LENR Is Real

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Giorgio
Posts: 2725
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Giorgio » Fri May 20, 2016 5:46 am

If this is the level of knowledge of the so called LENR experts and supporters out there it is not hard to understand how people like Rossi are still able to sell their scam.....
A society of dogmas is a dead society.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Sat May 21, 2016 3:27 pm

By the way, because I recalled handling larger than 3L Liquid N2 Dewars in my younger days, I decided to look up what a 3L Dewar looks like:

http://www.amazon.com/Cryogenic-Container-Liquid-Nitrogen-Canisters/dp/B00B4YR0AO

This one comes in at about 12 to 13 lbs. I really like the Backpack straps and bag.

So much for "300 lbs". Makes that whole story more suspect.

Even if it was a 35 Liter Dewar, then it would still only weigh about 50 lbs.
In my personal experience with large stainless Dewars, they were more insulation than metal. The heavy part was the lid assy to seal it up.
We had a couple of times where the lids blew off while one of us was tending them and shaking to agitate the N2 for pressure/fill checks. One of my co-workers ended up with lifetime burn scars from one of the incidents. The irony being that it happened from cold, while working on top of a reactor vessel next to the control rods. I was not in the space with him when it blew, he was alone, but I was the first to get to him when he came out and was smoking like he was on fire as the N2 cooked off from his garments. The only time I have ever undressed a man, and I did it in seconds. Not something I share at parties... :)

A nice Stainless one with a carry & pouring handle:

Image

http://barnaorcom.ipage.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=1829_1830&product_id=10287

Here are some more:

http://www.coleparmer.com/Category/Cryogenic_Storage_Dewars/2642?navstate=/_/N-3b3wewZgjjlneZgjjlnf
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby hanelyp » Sun May 22, 2016 3:04 am

I suppose wet steam calorimetry isn't impossible, but I don't see a reputable researcher using such a complicated and error prone method. To get useful results you'd have to measure quantity of both steam and liquid water out. Single phase calorimetry would be my choice if I wanted to measure the thermal power output of a device.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Sun May 22, 2016 4:30 pm

Wet steam can be done if you are able to measure the quality. One of the ways to do this is to track the mass flow rate of the fluids, as long as it is a closed system.
In a closed loop, you can also measure wasted heat from the condensers, as well as expended energy in the work device and add them together.
It tricky, and carries error margins.

The best way is do not phase change. Everyone who has ever done real calorimetry knows this. You can seriously get a fluid in temp, fluid out temp, and then either measure pressure, or measure mass flow rate (which can be done with a bucket and a wristwatch in smaller scale applications, or with a pump delta P and fluid temp in larger applications.) After that, it is all about error accounting/acceptance, which gets exponentially less hard the more power or added energy you are dealing with. Measuring a COP of 6 is cake, COP 50 is a whole lot of cake. At those levels, you could literally walk in, note a couple of readings, verifying where and how they are taken, idiot check the tables/chart, and do the math on a napkin or in your head, having a ballpark answer within single digit minutes. There is no magic to it.

For example, when I used to do this in a nuclear plant, I would calculate power from the primary loop deltaT across the steam generator, as well as measure the loop pressure. That would tell me in about a minute (long enough to take the readings, check the tables, and do the math) how much power was being generated/pulled from that steam generator.
This was then bounced off the secondary expended energy numbers from turbine power outputs (easy calculation for a on closed loop system), as well as the deltaT and vacuum in the main condensers. We also measured the cooling side of the condensers for deltaT cooling water and flowrate (pump deltas).
We also measured core generated power via (on1) flux, which gave another source/cross check.
Mashing all this together would also give you plant and carnot cycle efficiencies.
At the end of the day, it is all about walking the dog around a Mollier, and comparing actual measured numbers against ideal numbers.

It is clear to me, based on the way that Rossiclown has commented, structured his equipment, and performed measurements, he has not idea what he is really doing, and only seeks to tell a story of his choosing. In the videos, as well as in his written products, and comments, especially earlier, he had no idea at all about steam carnot cycles. He was making it up as he went, and clearly using feedback to adjust what he was saying to sound more plausible. I think for me, the day I saw the Krivit video, where there was water being poured down the drain, yet Rossiclown was claiming 100% saturated vapor in his calculations was the pivotal day for me in deciding he was full of shit. You can not argue that any other way; He lied, and was caught on camera doing it. The only way you could try to argue it would be if you did not know what you were talking about.

In Rossiworld, competent experts are not allowed, when they show up and ask real questions, shortly thereafter, as documented history has demonstrated, Rossiclown (or Rossibot) gets mad, and seeks to eject the critical opinion from the argument. In Rossiclown's own actions, this has manifested as either him throwing folks out, banning them from participation, or deleting posts on his blogs. For the online forums, this can also be seen when commenters asking real questions get banned, such as Tom Clarke or others, by the Rossibots.

This whole excursion is going to make a great story about how scammers can suck folks in, as well as how they can be sucked in.
Once Rossiclown is in jail again, there will STILL be supporters amazingly enough. It is like a Kool-aid cult.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Sun May 22, 2016 4:45 pm

hanelyp wrote:I suppose wet steam calorimetry isn't impossible, but I don't see a reputable researcher using such a complicated and error prone method. To get useful results you'd have to measure quantity of both steam and liquid water out. Single phase calorimetry would be my choice if I wanted to measure the thermal power output of a device.


To clarify more simply, you can do this if you have pressures, temps, and mass flow rate. You can then use the steam tables/mollier to find you energy states of the fluid (for a given temp/pressure it can have only one state) in a flow balanced system. In Rossiclown's case, you would measure water massflow & temp in, water massflow & temp out (massflow in can be based on the pump or a meter, massflow out could be the never fail "fill the bucket time", and boiling chamber pressure. Any delta in the water mass flow rate can be assumed to be steam mass flow rate. Then, the quality of the steam can be found using the enthalpic values from the table. You could also rough this off a Mollier. From this data you would get power and steam quality.
The main source of error would be in the length of the drain hose and how much that allowed steam to condense, which would be controlled by having no or as short a hose possible, prior to measuring the output water massflow rate & temp. Otherwise you'd have to take into account headloss and cooling along the hose, and that would be no fun.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Sun May 22, 2016 11:39 pm

Rossiclown once again demonstrating he doesn't know what he is talking about.

1. Please tell me Oh Great Rossiclown of the Steam Quality?
'But I can not Oh Faithful One, for the law must run its course! And! Do We need to question the Greatness of Our Great Engineer? He is Nuclear!'
<or, to simplfy> 'I don't know how to answer that without digging a deeper hole for myself'

Oystein Lande
May 22, 2016 at 12:02 PM
Dear mr Rossi,

Did you see my question on steam quality?

Was it measured?

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:06 PM
Oystein Lande:
Let me repeat another time: I cannot disclose even parts of the Report of the ERV before it is disclosed in Court. All I can say is that the measurements have been made by a nuclear engineer expert of nuclear power plants, certifications and validations. Do you think we ( or you ) have to explain to him how to measure the energy consumed and the energy produced by a boiler during one year ?
Warm Regards,
A.R.


2. Please tell me Oh Great Rossiclown of the Court Process, for I am foreign, and just don't get it?
'But I can not Oh Faithful One, for the law must run its course! And! Do WE need to question the Greatness of Our Great Lawyer? He is Lawlike!'
<or, to simplfy> 'I don't know how to answer that without digging a deeper hole for myself'

DvH
May 22, 2016 at 12:58 PM
Hello Mr Rossi,

most international readers of this blog may not know the details of american law-system. What kind of procedure is it?
Greetings
dvh

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:39 PM
DvH:
My attorney reccommended to me not to disclose the Report of the ERV before its disclosure in Court, because it should be uncorrect. For obvious reasons, I comply.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


3. Please tell me Oh Great Rossiclown of the ERV and his Good Foresight in Recognizing Your Greatness?
'But I can Oh Faithful One, for the ERV knows well how great I AM! And! Do WE need to question the Greatness of Our Great Engineer? He is Nuclear and thus KNOWS he can isolate input deltaT from boiling temperature and output temperature and speak NOT of pressure ANYWHERE!'
<or, to simplfy> 'I don't know that boiling temperature/pressure for superheat are the same as superheat temperature/pressure, and thus make a nonsensical, but WORLDLY answer, and dig a deeper hole for myself. In FACT, I KNOW NOT how Superheat is actually done!'

My note: I am VERY curious to see what instrumentation and calculation process Rossiclown enacted to see if it supports this claim to ignore input and and output enthalpies. Imagine the exam question: Water Inlet temp is 100C, outlet temp is 100C, the boiler is operating at 1 ATM, mass flow rate is 36 tons/day; calculate energy added. Right...

Sebastian
May 22, 2016 at 1:42 PM
Dear Andrea,

Thank you for your response earlier today. It clarifies things a bit.

I do have one more question:

You told Mats Lewan that to be conservative, the ERV ignored the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature.

Did the ERV also ignore the energy corresponding to heating the vaporized water to temperatures above boiling point?

Thank you!

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 1:53 PM
Sebastian:
Good question. Yes, the ERV ignored also the energy spent to heat the steam above the boiling point, as well as the energy necessary to raise the temperature of the water from circa 60-70 °C to the boiling point, to be conservative.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


4. Please tell me Oh Great Rossiclown of Your Greatness AGAIN in Superheating THE STEAM?
'But I can Oh Faithful One, for ALL knows well how great I AM! And! Do We need to question the Greatness of Our Machine? It is LOW ENERGY Nuclear and thus GREAT! The MACHINE is COMPLEX and thus MAKES SUPERHEAT!
<or, to simplfy> 'I still don't know how Superheat is done, and thus make another nonsensical, but WORLDLY answer, and dig a deeper hole for myself'

My note: I am really curious (again) how he thinks he can explain using the same boxes with constrictive flow paths and suspect materials to survive one year of supposed superheat operations with no materials or chemistry control, not to mention steam flow erosion and pitting issues. Of these issues Rossiclown has never spoken nor been questioned. Again, demonstrating he knows not what he spews. These would be amongst the foremost considerations for building a 1MW fluid system superheating boiler that is designed for continuous operations. This also does not address the fundamental issue of his "ecat" cookie cutter modular approach, given that if he was doing multistage steam generation, that HE COULD NOT USE the same mini-boilers in series and expect the same heat transfer or operating characteristics at each stage. Dumbass.

Oystein Lande
May 22, 2016 at 2:36 PM
Dear Mr Rossi,

I’m sorry. Was just curious of what principles were used. We will wait for later then.

About your answer to Sebastian:

Does this imply that heating was done in stages?
I mean one core was boiling water and the next was superheating the steam from boiler section?

Andrea Rossi
May 22, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Oystein Lande:
It’s ok, thanks for your comprehension.
The circuit was complex, but yes, the steam was superheated.
Warm Regards,
A.R.


You are going to Jail Rossiclown. Again.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Wed May 25, 2016 2:16 am

I invite any Rossibot to explain and defend the following:

Video 1: Rossiclown explaining his magic box power production. Key section time 1:30 until time 3:30.
Claimed energy = 4,305.2 wh/h

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTz5Bq6dsA&feature=youtu.be

Video 2: Rossiclown caught in his own stupidity and lie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E

Key section 1 time 6:20 to time 7:30, Rossiclown stating low energy gamma rays are thermalized, which is the reason for energy production. He also states that "we are safe because the reactor is shielded".
Key section 2 time 10:25 to end, Rossiclown stating all steam comes out, with just a little condensation, while making sure to not have the hose out of the wall drain for very long.

Question 1: If Rossiclown says there is water "condensation" in the drain line, why does he not just remove the drain line, and show that there is only steam coming out of the boiler?

Question 2: How does Rossiclown know it is dry steam based on the test rig seen in the video (100.1 boiler temp @ claimed 1 atm pressure)?

Question 3: If you can see the steam, is it a saturated vapor?

Question 4: How can Rossiclown claim of 100% latent heat of vaporization?

Notes:
There are no pressure gages nor relief valves.
The water source is a peristaltic (rotary positive displacement) pump.
Rossiclown can be seen to lift and tip the rubber hose to drain it before he pulls it from the wall.
Once the hose is out of the wall, each time Rossiclown is rushed to put it back in the wall, in effect; Look steam! and back to the wall drain.
7kg/hr of water is equal to 15.4lbs/hr. This is just under two gallons, and about .257 ft3. Water expands to steam at a ratio of 1:1603 at 1 atm. Thus generating a claimed 412.75ft3/hr of steam, or 6.88ft3/min, or .115ft3/sec (8 sec = 1ft3 steam).
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

DancingFool
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 5:01 pm
Location: Way up north

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby DancingFool » Wed May 25, 2016 2:57 am

ladajo

You missed the last, fun step. .115 cu ft/sec through a 0.5 ID hose gives 88 ft/sec, or just about 60 mph.
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he strafed the lifeboats.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Wed May 25, 2016 3:34 pm

Ahhh! You beat me to it!!!
I thought about adding that after I posted, and figured I post again with that calculation as well.

Standing by for critiques.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby paperburn1 » Fri May 27, 2016 2:16 pm

A good "think about it" experiment would be to compare the output of your standard kettle with a whistle on your stove top.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Fri May 27, 2016 2:54 pm

A 10mm hose/tea kettle spout diameter kicks some steam even if it is saturated.
Another point, seemingly lost on all, and continuously overlooked is that there is NO WAY the boiling chamber is at atmospheric while boiling.
Especially with that long drain hose. So, science fans, what happens to the evaporative conditions if the pressure is higher in the chamber, yet the temp sets pretty solid at 100.1?

Another point I have observed is that when you listen to the video audios, and this includes both the Krivit and Lewan videos, what do you hear?

You hear steam gurgling through water in the hose. In the Lewan video, you can also see water in a continuous stream in the bucket when Lewan zooms up, while first checking the hose. It is hard to see, but it is there. This is damning in itself.

I do also love that the same thing happens in both videos; the 'investigator' walks around the corner to the drain line output, and there is not much happening. Suddenly, it gets energetic, steam and gurgling, whatnot. Then the 'investigator' returns to the Ecat table, and we see Rossiclown mucking with the controls, and alas, the steam noise now goes away while Rossiclown looks guilty and moves away from the heater controls.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Fri May 27, 2016 4:15 pm

And for those who don't know or haven't yet done the math for steam velocity, here it is:

Velocity = (4 x volumetric flow rate)/(pi x (Diameter of pipe)^2)
or
Velocity = (4 x mass flow rate)/(pi x density x (Diameter of pipe)^2)
Sooo..... let's do it with density/mass flow rate...and don't forget steam is 1603 times the volume of water. So, if Rossi had a saturated vapor, then all water mass becomes steam... thus I have provided three calculations based on Rossiclown using all 7kg/hr of water, and producing 100%, 50%, or 1% quality steam. Watch what happens to velocity as steam quality drops. Then think about what happens if steam quality AND mass flow rate drops (ie. he is not converting all water to steam). So which of these looks more like the Rossiclown demo?

I am going to use the density version, and I pulled the quality v. density numbers for it from:
http://www.efunda.com/materials/water/steamtable_sat_wetsteam.cfm

Saturated Vapor (1atm & 100C)
= 7kg/hr / (pi x 0.59kg/m^3 x 0.0001m^2)
= 7kg/hr / 1.85354^10-4 kg/m
= 37,765.5797 m/hr
= 10.4904m/s
= 34.4173ft/s
= 23.4664 mph

Saturated Steam 50% Quality (1atm & 100C)
= 7kg/hr / (pi x 1.1947kg/m^3 x 0.0001m^2)
= 7kg/hr / 3.7533^10-4 kg/m
= 18,650.45 m/hr
= 5.1807 m/s
= 16.997 ft/s
= 11.589 mph

Saturated Steam 1% Quality (1atm & 100C)
= 7kg/hr / (pi x 56.924kg/m^3 x 0.0001m^2)
= 7kg/hr / 0.01788 kg/m
= 391.43 m/hr
= 0.1087 m/s
= 0.3566 ft/s
= 0.243 mph

And for fun, lets do 3.5 kg/hr mass flow to represent NOT converting all water to steam...

Saturated Vapor (1atm & 100C)
= 3.5kg/hr / (pi x 0.59kg/m^3 x 0.0001m^2)
= 3.5kg/hr / 1.85354^10-4 kg/m
= 18,882.7865 m/hr
= 5.2452 m/s
= 17.2087 ft/s
= 11.73 mph

Saturated Steam 50% Quality (1atm & 100C)
= 3.5kg/hr / (pi x 1.1947kg/m^3 x 0.0001m^2)
= 3.5kg/hr / 3.7533^10-4 kg/m
= 9,325.1272 m/hr
= 2.5903 m/s
= 8.4984 ft/s
= 5.794 mph

Saturated Steam 1% Quality (1atm & 100C)
= 3.5kg/hr / (pi x 56.924kg/m^3 x 0.0001m^2)
= 3.5kg/hr / 0.01788 kg/m
= 195.7494 m/hr
= 0.05437 m/s
= 0.1784 ft/s
= 0.122 mph

So, what have we learned from the video and data presented?
It would appear that based on observable saturated steam flow (visible, low speed/volume) and water draining from line, that Rossiclown is NOT producing dry steam, and not converting all steam to water. The calculated conditions for 3.5kg/hr & 50% quality verses 3.5kg/hr & 1% quality seem to be more in the ballpark based on documented visual observations from TWO 'investigators'.

Even if you want to give Rossiclown credit for converting all 7kg/hr water to steam, he must be in the low quality range to account for observed steam velocity giving between .36ft/sec and 17ft/sec. If someone wants to run the numbers for 25% quality I bet that comes even closer to observed conditions (estimated .18ft.sec & 8ft/sec) It may even be down around 10% (estimated 0.08ft/sec to 3.5ft/sec).
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

krenshala
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby krenshala » Fri May 27, 2016 9:24 pm

ladajo wrote:A 10mm hose/tea kettle spout diameter kicks some steam even if it is saturated.
Another point, seemingly lost on all, and continuously overlooked is that there is NO WAY the boiling chamber is at atmospheric while boiling.
Especially with that long drain hose. So, science fans, what happens to the evaporative conditions if the pressure is higher in the chamber, yet the temp sets pretty solid at 100.1?


This one even I know - temperature, pressure, volume. If your pressure goes up, but the temp stays the same, then the volume has to change.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby ladajo » Mon May 30, 2016 9:35 pm

Sorry for the delayed response, had to make a trip to the North Woods of Maine over the weekend. :)

Why yes! You are correct! And if volume goes up, then... (wait for it)...

The exit velocity will go up!!!

Rossi is full of shit.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)

What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: LENR Is Real

Postby Stubby » Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:19 am

92 pages of :lol:
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests