In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:41:27 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
>I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat
>transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators.
>The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions.
I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat
transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators.
The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions.
And E-cats are at the limit- E-lions must have a different internal
structure, more c
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> All we can really do at this point is *wait *for the Swedes to present
> their findings. Perhaps we can then draw more accurate conclusions.
>
> Regards
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks
>From Jones,
>> From Rothwell:
>> I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental
>> evidence, not crackpot theories that predict water heaters
>> don't work. If you will not give us a plausible reason why
>> this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 1000 then you
>> lose this de
thanks to Robin for this well grounded calculation:
in order to transfer 15 kW, the temperature differential across the steel
> would have to be about 165 K. Given that the reaction occurs at many
> hundreds of
> degrees, and steam production would limit the cold side temperature to
> about 100
>
From: Jed Rothwell
* I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental evidence,
not crackpot theories that predict water heaters don't work. If you will not
give us a plausible reason why this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor
of 1000 then you lose this debate.
This "1000
Jones Beene wrote:
>
>
> OK, There is only one way to end this kind of fruitless thread – and that
> would be a small wager to be based on the upcoming tests in Sweden.
>
I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental evidence, not
crackpot theories that predict water heaters don't
OK, There is only one way to end this kind of fruitless thread - and that
would be a small wager to be based on the upcoming tests in Sweden.
Let's see .
You say the COP is considerably over 30, based on first demo even though the
Feb testing was much higher, is that about right?
And
Jones Beene wrote:
This is not a question of throwing away good data.
>
>
>
> It is a question of throwing away junk data and getting good data.
>
You have given us NO INDICATION how or why this data is "junk." All you have
done is claimed that you have theory proving that 12 kW tankless electr
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Jones Beene wrote:
> I don't know understand why there seems to be such resistance to the gain in
> this device being "only" in the range of COP 3-6 ?
You'll find no resistance here to any possibility. Since I am not
present, I must rely on the observation of ot
This is not a question of throwing away good data.
It is a question of throwing away junk data and getting good data.
Geeze Louise Rothwells fallback argument is his electric teapot - and as
for serious science he is content with clamp meters instead of power
analyzers and thermocouple
Jones Beene wrote:
> I don't know understand why there seems to be such resistance to the gain
> in
> this device being "only" in the range of COP 3-6 ?
>
There is resistance because we do not think you can casually throw away
calorimetry and pretend that industrial techniques and equipment suc
Jones Beene wrote:
*From:* Jed Rothwell
>
> *Speaking of leaving it to experts, someone has written to me
> offli**st**that this very issue of heat transfer was covered at Chennai by
> NRL - and
> they may have had similar reservations that this was even possible.*
>
> Weren’t you there, a
Well another thing that brings to mind is that the reactor vessel could be
emitting electrons (Edison effect) which perform electrolysis on the
coolant. That could perhaps get extra heat into the water to boost
convective or radiative transfer.
I don't know understand why there seems to be such re
If the reactor vessel begins to glow emitting IR photons which are
absorbed by the copper jacket, you would have to include radiative
energy in the calculation.
If.
T
From: Jed Rothwell
Speaking of leaving it to experts, someone has written to me offlist that
this very issue of heat transfer was covered at Chennai by NRL - and they
may have had similar reservations that this was even possible.
Weren't you there, and did they?
* I was there, but I do not re
Oops. I wrote:
> Liter bottle shaped cylinder:
> 4 cm diameter, 20 cm length
>
Meant 8 cm diameter, 20 cm length. (4 cm radius.)
I measured a plastic liter bottle to come up with this.
There is no reason to think the Rossi cell is this shape. On the contrary,
the machine is long and thin, so I
Jones Beene wrote:
> *Speaking of leaving it to experts, someone has written to me offline that
> this very issue of heat transfer was covered at Chennai by NRL - and they
> may have had similar reservations that this was even possible.***
>
>
>
> Weren’t you there, and did they?
>
I was there,
Speaking of leaving it to experts, someone has written to me offline that
this very issue of heat transfer was covered at Chennai by NRL - and they
may have had similar reservations that this was even possible.
Weren't you there, and did they?
J.
* As I said, the reactor transfer
Jones Beene wrote:
> Whoa the 3 GW is for an entire year, correct?
>
No, gigawatts are a measure of power, not energy.
I am forever mixing up MW (power) MJ (energy) and even MB (data storage!) so
I understand your confusion here. The other day Brian Josephson mixed up MW
and MJ.
> You need
From: Jed Rothwell
* As I said, the reactor transfers 3 GW with 80,000 rods. That is
approximately 37.5 kW per rod. (Previously I estimated per liter of rod.)
That comes to 0.030 kW/cm^2. A liter-bottle shaped Rossi cell putting out
130 kW would be producing 0.216 kW/cm^2, an order of magnitu
I compared the volume and surface area of a nuclear fuel rod to that of a
typical 1 liter water bottle. I assume that Rossi's device has at least as
much surface area as a cylindrical water bottle.
I am hopeless at arithmetic so I cheat with an on-line calculator such as
this one:
http://www.calc
22 matches
Mail list logo
