10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[sparkyy0007]

If things are so stable then why do you need to diddle the controls Mr. Rossi ??

[D Tibbets]

Regarding the Ny Teknik video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM

Turn up your headphones and listen carefully to the sequence between 3:05 and 3:10 and then again between 3:38 and 3:48. Do you notice the difference? What is Rossi doing at 3:45?
Why was the water in the bucket not hot (it should be from condensation)?

Input power may have been 370 Watts and output 2kW ... but I wonder, was it at the same time?

Good observation.
when the video fist slews to the pail, there is no sound, and no ripples in the water, Within seconds, condensed steam then becomes visible, surface of the water is being rippled, and loud and obvious gurgling is heard. This would certainly be consistent with Rossi suddenly cranking up the heat. The problem is that I doubt the latency in the heating system could make changes that quickly (?). It may be artifact from the video camera microphone and distance. ie: it is suspicious but not conclusive.

Dan Tibbets

[R.Nkolo]

I didn't notice before
It's really strange.

Are we supposed to be noticing something else!?

[bk78]

Besides the talking and the periodic sound from the pump(?), it is silent when he walks towards the end of the hose, but you can hear a lot of bubbling when he walks back. The last "burp" comes at 4:06, and after that it is silent again.

@Dan: When the temperature is around 100 degrees, power increase would result very quickly in steam production, (there is no thermal ineria in play), and as soon as steam is produced, pressure rises instantly and is has to come out somewhere. I don't think it has to do anything with microphone position, as you can hear it for quite a while in the other room.

[sparkyy0007]

Regarding the Ny Teknik video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM

Turn up your headphones and listen carefully to the sequence between 3:05 and 3:10 and then again between 3:38 and 3:48. Do you notice the difference? What is Rossi doing at 3:45?
Why was the water in the bucket not hot (it should be from condensation)?

Input power may have been 370 Watts and output 2kW ... but I wonder, was it at the same time?

Good observation.
when the video fist slews to the pail, there is no sound, and no ripples in the water, Within seconds, condensed steam then becomes visible, surface of the water is being rippled, and loud and obvious gurgling is heard. This would certainly be consistent with Rossi suddenly cranking up the heat. The problem is that I doubt the latency in the heating system could make changes that quickly (?). It may be artifact from the video camera microphone and distance. ie: it is suspicious but not conclusive.

Dan Tibbets

What latency? If he did crank up the heat we don't know when.
Was it when the camera was still in the other room, and heading for the doorway?
I don't see a whole lot of thermal mass here.
Shouldn't take more than a few seconds if the water is already at 100 and the steam output seemed to be increasing as we watched the pail.

[D Tibbets]

duplicate deleted

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.

What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?

I watched the video. there was considerable optimism despite obvious unanswered questions..

Concerning the gamma radiation. At ~ 18:24 it is mentioned that a neutron bubble detector was full of bubbles. No other details, and it is not considered further. At ~22:30, it was mentioned that there was a short but intense gamma flux- peak that maxed out the geiger counter (the scale was not mentioned) He said he was outside the room at the time, and then Rossi came out and said the machine was working. After waiting in the hall for ~ 1/2 hr he said he entered the room and tested near the machine, and at that point the gamma levels were ~ 50% over background, and he said it was bouncing around. This is meaningless as he did not give the range of this variation Was it greater than the normal statistical variation in the radiation counts? There was no mention of the machine being turned off at this point.
At ~ 25:30 he mentioned trying to measure ~ 511 KeV back to back Beta+ decay gammas. That he did not was indicative that this nuclear pathway ( neutron (or would that be a proton?)+Ni to copper +positron) was not occuring. He did not mention whether he was using a gamma spectrometers or a pair of Geiger counters. He did say they cut holes in the lead shielding for this test. He could have measured lower energy gammas at this time, even if the lead shielding was adequate to block these gammas. He did not comment on this. The subsequent speculation that these lower energy gammas might come from alternative fusion pathways was not explored further.

Two questions on these speculative low energy gammas- what energy range are they speculating on- 1000 eV, 10,000 eV, 50,000 eV? With thousands of Watts of claimed nuclear power, the flux of these gammas would be tremendous. You would not need to shield out 99 % or even 99.99% of the gammas, you would need to be shielding out 99.9999% or more before they would fall below detectable levels with a simple Geiger counter .
As a comparison, consider the P-B11 reaction. There is a branch that produces a gamma ~ 1/10,000 reactions. At 100 MW this can be quickly lethal if not well shielded by several feet of concreate and steel/ heavier metals. ie: a gamma flux of several Seiverts / hr or more. At 10,000 watts the gamma numbers might be lower intensity, but just as many if the gammas were produced in the dominate branch of any reactions.
Assume that the counts would be ~ same. The damage (Seiverts) may be several orders of magnitude less and the penetration may be several orders of magnitude less, but the standoff distance (say 1meter instead of 10 M wold result in relative fluxes ~ 100 times greater. Within the room with the Rossi device. Even if the thin lead shielding stopped all but 1 ppm , the measurable flux would still be considerably above background
For that matter, in the case that neutrons are used and/ or produced by the reaction (remember the mention of the neutron bubble detector)- where do they come from? They certainly would not be stopped by a fraction of an inch of lead unless they started out very near thermal temperatures, in which case they would have difficulty penetrating the glass of the bubble detector so the bubbles mentioned would be an underestimate of neutron output.

The gamma ray radiation spike was while the meter and observer was outside the room, but Rossi was inside the room. This uncontrolled situation is another instance where Rossi could have manipulated the situation, taken a radioactive source out of a lead can, etc. It would have been interesting if the interviewee had of used his Geiger counter to prospect within the room to determine where the radiation peaked highest.

At least in this video the 'Swedes' apparently toured Rossi's lab, and saw a demo, like others. Then returned to Sweden and wrote their report. That does not sound like much of an independent analysis.
Restricted measurements, passively witnessing of what Rossi allows, is not really analyzing the validity of the claims, it is only confirming what Rossi wants you to see.


Dan Tibbets

[fusionfan]

Ouch! (sigh)

Rossi could have been caught on video here juicing the heater current down when the observers came back into the main room, in case the observers might want to recheck the ammeter. This may be why the gurgling stopped soon after the observers returned to the main room.

[Joseph Chikva]

I don't have a better insight into the e-cat device than you, i'm just referring to what have been stated in the videos.
Concerning the energies, again referring to the videos, i will say far lesser than 511 kev, see video at 23:37, they didn't detect photons in this range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray# ... erminology

... Because of this broad overlap in energy ranges, the two types of electromagnetic radiation are now usually defined by their origin: X-rays are emitted by electrons (either in orbitals outside of the nucleus, or while being accelerated to produce Bremsstrahlung-type radiation), while gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus or from other particle decays or annihilation events. There is no lower limit to the energy of photons produced by nuclear reactions, and thus ultraviolet and even lower energy photons produced by these processes would also be defined as "gamma rays".[ ...

Good shielding. I need not video.
As you know or "know" please answer on the following:
Energy of gamma quants?
Shielding material?
Thickness?

You are little bit late as I already knew what gamma-rays are.
So, as I understand you are repeating the Rossi's claims.
But I see how Mr. Rossi can correctly put experiments.
Thanks.

[D Tibbets]

Regarding the Ny Teknik video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8SeOteFPtM

Turn up your headphones and listen carefully to the sequence between 3:05 and 3:10 and then again between 3:38 and 3:48. Do you notice the difference? What is Rossi doing at 3:45?
Why was the water in the bucket not hot (it should be from condensation)?

Input power may have been 370 Watts and output 2kW ... but I wonder, was it at the same time?

Good observation.
when the video fist slews to the pail, there is no sound, and no ripples in the water, Within seconds, condensed steam then becomes visible, surface of the water is being rippled, and loud and obvious gurgling is heard. This would certainly be consistent with Rossi suddenly cranking up the heat. The problem is that I doubt the latency in the heating system could make changes that quickly (?). It may be artifact from the video camera microphone and distance. ie: it is suspicious but not conclusive.

Dan Tibbets

What latency? If he did crank up the heat we don't know when.
Was it when the camera was still in the other room, and heading for the doorway?
I don't see a whole lot of thermal mass here.
Shouldn't take more than a few seconds if the water is already at 100 and the steam output seemed to be increasing as we watched the pail.

Another valid point. This brings up another criticism of the experimental setup. Inductive amp meters hooked up to the cord coming from the wall outlet should give a reasonably accurate measurement of the power (220 V wall outlet can be assumed*). But, it only reveals the current flow when the meter is being viewed. To avoid fraudulent manipulation, you need a continuous recorded amp measurement.

As I've seen on another forum, to accurately measure heat output, there does not need to be confusing steam measurement, the drainage tube could simply be placed into a bottle of water with known starting water temperature, beginning and ending weights, time, and temperature change. The heat output would be quickly determined, with some modest correction for heat loss through insulation. Rossi's setup would not need to be changed, just repositioning of the drainage tube. This is so simple that only stupidity, pride, and. or deceit could explain avoiding this test.

* Can the wall outlet voltage be assumed?. Were all of these demos done in his 'lab'? It looks like the most of them were. I'm not sure of the demo that was done in March before a larger (?) audience.

Dan Tibbets

[polyill]

By polyill

[Joseph Chikva]

As I've seen on another forum, to accurately measure heat output, there does not need to be confusing steam measurement, the drainage tube could simply be placed into a bottle of water with known starting water temperature, beginning and ending weights, time, and temperature change. The heat output would be quickly determined, with some modest correction for heat loss through insulation. Rossi's setup would not need to be changed, just repositioning of the drainage tube. This is so simple that only stupidity, pride, and. or deceit could explain avoiding this test.

Yes, this is correct if neglect heat losses via heat transfer through hose walls.
And if input mass flow equal to output.

But much simpler to increase flow to avoid vaporization at all.
As I see Rossi does not want to do so.

[sparkyy0007]

I am convinced. After seeing what only 700W or so steam looks like, much less 2000W this room should have been a sauna with a couple of kw of steam flowing.

But maybe the test just started...
If it did then why is there several inches of water in the bucket?

Maybe the steam condensed on the walls of the bucket and didn't fill the room?

The bucket is plastic, it would heat up very quickly and once hot would condense very little steam.

[chrismb]

I just happened to take a look at the Rossi blog and noticed this exchange;

J. Catania
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Dear Mr. Rossi,
I’d like to congratulate you on the work you have been doing. I must admit there does seem to be some debate, in the community at large that is examining your results, as to whether the steam quality issuing from your hose can be considered dry. In the video there can be seen water vapor coming from the hose- this certainly indicates some wetness. Also I believe you would confirm the presence of some condensation in the hose which could possibly be collected in a bucket in order to estimate the amount. This condensation would, of course, underestimate the wetness of the steam but would provide a lower limit on it. Since instrumental measurement of steam quality would seem to be a difficult matter perhaps the estimate I suggest might temporarily assuage the doubts that some have expressed.

Sincerely,
J. Catania

Andrea Rossi
June 23rd, 2011 at 1:18 AM
Dear J.Catania, I have already answered to this issue. To estimate a steam flow in television is ridiculous. Dry steam is not visible. All you can see is the wet portion of it. I already gave in this blog the flow-speed calculation. Some imbecile has made a comparison between our output and ne of an appliance that emits more water than steam. We cannot lose time on this. Again, only product in operation in Customers’ facilities is the test that counts. All the rest is chattering which produces more chattering, exponentially, if you fall in this trap.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I am not aware that anyone else that has practically made such a comparison, so one might presume Not-Ing Rossi is watching this thread.

What a twit! Just because a gas is invisible doesn't mean that the visible stuff is going to come out at a different speed, does it, Not-Ing Rossi? Why should my setup have more 'wet steam' in it than yours? I provide a vertical condensation column of 500mm of pipe in mine, what about yours? How come there is no visible steam at the end of the pipe in mine, but there is in yours. Sorry, the video comparison is so striking that it would appear to leave little doubt.

I even gave the NyTek video the benefit of the doubt, but now your sleight of hand in that appears clearly.

If *I* am an imbecile with my 'European Engineering Training' what status of intellect are you, dear sir?

[sparkyy0007]

I think what he means to say chrismb is he has both wet and dry steam, meaning his has twice the output.

Not likely...