10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

I don't know if Girorgio has been able to contact Professors Essen and Kullander in Sweden to make his suggestions on a "proper" E-Cat test setup, but it might be worth the effort as others have said they got responses from inquiries to them.

I sent them an e-mail on the 17th. Didn't get a reply.
I will send them another one today.

VG, Giorgio, I hope you get some kind of response.

Sent to them another e-mail 10 min ago, let's wait and see.

That being said, it is still very possible that the E-Cat will not turn out to be what Rossi claims. This would not be the first time that a well intentioned and sincere inventor/scientist got caught up in his own apparent success and succumed to self-delusions.

That's exactly the point.

However, each of these tests (while not perfect), seems to get better than previous ones in some meaningful respects and tips the scales more in the direction of Rossi really having something novel here.

While the quality of the tests gets better it is also true that the COP dropped considerably. Self delusion might be hiding right behind the corner here....
I wrote to Rossi on his website, let's see if he can give us a reply on this point.

[Giorgio]

I pointed to a real issue here. A 100% difference in COP between two identical trials simply by checking to water mass flow.
I didn't see anyone of the people supporting the E-cat commenting on this.

First, I don't recall anyone asking him about it. Why don't you?

Here you go:

Giorgio R.
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Dear Ing. Rossi,

upon a verification of the reported results of the experiments of the 29th of March, and of the 19/28 April I noticed the following:

March 29th
P(out)= 4.69Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.33Kw (Electrical)
COP = 15

April 19
P(out)= 2.95Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.35Kw (Electrical)
COP = 8.5

April 28
P(out)= 2.70Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.37Kw (Electrical)
COP = 7.3

Could you please give me your opinion on this issue?

The reply is not helpful:

#Andrea Rossi
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Dear Mr Giorgio R.
As I said, it is matter of regulation.
Warm regards,
A.R.

[ladajo]

Now that is funny.

[Kahuna]

I pointed to a real issue here. A 100% difference in COP between two identical trials simply by checking to water mass flow.
I didn't see anyone of the people supporting the E-cat commenting on this.

First, I don't recall anyone asking him about it. Why don't you?

Here you go:

Giorgio R.
May 3rd, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Dear Ing. Rossi,

upon a verification of the reported results of the experiments of the 29th of March, and of the 19/28 April I noticed the following:

March 29th
P(out)= 4.69Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.33Kw (Electrical)
COP = 15

April 19
P(out)= 2.95Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.35Kw (Electrical)
COP = 8.5

April 28
P(out)= 2.70Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.37Kw (Electrical)
COP = 7.3

Could you please give me your opinion on this issue?

The reply is not helpful:

#Andrea Rossi
May 3rd, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Dear Mr Giorgio R.
As I said, it is matter of regulation.
Warm regards,
A.R.

I could be mistaken, but I think what Rossi is saying is that he can control (regulate) the intensity of the reaction (and therefore output) via his control box (he has claimed 0-100 control before) and that during the various tests noted, this setting was different leading to the different outputs. At least that is my guess from the context of his answer.

[Giorgio]

I could be mistaken, but I think what Rossi is saying is that he can control (regulate) the intensity of the reaction (and therefore output) via his control box (he has claimed 0-100 control before) and that during the various tests noted, this setting was different leading to the different outputs. At least that is my guess from the context of his answer.

The only interaction he has with the reactor is with the heater, the temperature probes and the flow of water.
The probes are passive.
The flow is constant.
The heater cannot be regulated, is either ON or OFF . According the test reports is always ON.
There is nothing else connected.

In what other way he could be regulating the reaction inside the sealed chamber is out of my capacity of logical reasoning.

[cg66]

The water flows are different between the March 29th and April 19/28 tests. The March 29th test measured 6.47kg/h, the April 19 was 4.12kg/h and the April 28th was 4.10kg/h. Could explain the difference between the tests.

http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... %28pdf%29.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... l+2011.pdf
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article ... l+2011.pdf

March 29th
P(out)= 4.69Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.33Kw (Electrical)
COP = 15

April 19
P(out)= 2.95Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.35Kw (Electrical)
COP = 8.5

April 28
P(out)= 2.70Kw (Thermal)
P(in) = 0.37Kw (Electrical)
COP = 7.3

[raphael]

The heat output may be a function of the pressure of the H2.

In other words, the more pressure that's within the reactor when it's closed up, the more heat it produces after the reaction is initiated.

Here we're also dealing with semantics. To wit, are we talking about the ability to raise/lower output during operation or is it only a one-shot matter prior to initiation. ???

[Giorgio]

The water flows are different between the March 29th and April 19/28 tests. The March 29th test measured 6.47kg/h, the April 19 was 4.12kg/h and the April 28th was 4.10kg/h. Could explain the difference between the tests.

On the test of March 29th the flow was "estimated" and cannot be considered.
On the April tests the Flow was roughly verified with weight.

Anyhow, the difference from 4,10 Kg/h to 4,12 Kg/h accounts for 6 extra drops of water each minute (or an extra drop every 10 seconds).
This does not have any type of effect.

[cg66]

On the test of March 29th the flow was "estimated" and cannot be considered.
On the April tests the Flow was roughly verified with weight.

Anyhow, the difference from 4,10 Kg/h to 4,12 Kg/h accounts for 6 extra drops of water each minute (or an extra drop every 10 seconds).
This does not have any type of effect.

I agree but that "estimated" value was used to calculate the March 29th net energy - which you used in your COP comparison. Not trying to pick a fight just pointing out a possibility as to why March 29th had a higher net energy than the April 19/28 test. Perhaps a good question for Mats Lewan as to how he picked his flow rate - probably had to do with the size of the reservoirs he had available

[Giorgio]

The heat output may be a function of the pressure of the H2.

In other words, the more pressure that's within the reactor when it's closed up, the more heat it produces after the reaction is initiated.

Here we're also dealing with semantics. To wit, are we talking about the ability to raise/lower output during operation or is it only a one-shot matter prior to initiation. ???

Everything could be, but I'll bite to your point:

March29
Hydrogen weight : 0.11 gr
COP:15


April 19
Hydrogen weight :0.5 gr
COP:8.5


April 28:
Hydrogen weight : 0,3 gr
COP:7.3


The reactor chamber volume is constant among the 3 test.
To an higher loaded weight of Hydrogen it corresponds an higher internal pressure inside the chamber.

If we order the results in terms of H2 pressure (loaded weight) into the reactor, we have (from higher to lower):

COP 8.5
COP 7.3
COP 15.0

See the discrepancy?

[Luzr]

Giorgio, perhaps you should research the epithet "Fliers or Liars?" wrt the Wright brothers and their attempts to assert the essential facts of their accomplishment. The reality is that they were initially mocked and derided to a shameful extent; both by those who should have known better and by the unwashed rabble of the day.

...and, they sued anybody who tried to replicate the "aircraft experiment" too.. so much for scientific method

[Giorgio]

I agree but that "estimated" value was used to calculate the March 29th net energy - which you used in your COP comparison. Not trying to pick a fight just pointing out a possibility as to why March 29th had a higher net energy than the April 19/28 test. Perhaps a good question for Mats Lewan as to how he picked his flow rate - probably had to do with the size of the reservoirs he had available

Exactly!
This is what I keep pointing out.

The higher COP and the higher results obtained until now could be simply due to a poor (none) verification of the flow of water inside the reactor during the experiment.
The first time they start to measure water flow the COP drops drastically.
Don't you find it strange?

[cg66]

Exactly!
This is what I keep pointing out.

The higher COP and the higher results obtained until now could be simply due to a poor (none) verification of the flow of water inside the reactor during the experiment.
The first time they start to measure water flow the COP drops drastically.
Don't you find it strange?

Ok I follow - makes the question to Mr. Lewan even more interesting. Did he set flow based on when he thought he had all steam (which has its own set of questions) or just some arbitrary value based on the size of containers.

[Axil]

I could be mistaken, but I think what Rossi is saying is that he can control (regulate) the intensity of the reaction (and therefore output) via his control box (he has claimed 0-100 control before) and that during the various tests noted, this setting was different leading to the different outputs. At least that is my guess from the context of his answer.

Rossi can control the reaction using power from the control box. This input power is variable and controls the internal heater.

Rossi is most concerned with the safety and controllability of the Cat-E. This ability to control the Cat-E is THE KEY FACTOR in the commercial success of the Cat-E.

I would not want a Cat-E in my basement if it were prone to meltdown or explode. This has already happened 30 some odd times in Cat-E development.

Rossi found that the higher the energy gain (Q - ratio if input energy to output energy), the more difficult it is to control the reactor. In the beginning of his development, he had the Q factor way up in the hundreds. It exploded many time. Rossi found that the reaction is most controllable when the Q factor is below 10.

The Cat-E is a work in progress, even today; he changes the design to enhance its performance.

Smaller reactors are more controllable than larger ones.

He has been trading off Q and reactor size against controllability for sometime now. He has been reducing Q from over 100 in the beginning to fewer than 10 now.

[Ivy Matt]

...and, they sued anybody who tried to replicate the "aircraft experiment" too.. so much for scientific method

Which is probably why almost all aircraft nowadays taxi on wheels and use ailerons for roll control.