10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Postby chrismb » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:01 pm

sparkyy0007 wrote:To take 3.53kg of water at 26.5 C to vapor at 100C takes 2517W.
You could also do it with 0.5W in a vacuum, or even 1GW in a fraction of a second! :wink:

Tech
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:20 pm
Location: Slovakia

Postby Tech » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:41 am

On nextbigfuture:

Nobel Lauriate, Brian Josephson favors Rossi E-cat in a Video discussion of Credibility


video in the link http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/nobel- ... avors.html

There is also an interview with Bushnell.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:45 am

chrismb wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E


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!


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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Postby dch24 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:33 am



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.

dch24
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 pm

Postby dch24 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:35 am

From 07:10 to 07:30 in the video, Rossi says: (wrapping up his explanation of the gamma ray gauge)

"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."

"Now in order to have a very rapid calculation..." (He starts to talk about the energy balance.)


My question is: Rossi states on his blog he has a theory now for the reaction. Did he give much away (thermalization of gamma rays) -- anything about what type of reaction he claims is going on?

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:36 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
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...
Have you a hope of discovery something novelty?
You will get Nickel Hydride used for example in Energizer batteries. That's all.
What are you babbling about?
Is all you have to say irrelevant grousing?

Here you are babbling Mr. 700keV in crystal lattice.
Formulation of Nickel Hydride is a single possible reaction in these conditions and these reactants.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:02 am

[EDIT] Note that there are errors in this post. A hopefully more accurate analysis is in my post near the bottom of page 187 of this thread.



chrismb wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E


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!



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. :twisted:
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
Last edited by D Tibbets on Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Postby Helius » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:05 am

Good video but it's kinda sad. I like that Rossi guy. Careful! don't wave your hand over the end of the hose!.... Sheesh.

Dang. If I attached the top of my tea kettle to the end of that hose, it wouldn't whistle a peep.

sparkyy0007
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
Location: Canada

Postby sparkyy0007 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:12 am

MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E


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!


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.


I actually find this very depressing and a waste of time,
but I will hold out for just a little longer.
Who knows, maybe kirvits demo was just
a side show to Rossi and he was only using
the internal heater, thinking no one would
do any serious analysis. Hey, we're very busy,
just make some steam, they'll buy it this time.
I am having a really hard time believing real
scientists wouldn't have questioned the steam
output, or related it to a boiling kettle if the video is
anything like the real observation.
.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Postby D Tibbets » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:17 am

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.


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.

As far as merely 100 degree C steam not being so hot, remember that if any steam (even if it is only ~ 15% of the water outflow like my guestimate) hits your hand, it will condense to liquid water, and this will quickly deposit 100Cal/ g of heat (the heat of vaporization). It will easily scald you.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

sparkyy0007
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
Location: Canada

Postby sparkyy0007 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:46 am

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 enough
energy to overcome the heat loss of the hose, the steam at the hose output will be wet
rendering it the same as steam from a boiling pot.
As far as I know the temperature
of the steam at the hose end was never measured, but it doesn't matter, its 100.
I was not attacking Rossi, I was disputing the relevance of his comment about the so called
ïnvisable steam and how it was being related to the volume. Rossi made the comment for a reason don't you think?

But I don't think you'll get a lot of traction by attacking his assertion in the video

Traction, attacking ? For what, these I think are valid points. I dislike BS.

R.Nkolo
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:34 am

Postby R.Nkolo » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:59 am

Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer

Steam output at about 3:10 Min.


MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E


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!


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.

Joseph Chikva
Posts: 2039
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am

Postby Joseph Chikva » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:38 am

D Tibbets wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E


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!



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. :twisted:
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

Dan,
7000 g/ 3600 s = ~1.95 g/s water flow
Delta T 100-26=74 deg
Heat capacity of water 4.19 J/g*deg
Water evaporation heat 2250 J/g

And in a case if all inputting water will be evaporated.

• Power required for heating to up to 100C: 1.95*4.19*74=604W
• Power required for evaporation: 1.95*2250=4387W
Total: 4991W=~5kW
The second point is significant. As every 10% of humidity makes loss of 438.7W in his power estimation. “My steam is absolutely dry” – he said.

But we don't know was there a water prior to the beginning of experiment in a jacket? How long time experiment goes? As for long time experiment Rossi using the flowing cooling system is right considering equity of mass input/output. And you are wrong.

But:
• Now let's admit that his flow is not 1.95 g/s. But much less. There is not flow-meter in experiment.
• Then let's take into account that he has 750W input.
• Let’s also admit that hydrogen consumes not 1g (per which time?) but much more. As nobody measured.
• Let’s also admit that he has non-accounted power input bypassing ampere-meter

And nature of his reaction from nuclear will become the conventional chemical.

PS: Krivit said the right thing that for proving better to increase water flow for avoiding phase transition into steam.
Last edited by Joseph Chikva on Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Carl White
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Postby Carl White » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:41 am

The hose was lying on the floor, with both ends raised. If there was significant condensation, would it not fill up with water and then start to spray and belch water at the open end?

sparkyy0007
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
Location: Canada

Postby sparkyy0007 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:43 am

R.Nkolo wrote:Ny Teknik tested the energy catalyzer

Steam output at about 3:10 Min.


MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Krivit video done during his trip in Bologna:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E


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!


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.


Now listen carefully at 3:10.
That sound is steam condensing in the hose.
Not a bad thing, but it proves the steam exiting has no superheat, its at 100 C, not 100.1 or 101 assuming 101kPa bp.

This appears to be a lot more steam than in the Krivit demo
with a power input of 1.6 x 220 = 360W
The Krivit demo was 3.4 X 220 = 748W
Lets hope..


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests