Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:01 pm
You could also do it with 0.5W in a vacuum, or even 1GW in a fraction of a second!sparkyy0007 wrote:To take 3.53kg of water at 26.5 C to vapor at 100C takes 2517W.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
You could also do it with 0.5W in a vacuum, or even 1GW in a fraction of a second!sparkyy0007 wrote:To take 3.53kg of water at 26.5 C to vapor at 100C takes 2517W.
video in the link http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/nobel- ... avors.htmlNobel Lauriate, Brian Josephson favors Rossi E-cat in a Video discussion of Credibility
It's a miracle. Or unexplained physics. I can't wait to see 1 MW of those suckers making fools of the sceptics and skeptics alike.chrismb wrote:I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
The other data Rossi presents clearly shows the steam is around 101C (at the thermocouple). Yeah, yeah, without a flow measurement we don't know the power output at that point.
"Now in order to have a very rapid calculation..." (He starts to talk about the energy balance.)"because of course, the reactor is shielded and the gamma rays are thermalized.
"The low-energy gamma rays are... which we produce are thermalized inside the reactor and it is for this reason we have energy production."
Here you are babbling Mr. 700keV in crystal lattice.KitemanSA wrote:What are you babbling about?Joseph Chikva wrote:Have you a hope of discovery something novelty?sparkyy0007 wrote:I have all the equipment to do the experiment, I just have very little time, but I was thinking the same thing. The power input can be easily modulated (no need for a splitter) by a variable DC supply, have this too. If I do it I will post the result...hmmm..will I need to publish first...
You will get Nickel Hydride used for example in Energizer batteries. That's all.
Is all you have to say irrelevant grousing?
chrismb wrote:I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
I actually find this very depressing and a waste of time,MSimon wrote:It's a miracle. Or unexplained physics. I can't wait to see 1 MW of those suckers making fools of the sceptics and skeptics alike.chrismb wrote:I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
Actually, my recollection was that his claim was that cool steam at ~ 100.1 degrees C. was more cloudy than hotter steam. That is false, except that condensation to small liquid water droplets would occur more quickly as there is less delta T to overcome. My counter argument in my previous post was that at the anticipated flow rates through a rubber (insulated) tube the DRY steam would not start to condense till well after it exited the tube.dch24 wrote:The other data Rossi presents clearly shows the steam is around 101C (at the thermocouple). Yeah, yeah, without a flow measurement we don't know the power output at that point.
But I don't think you'll get a lot of traction by attacking his assertion in the video, "it is very hot. Because it is so hot, the density is less." Realistically, he's not making a quantitative assertion there. I do think he's unrealistic, trying to explain the image by saying the steam is very hot -- I would expect that kind of talk from a salesman. Nevertheless, attacking it is not that interesting when Rossi freely shows the 101C measurement taken by the thermocouple.
Rossi can have 500C at the output of the ecat ,but unless that degree of superheat has enoughdch24 wrote:The other data Rossi presents clearly shows the steam is around 101C (at the thermocouple). Yeah, yeah, without a flow measurement we don't know the power output at that point.
But I don't think you'll get a lot of traction by attacking his assertion in the video, "it is very hot. Because it is so hot, the density is less." Realistically, he's not making a quantitative assertion there. I do think he's unrealistic, trying to explain the image by saying the steam is very hot -- I would expect that kind of talk from a salesman. Nevertheless, attacking it is not that interesting when Rossi freely shows the 101C measurement taken by the thermocouple.
Traction, attacking ? For what, these I think are valid points. I dislike BS.But I don't think you'll get a lot of traction by attacking his assertion in the video
MSimon wrote:It's a miracle. Or unexplained physics. I can't wait to see 1 MW of those suckers making fools of the sceptics and skeptics alike.chrismb wrote:I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
Dan,D Tibbets wrote:chrismb wrote:I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
I watched this video also. There is more aviable information to analyze than I've seen before. Using the data he provided:
~ 750 Watts input power
~ 7 liters of water input / hr
Initial water temperature ~ 30 degrees C.
Output water temperature 100.1 degrees C.
Tape around the device is insulating rubber, not lead?
Geiger counter reading is ~ 0.15 micro Seiverts per hour, ~ 0.13 when he held the meter in his hand at a distance of ~ 1.3-2 times further away from the reactor. *
Input water tube ~ 1/8 inch, output hose ~ 1/2 to ~ 2/3rd inches- internal diameter ~ 1/4th inch
Conversions:
~ 7000 ml H2O / hr. requires ~ 70 Cal / ml to heat from 30 degrees C to 100 degrees C/ ml = ~ 500,000 Cal /hr
~ 7000 ml H2O converted to steam at 100 degrees = 100 Cal per ml or a total of ~ 700,000 Cal/ hr
If all of the water was converted to steam the grand total would be ~ 1,200,000 Cal / hr.
He didn't give an output for this test. It is inferred from the claimed steam output.
Calorie to Watt conversion- ~860 Cal / Watt
http://www.unitconversion.org/power/wat ... rsion.html
Results is ~ 1400 Watts claimed output.
So, acepting his data, the output would be ~1400 Watts, and the net gain would be ~ 2X
But, we only have his claim that the water is fully converted to steam. This is not obvous from the images and data given. I'll grant that all of the water was heated to ~ 100 degrees C. This would require ~ 2 g *70 Cal = 140 Cal / sec for the stated 2 ml/ second flow rate ( ~ 7,000 ml / 3600 sec/ hr). 140 Cal/ sec * 3600 sec/ hr =~ 500,000 Cal. 500,000 Cal / 860 Cal/ Watt= ~590 Watts needed to heat the water to 100 degrees C..
So, the entire question now becomes what proportion of the 100 degree water is actually converted to steam. There is still ~ 150 Watts of heating power aviable for the conversion before you have to invent any other heating source. 150 Watts over 1 hr would provide ~ 120,000 Cal, which is enough to convert ~ 1200 ml of H2O or ~ 15% of the total 7 liters.
So, there would be steam. but how much?
As I commented in another post ~ 4,000 Watts worth of steam would flow rapidly through a narrow tube ( like 1/4 inch inside diameter tube. In the video, I was not impressed by the apparent flow. There was misty clouds flowing out, it became turbulant at the opening implying the flow rate was not that great. Also, he was incorrect in describing cool steam as cloudy, while hot steam is clear. Any steam is clear- it is a transparent vapor. The clouds are condensed liquid water droplets. This brings up another point. Steam flows of ~ 2 gl/ sec= ~ 0.1 mole / sec= ~ 2 liters of steam per second. This is a little less than 1/2 the amount of gas that you can blow out of your (healthy) lungs in one second. or near ~ 1/2 to 1/3rd the forced vital capacity of your lungs. Blow against your hand as hard as you can and you will have an approximation of the force of the flow. And, this is through an opening that is probably closer to ~ 1/2 to 3/4th of an inch wide. The flow rate would be ~ 2-4 time faster through the ~1/4 to 1/3rd tube used. ie, the flow would be vigerous. And after a few minutes the tube would have been heated up so probably no condensed water (clouds) would be seen till perhaps 5-10 inches past the opening of the tube.
When he held up the tube to show the steam, it would have been interesting to see what occurred after a dozen minuts or so. When the hot watter filled the tube, it would start flowing out. Actually, it would probably be sputtering out like a coffy percolator with the lid off. The long tube would impead this for a while but I doubt he would want to hold the tube up too long.
Looking at a coffy pot, or tea kettles under medium heat (which might be ~ 700 Watts) you can watch the steam coming out. compare it with the video.
I'm roughly guessing that ChrisMB is wrong. There is not ~ 100 Watts of steam coming out, but closer to ~ 200 Watts worth in my estimate.
Actually if the thermal insulation was good there should have been ~ 150 Watts worth of steam. That would be the heat aviable from the ~150 Watts left over after the water was warmed to the boiling point.
Heating the water flow to 100 degrees, then making the blanket statement that it all is converted to steam is unsupported. Actually once you reach ~ 100 degrees C the water is boiling, and it will not become hotter because the heat is carried away by the water vapor, and it takes a lot of heat energy to overcome this heat of vaporization (100 Cal/ g). This buffers the system so the temperature stays very close to 100 degrees C (at STP). Only once all of the aviable water has been converted will the temperature increase. I would expect the water flow would have to be very acurately matched to the heat input to maintain a 99% or 100% steam output and remain very close to 100 degrees C. The temperature could easily climb to 101 or 110 degrees C. IE: I take the argument of a temperature near 100 degrees C to imply wet steam (not full conversion) as opposed to dry 100 % converted steam.
This again emphazizes the questionable setup that uses water flows that allows the water to be heated to boiling. It introduces completly unneeded complications .
It implies stupidity or intent to deceive.
As the number crunching above implies - the heat output from steam and/ or hot water coming from the device could range anywhere from ~ 600 Watts to ~1400 Watts purely on the basis of the amount of the water that was actually converted to steam. This assumes the thermoter/ thermister is accurately measuring the temperature of all of the water. No decietfull plumbing would be required. The uncertainity of the steam conversion is the only issue in this paticular demonstration.
* I mentioned the radiation measurement as he seemed to be confused about this simple aspect of nuclear science. The meter displayed 0.15 micro Seiverts/ hr, initially. This varied some and I thought initially some inverse square law radiation flux might be implied as he moved the meter around, but it does not mean much as the levels are ~ background to begin with. He did say the radiation was (completely ) shielded, implying that there was presumptive radiation being produced. Later he implied that the tape wrapped around the device was high temperature insulating tape- I took this as meaning there was no lead shielding (or at least not only lead shielding). If there was gamma radiation from some reaction that was producing up to ~ 700 Watts of fusion power, it must be extreamly scarce in order to have normal background after only 0, 1/2 inch, or 1 inch? of lead shielding.
Dan Tibbets
Now listen carefully at 3:10.R.Nkolo wrote:Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer
Steam output at about 3:10 Min.
MSimon wrote:It's a miracle. Or unexplained physics. I can't wait to see 1 MW of those suckers making fools of the sceptics and skeptics alike.chrismb wrote: I've just 'spent' a 1/4 hour watching this. I am convinced that only 750W is going into the E-cat. Yet, amazingly, it looks like there is perhaps almost 100W of steam coming out!