10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

There are still some points to be cleared, but it removes some of the doubt I had before.

It addresses exactly zero of the issues I raised:

I didn't say that it addressed all the issues, but at least now we have a better experimental setup to analyze.
They are still extremely faulty in measuring water and power flow as you also noted but at least we have now much cleared information and descriptions.

What I liked:
We finally know that the reaction chamber is filled with a known quantity of hydrogen and does not get anymore hydrogen from the bottle as it gets disconnected.
We cleared also the point that the water does not enter in direct contact with the Hydrogen.
We have a clear picture about the dimensions of the reactor and the fuel container.
They actually invited some skeptics.This, per se, means nothing but is a sign of good willing.

What I didn't like:
They insist in not using proper measuring equipment for water and power.
The insist in creating steam. If they only generate hot water (using flux control and flux meter) it will remove another big doubt I have, that is that steam pressure could actually reduce the flux of water by creating a back pressure inside the pipeline (if the inlet pressure is not high enough).
No indications of the type and section of the wires connected to the resistor and the control electronics.


Was this test enough to convince me? No, and I will not be convinced until a proper mass balance and power balance equipment will be implemented during the experiment.

[Giorgio]

There are still some points to be cleared, but it removes some of the doubt I had before.

So at this point, what is your list of points to be cleared?

See above reply to chrismb.

[chrismb]

If the steam of 6 kg water per hour [~350 moles /hr] is supposed to be coming out of that little black hose, ID maybe 1cm^2?, then it would be flowing at a rate of:

350 moles/hr = {350 x 22.4 x (373/273)} = ~10,000litres/hr, or 3000cc/s.
With an ID tube cross-section of 1cm/s, the steam will whizz through that pipe at 3000cm/s, about 110kph.

I think the noise from that would be, if not deafening at least, very distracting.

Any reports of noise from the steam?...

[Skipjack]

Chris, I do not quite get your calculation here.
6kg of water = 6 litres.

[chrismb]

I don't get what it is that you don't get about the calculation.

[Giorgio]

Well, 6 Kg of water is equal roughly at 10 M3 of steam at atmospheric pressure.

If the section is 1 cm2 (=0,0001 m2) we have a speed of 100000 m/hr or 100 km/hr (60 kph).

That is IF it is 1 cm2, but from the picture it looks like more 2 cm diameter, maybe more.
That would give you 3 cm2 as section, and a speed of roughly 30 Km/h (20 Mph).

[Skipjack]

Alright, I get it now...
You were talking about the volume of the steam created from 6kg of water, versus the volume of 6kg of water.
It was not quite clear at first.

[chrismb]

That is IF it is 1 cm2, but from the picture it looks like more 2 cm diameter, maybe more.

Well, the scientific way that the report was done leaves little doubt....(!)

[chrismb]

the picture it looks like more 2 cm diameter, maybe more.

One photo shows the pipe to be about the thickness of the guy's finger. So I figured that's either very thick fingers, or a pipe ID ~1cm^2.

[Giorgio]

the picture it looks like more 2 cm diameter, maybe more.

One photo shows the pipe to be about the thickness of the guy's finger. So I figured that's either very thick fingers, or a pipe ID ~1cm^2.

The steam outlet in the top while the pipe on the side is the water outlet.
I am using picture 4 (the 3 reactors are visible in the back) to make an estimate of the diameter of the steam outlet.

[Giorgio]

That is IF it is 1 cm2, but from the picture it looks like more 2 cm diameter, maybe more.

Well, the scientific way that the report was done leaves little doubt....(!)

I can't but agree. Too many info and data are still unaccounted for.

[parallel]

Some information on a new smaller version of the E-Cat. Also a picture showing 4 of them, three with the insulation removed.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/swedis ... i-and.html

“Any chemical process should be ruled out for producing 25 kWh from whatever is in a 50 cubic centimeter container. The only alternative explanation is that there is some kind of a nuclear process that gives rise to the measured energy production.”

The power output was estimated to about 4.4 kW. It’s barely half the power compared with the two previous documented experiments in January and February 2011, because the trial was made with a new and smaller version of the energy catalyzer.

The new trial was the first officially documented with the smaller version which, according to Rossi, is more stable.

“With the smaller version we avoid the power peaks that occurred at ignition and switching off,” Andrea Rossi told Ny Teknik.

He also stated that the smaller version will be used for the planned installation of about one megawatt for the pilot customer Defkalion Green Technologies in Greece.

[parallel]

Thought this calculation from a link in the above was interesting. (At least Axil will think so.)

http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.c ... 3#more-473

“By the way, I’m now doing an experimental investigation — which will happen first, pigs flying, or Nature publishing something relating to the Rossi reactor?”

[Torulf2]

How about this alternative eplanation?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6800455

[RobL]

The reviewers/observers and Rossi have done a terrible job of removing doubts. I am less and less convinced that they are on the level as they appear to be almost doing an intentionally bad job, so many simple ways that they could be cheating:

Something in the water: eg H2O2 - 2g/sec would give 5kW output and with a catalyst it would break down into water and a little O2, catalyst might need a little heating to get it started - could be why they need to heat it to get it going. Need to have samples of cooling water, and steam exhaust and of course a reliable measure of flow rate into and out of the unit. A Simple Steam Condenser on the outlet exhausting below the water surface in a bucket would be a quick easy test for other entrained gases and flow rates.

The support posts could be feeding in electricity or superheated steam from a hidden boiler, or H2 and O2 gas mix from a remote electrolysis rig - like a jewelers gas welding supply.

Remote heating via Inductive elements, IR lasers, microwaves, x-rays, etc (eg lead shielding and foil would be useful for catching and hiding x-rays, microwaves).

And of course fudging the flow rate or temperature measures.

The supposed need to use a resistive electrical heater to keep it going also sets off alarm bells, why would it stop once it has reached operating temp? - why can't the resistive heater be turned off? This is very suspicious unless it requires a local temperature far above the steam temps to operate - could it be that it needs an electric or magnetic field too?

A good check would be to have someone monitor the building's electricity meter as the experiment started and stopped or goes through transients - not fool proof of course as could be batteries. Better yet run the experiment's electrical supply off a gasoline generator and cut the building power. That would quickly eliminate a lot of potential tricks.

Also maybe a look around with an infrared camera.