1989. You would think Krivit has heard that before, and understands why it is impossible, but apparently not. It reminds me of Steve Jones and his claim that recombination can magically explain all results, including McKubre's in a closed cell where total heat far exceeded I*V. These things are not explanations. They are magic spells. You are confronted by an ugly truth. A fact you cannot face. You have made a dreadful mistake, and you are far out on a limb. You repeat recombination, recombination, recombination or heat storage, heat storage until the ugly facts vanish, and you are back safely in the world of your own imagination. - Jed
