Until we know whether Levi turned the flow off along with the heater we will not know how to calculate this for sure. I also have suspicion that the metal may get hotter than 550C according to several staments by Rossi and I believe Defkalion. If the flow is turned off or is only 1g/s it looks like 15 min can easily be justified. Also even if it 2g/sec steam can still be produced since metal surfaces will still be at 100C. If there is steam wetness it will appear that more steam is being produced than really is. But as long as there's heat transfer from metal at >100C to 100C water there will be some steam produced (maybe not as much as at power off but some). I took Levi to mean some steam was produced for 15 min and I accepted he used his judgment to determine when that ended. So its very possible that all he may have been observing was thermal inertia. On the other hand, if there's something else going on- some other heat source, as looks to be evident in K&E demo then the thermal inertia source may coincide with the anomalous source. For instance if the hydriding reaction is what is causing the increased slope to temperature rise in the K&E graph you might get ~1MJ of hydride caused heat being released (~200,000J/mol and ~1 mol/9g). The reason I wanted to be understood about the thermal inertia is that good calorimetry will need to take it into account. I believe it has already been posted to Vortex that time history is important- this is roughly the same. It will be difficult for us to determine the exact goings-on in Rossi's device even armed with this since we don't know if he keeps the flow on (I'm guessing he does), what the rate is (Rizzi may be right about it being at least halved), the steam is not thoroughly dry, and we don't react have details of the reactor construction. I have to say that from the K&E report it seems Rossi might not even be aware that the hydriding that occurs in metals when packing hydrogen into the lattice is not the chemical hydriding that K&E quote the enthalpy to but the physical hydriding which releases much more energy. So now its not clear if that was detected at all. If Rossi understood physical hydriding and merely hired Levi as an independent, University associated researcher to try to detect the "self-sustaining nuclear" reaction that would be observed upon cutting the power he may have baited Levi and hinted that there might be such a phenomenon relying on Levi's innocence to report continued steam production. From watching the interviews with Levi it seems he is not aware of thermal inertia or physical hydriding that contribute to this "extra steam" and may have been forced to attribute it to a successful cold fusion demo. ----- Original Message ----- From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to "heat after death" calculations
Hi Joe, I found an error in my calculation of the critical temperature, the temperature at which all energy merely goes into heating the water to 100°C, with none left to produce steam. You will probably like the improvements. I have reposted: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf The old formula for Critical Temp. was: (Critical Temp.) = (Thermal Resistance) * (Water Heating) +100 The current formula for Critical Temp. is: (Critical Temp.) = (Water Heating)*(Thermal Resistance)+(Inlet Temp.) I also added a "Thermal Power" column to the decay curve data to show the thermal power applied to the water as the temperature decays. Note that at the critical temperature Tcrit in the decay curve the power applied to the water is equal to that required to heat it to 100°C, namely 268.3 W. This is also the critical time 23.73 minutes. Note especially in RossiThermal2.pdf, in Mode 2, that a mass of between 5 and 10 kg, at initial Mass Temp. of 300*C, provides a 15 minute thermal decline curve with no nuclear energy involved. However, the flow rate used is that suggested by Mattia Rizzi, 3 liters per second, not 7 liters per second. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
