10KW LENR Demonstrator?

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

chrismb wrote:I have just done a preliminary trial using a kettle on a gas hob.
Great test and great videos!
As you said, there is no comparison with the steam coming out in Krivit video.
I am tempted to drop these video to Rossi and ask him to explain where the other expected steam is going.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

sparkyy0007 wrote:Ok, I googled Nickel Hydride and batteries everywhere (ebay has some great deals on 12 pack AAA's by the way)
I don't want to by a book, What am I looking for exactly??

Are you saying that if the claimed power (of course not on the krivit demo) if it turns out to be real,
of 5000W for hours/days with 50cc volume can be explained by a nickel hydride system of some sort?
If this is true, Rossi will still become rich to be sure.
Ok, I found that link:
http://www.1-act.com/pdf/mhhst.pdf
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Metal hydrides are the binary combination of hydrogen and a metal or metal alloy. Metal hydrides have been used in many
industrial applications such as battery electrode material, hydrogen storage medium and heat pump system [Park et al., 2005;
Kang et al., 1996; Fateev et al., 1996; Lloyd et al., 1998; Kim et al., 1998a, 1998b; Houston and Sanrock, 1980]. The hydriding
(exothermic) and dehydriding (endothermic) reactions of a metal hydride can be expressed as:

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

ndelta wrote:I think you meant NOT believe or at least have a question mark at the end. Either way, I did not know that his water flow is not metered and would agree that that is a problem. A big one.
Welcome aboard.
"Some people" here have been trying to explain this since the first pages of this thread.
I am happy that we do finally get some support. :wink:

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
sparkyy0007 wrote:Ok, I googled Nickel Hydride and batteries everywhere (ebay has some great deals on 12 pack AAA's by the way)
I don't want to by a book, What am I looking for exactly??

Are you saying that if the claimed power (of course not on the krivit demo) if it turns out to be real,
of 5000W for hours/days with 50cc volume can be explained by a nickel hydride system of some sort?
If this is true, Rossi will still become rich to be sure.
Ok, I found that link:
http://www.1-act.com/pdf/mhhst.pdf
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Metal hydrides are the binary combination of hydrogen and a metal or metal alloy. Metal hydrides have been used in many
industrial applications such as battery electrode material, hydrogen storage medium and heat pump system [Park et al., 2005;
Kang et al., 1996; Fateev et al., 1996; Lloyd et al., 1998; Kim et al., 1998a, 1998b; Houston and Sanrock, 1980]. The hydriding
(exothermic) and dehydriding (endothermic) reactions of a metal hydride can be expressed as:
Joseph, I already calculated that you cannot explain that amount of thermal heat with the hydriding and dehydriding of such a small volume of material.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:
Joseph Chikva wrote:
sparkyy0007 wrote:Ok, I googled Nickel Hydride and batteries everywhere (ebay has some great deals on 12 pack AAA's by the way)
I don't want to by a book, What am I looking for exactly??

Are you saying that if the claimed power (of course not on the krivit demo) if it turns out to be real,
of 5000W for hours/days with 50cc volume can be explained by a nickel hydride system of some sort?
If this is true, Rossi will still become rich to be sure.
Ok, I found that link:
http://www.1-act.com/pdf/mhhst.pdf
PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
Metal hydrides are the binary combination of hydrogen and a metal or metal alloy. Metal hydrides have been used in many
industrial applications such as battery electrode material, hydrogen storage medium and heat pump system [Park et al., 2005;
Kang et al., 1996; Fateev et al., 1996; Lloyd et al., 1998; Kim et al., 1998a, 1998b; Houston and Sanrock, 1980]. The hydriding
(exothermic) and dehydriding (endothermic) reactions of a metal hydride can be expressed as:
Joseph, I already calculated that you cannot explain that amount of thermal heat with the hydriding and dehydriding of such a small volume of material.
Certainly can not without input data.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

KitemanSA wrote:It certainly appears that the Krivit demo was bogus unless there was a WHOLE lot of condensing going on in the tube.

Does anyne remember seeing the initiation curve for the Krivit demo or had it reached "steady state"??
The problem is that the tube can only dissipate a fixed (and small) amount of heat.
If you are indeed pumping inside 5 KW thermal at 100'C, than you might get a 500-700 W thermal dissipation with that length and diameter (and I am being very generous!).
This means that you should still have the equivalent of 4,5-4,3 Kw of steam coming out from that tube, and I think is clear now that this is not happening.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote: Certainly can not without input data.
Input data have nothing to do here. The metal hydride cannot hold more than a fixed amount oh heat. Even if you charge it before the experiment it cannot be enough powerful because is a small volume.

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:It certainly appears that the Krivit demo was bogus unless there was a WHOLE lot of condensing going on in the tube.

Does anyne remember seeing the initiation curve for the Krivit demo or had it reached "steady state"??
The problem is that the tube can only dissipate a fixed (and small) amount of heat.
If you are indeed pumping inside 5 KW thermal at 100'C, than you might get a 500-700 W thermal dissipation with that length and diameter (and I am being very generous!).
This means that you should still have the equivalent of 4,5-4,3 Kw of steam coming out from that tube, and I think is clear now that this is not happening.
Do you mean heat transfer through wall?
That is certainly take place. I do not know how much Input data here is the temperature 100Celcius deg, the second data - surface area is unknown.
And I have a big doubt on claimed 5kW as well on "small amount of reactants". How small?
Here you also repeating Rossi's claims. As again you have not any other data.

My guess on base on knowledge that in those conditions hydriding reaction occurs.
Your guess only on Rossi's claims.
Which one is more solid? What do you think?

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

Post by Joseph Chikva »

Giorgio wrote:Input data have nothing to do here. The metal hydride cannot hold more than a fixed amount oh heat.
Even the most powerful D+He3 fusion reaction releases only the fixed amount of heat (kinetic energy).
So, you are wrong again.

fusionfan
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 3:48 am

Post by fusionfan »

ndelta wrote:
I think you meant NOT believe or at least have a question mark at the end. Either way, I did not know that his water flow is not metered and would agree that that is a problem. A big one.

I don't think this is a problem. Again, the input water jug was open for all to see, and a 7 L/hour fall in the level would be easy to verify, either by marking or weighing.

Here is a video of the calculations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA

What's interesting is, that the input is computed to be ~770 wh/h, and the output is

4300 wh/h from vaporization
600 wh/h from heating up 7L/hr water from 25 to 100 degrees C.

If the output water were to be at 100 C with NO steam, then there would be no net generation of energy, whereas if the water coming out were completely vaporized, the output is 4300 + 600 = 4900 wh/h, or 4900/770 = 6.36 mor than input.

For this reason, the assumption regarding what percent of the output water was turned to steam is critical. When Rossi pulled out the hose, no significant amount of water came out, but I suppose a skeptic might say that he shook out the condensed water, etc.

But even if half of the water input were converted to steam, the output would be 2150+600 = 2750 wh/h, or 2750/770 = 3.6 times the input value.

Calcs from the video:
--------------------------------
615.6 watt_hour per kg
615.6 * 7 = 4309.2 watt_hours/hour
100.1 - 25.3 = 74.8 kcal/hour
specific heat of water = 1
1 kcal = 1.14 watt_hour
85.2 watt hour x 7 = 596.9 watt hours.
4309.2 + 596.9 = 4906.1 = produced
3.5 amperes x 220 V = 770 (if 200 V) or 805 (if 230 V) wh/h
4906.1/770 = 6.37

I suppose an easy test would be to increase the pumping rate from 7 kg/hr to 56 kg/hr (or about 1L/min). Not sure that the resistances would allow this. Then if the ecat were producing the same amount of energy, it should take a input water flow at 56 kg/hr and put it out at close to 100 degrees celsius (8 x 615.6 = 4924.8 wh/h). And then the steam issue would go away. I do believe that some of the earlier tests were done with a water flow that did not reach vaporization energies. I also suspect that running too much water through the cooling jacket might lower the temperature in the reactor vessel to below the optimum level. For this reason, it may not be trivial to change the experiment in this fashion.

cg66
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:41 pm

Post by cg66 »

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:It certainly appears that the Krivit demo was bogus unless there was a WHOLE lot of condensing going on in the tube.

Does anyne remember seeing the initiation curve for the Krivit demo or had it reached "steady state"??
The problem is that the tube can only dissipate a fixed (and small) amount of heat.
If you are indeed pumping inside 5 KW thermal at 100'C, than you might get a 500-700 W thermal dissipation with that length and diameter (and I am being very generous!).
This means that you should still have the equivalent of 4,5-4,3 Kw of steam coming out from that tube, and I think is clear now that this is not happening.
I thought the smaller E-Cats were the 2.5 kW devices - Kullander measured ~6kg/h, Lewan measured ~4kg/h in both his tests. Lewan's results were consistant with net power of around 2.3kW. In the Kirvit video Rossi says 7kg/h which is more than these other tests - then there is the power issue 780W vs 345W. Assuming its not a fraud i wonder if Rossi still has control issues. Though the new E-Cats are much purdier than the Frank-n-Ecats. :P

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

Post by chrismb »

fusionfan wrote:When Rossi pulled out the hose, no significant amount of water came out, but I suppose a skeptic might say that he shook out the condensed water
Are you kidding me? A sceptic would think that!? He went to pull the hose straight out, thought better of it and then backed off before tilting the hose to let the water run out!!!! That's what he did!

He holds the hose with the fingers of his right hand for several seconds. When I did my run, I unthinkingly went to touch the hose once with bare fingers, and dropped the f** thing double pronto!! Not something you do twice!!

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:Do you mean heat transfer through wall?
That is certainly take place. I do not know how much Input data here is the temperature 100Celcius deg, the second data - surface area is unknown.
And I have a big doubt on claimed 5kW as well on "small amount of reactants". How small?
Here you also repeating Rossi's claims. As again you have not any other data.

My guess on base on knowledge that in those conditions hydriding reaction occurs.
Your guess only on Rossi's claims.
Which one is more solid? What do you think?
You keep not understanding Joseph.
I am not repeating any claim of Rossi as I do not believe any claim without having evidences.

I am starting from Rossi (or from your) claims and proving why it cannot be what he (or you) is claiming.

Rossi claims 5Kw thermal from the machine he is showing is coming out as steam from the pipeline he is showing. We can estimate the pipe diameter from the video, and it will not make a huge difference.

A rubber pipe with that diameter, 6 mt length, with an air dT of 70 degree can lose 300-400 W/h. I am stating 500-700 W/hto be safe. We can also estimate 1Kw/h losses if you wish, but still the steam output we see in the video is much much less than the 4Kw thermal that we should see coming out of that pipe, according Rossi claims.

Next, you claim that the extra heat can be explained because of hydriding.
This cannot be for 2 reasons.
1) The volume of the e-cat reactor chamber (you can estimate from the video) is little. Even if it was full of material that can undergo hydriding it will not generate the claimed heat, and I posted this calculation to you several pages ago.

2) The only hydrogen present inside the reaction chamber is the one they place inside before they start and because the volume is little, it means that also this is a limiting factor to the amount of heat you can get.

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

Joseph Chikva wrote:
Giorgio wrote:Input data have nothing to do here. The metal hydride cannot hold more than a fixed amount oh heat.
Even the most powerful D+He3 fusion reaction releases only the fixed amount of heat (kinetic energy).
So, you are wrong again.
What does D+He3 fusion has to do with your claim that the extra heat can be explained by hydriding?
You seem very confused sometimes.

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

Post by chrismb »

Giorgio wrote:This means that you should still have the equivalent of 4,5-4,3 Kw of steam coming out from that tube, and I think is clear now that this is not happening.
Bear in mind, also, my run was not an attempt at any sort of calorimetry. It was merely what 25g/min of gas from a boiling volume looks like. Doesn't matter what thermal losses, etc. there are from the pipe, matter cannot disappear.

Also to note, if Rossi is claiming there was no water in the pipe at all, then you can see mine burping up a few cc's ever once in a while, so the actual gas rate of pure dry steam should look a little more still.

My setup was a vertical extraction from the kettle (copper-bottomed stainless steel with one hole only at the spout, and no lid) and I held the pipe for around 50cm vertically (so that it didn't burn on the gas), so the 'immediate' water carryover would have had a chance to gravity feed back into the kettle. Because one might say that in my 'calibration' I included water carry over (as the opening is only 10cm above the water level, but it was less likely in my 50cm high hose-run) that the 25g/min is an over estimation of what actually came out of the pipe. It should [actually] only be less than that, such that a 'true' 25g/min dry ejection should be greater than my video.

I will also re-iterate that there is no visible steam at the immediate exit to my hose. The hose was HOT-HOT :x and little opportunity for condensate within it other than what you see expelled intermittently!!
Last edited by chrismb on Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply