10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:55 am

KitemanSA wrote:Jeez! Any other fusion project would KILL for a Q=6.6!!!

You are mixing apples with oranges.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:28 am

TallDave wrote:Chris,

I'm just saying theory generally explains experiment rather than preceding it. There are notable exceptions involving, for instance, relativity and string theory, but the large majority of scientific advances have been things like someone noticing the increasing redshift with distance, X-rays, Kepler using Brahe's work, etc. New theories are almost always wrong, such as Planck's initial attempts with Wien-Planck law -- promptly overturned by experiment much to his irritation.

That's not to trivialize the valuable contributions of theorists, who provide an ingenious framework for engineers that much of human technology rests upon, but science is empiricial much more so than rational, and so it tends to advance when people notice new things to explain moreso than when they think of new ways to explain things.

That is only true where there is an advance in science. 99% of technology is experiment after theory.

Now, I know many people hope rossi has an advance in science, but really it looks highly unlikely on basis of lack of evidence so far. There are a lot of people with pet theories convinced their machine will do somethig miraculous. The number who have stumbled upon some new law of physics is pretty small.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:32 am

chrismb wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Jeez! Any other fusion project would KILL for a Q=6.6!!!
Depends on the output. This looks like rather useless heat. A Q=1.1 would be great, if it were primary energy.

Since no-one has taken the point:

Heat at 100C (all he has now) converts BADLY to electricity. Fusion plants would give heat at some nice high temp (600C?) for good conversion with your favourite technology.

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:44 am

Giorgio wrote:From the video:

Power IN = 0.75 Kw
Power OUT = 5 Kw
COP = 6.6

With each new test the COP gets lower and lower, and a value of 6.6 is even below many geothermal system available.

Everyone is free to reach his own conclusions.

Well, if you would like to defend Rossi, it is not impossible that "industrial" unit has less Q than experimental one due to engineering margins....

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:13 am

Giorgio wrote: I was also reading a comment by someone correctly pointing to the fact that the steam coming out of the pipeline was little in respect to the expected amount according Rossi claims (7 Kg/h = 3.25 lt/sec).

I have watched that part of the video few times and indeed the steam coming out from the line does not look like a flow of 3 lt/sec....

Well... if there is no other hidden output (scam scenario) and input is measured, does not that just mean that the steam is dry? You cannot see dry steam, right?

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:04 am

Some observations on the Rossi demonstration video released by Krivit.
Reasonably good video quality.
Assumptions and observations based on the video:
Ambient temp = 31.8 C (no reason to doubt)
Inlet water temp = 26.5 C (reasonable)
Hose , no more than 20mm outside diameter, 10 bar rated, 13 mm inside diameter (may be smaller).
Length, no more than 5 m.
System pressure Amb, ~101 kPa (evaporation temp was metered at about 100 C)

Radiation loss from hose 5.67e-8 * 0.346m^2 *373.15k^4 = 380W
Amb radiation at 31.8 C =5.67e-8 * 0.346m^2 * 304.95k^4 = 169W
Convection loss of hose at 100 C free air convection 8W/m/k = 8*0.346m^2 * (100-31.8) =189W
Total heat loss from hose = R loss - R amb + C loss = 380-169+189 = 400W max
Energy to heat the water from 26.5 C to 100 C = 598W (I don't believe the flow is that high but let's say it is.
The reported heat output was 4kw, not sure if that included the heater, let's assume it does.
Another 10% insulation loss from the reactor leaves 4kW - 0.4kW - 0.4kw - 598W = 2602W for steam generation.
The quantity of steam produced assuming the above is correct is 2.602kw/(2270kJ/kg) = .00114kg/sec.
The volume of steam exiting the hose should be about
([0.00114kg/sec] / [0.018kg/mol])* 22.4 L * (373/293) = 1.8e-3 m^2/sec
With a 13mm ID pipe, the steam velocity should be about 13.5m/s.
From the video at 11:37, this seems unlikely, probibly no more than 1ms. Also at 11:41 Rossi states the steam is not visible due to the high temperature. The steam temperature is no higher than 100 C so just as visible as steam from a pot.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:13 am

Luzr wrote:Well, if you would like to defend Rossi, it is not impossible that "industrial" unit has less Q than experimental one due to engineering margins....

More than engineering margins it looks to me like every time that they improve the measurements of power and water flow the COP decreases.

We shall see.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:36 am

Luzr wrote:Well... if there is no other hidden output (scam scenario) and input is measured, does not that just mean that the steam is dry? You cannot see dry steam, right?

Even assuming 50% condensation and losses on the tube, a 1,5lt/sec flow with such a small diameter should be identifiable if you put it near a black background like they did.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:16 am

Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Jeez! Any other fusion project would KILL for a Q=6.6!!!
You are mixing apples with oranges.

Look. I don't care if I am mixing apples and aardvaarks. IF this thing works as implied in the video he is getting 6.6 TIMES as much energy out as in. That is a flippin miracle. All prior LENR systems were in the Q<.1 arena. IF this thing works it is a game changer. Seeing folks here disparage it because it is "only" 6.6 is just amazing.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:22 am

tomclarke wrote: Since no-one has taken the point:

Heat at 100C (all he has now) converts BADLY to electricity. Fusion plants would give heat at some nice high temp (600C?) for good conversion with your favourite technology.

And IF this thing works as claimed, all his past statements suggest that much higher temperatures is possible and produces higher Q values, but is harder to control. Q=6.6 STEAM is a marvelous first step... if it works.

And remember, half the "efficiency" issue for electrical conversion is the LOW end temp. Something like this may be great in space or at the south pole.

If it works.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:26 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:Jeez! Any other fusion project would KILL for a Q=6.6!!!
You are mixing apples with oranges.
Look. I don't care if I am mixing apples and aardvaarks. IF this thing works as implied in the video he is getting 6.6 TIMES as much energy out as in. That is a flippin miracle. All prior LENR systems were in the Q<.1 arena. IF this thing works it is a game changer. Seeing folks here disparage it because it is "only" 6.6 is just amazing.

I was referring to the fact that you should not mix this COP with the expected COP in any other fusion project (including, for me, also hot fusion).

I do agree on the IF thought

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:26 am

Luzr wrote:
Giorgio wrote:With each new test the COP gets lower and lower, and a value of 6.6 is even below many geothermal system available.
Well, if you would like to defend Rossi, it is not impossible that "industrial" unit has less Q than experimental one due to engineering margins....

Nor is it impossible that the demo was run at a much lower power than normal. The suggestion has been that higher power out actually requires little or no extra power in but is a matter of control.
Was this the big unit or the small?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:32 am

sparkyy0007 wrote:Some observations on the Rossi demonstration video released by Kervit.
Reasonably good video quality.
...
Another 10% insulation loss from the reactor leaves 4kW - 0.4kW - 0.4kw - 598W = 2602W for steam generation.

IF the 7kg/hr was converted to dry steam at 100C, the power out was ~5kW according to Giorgio.. I calculated 4.99 so I guess we did the same calc.

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:36 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Luzr wrote:
Giorgio wrote:With each new test the COP gets lower and lower, and a value of 6.6 is even below many geothermal system available.
Well, if you would like to defend Rossi, it is not impossible that "industrial" unit has less Q than experimental one due to engineering margins....
Nor is it impossible that the demo was run at a much lower power than normal.

Well, that is it: this was not 'demo' e-cat, but 'production' version.

If higher Q is unstable, I see nothing extraordinary about using reasonable Q for demonstration, then much lower Q for production, just to stay safe.

(Of course, I still think this is 90% scam

Kahuna · Post by **Kahuna** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:01 pm

KitemanSA wrote:Was this the big unit or the small?

This was the small unit that Rossi said was part of the U.S. factory production run destined for the Greek 1MW plant.

Reportedly, the earlier large units tested (Jan) produced 10-12KW with a COP > 30, but Rossi went to the small unit because the larger ones had power spikes during start-up/shut down and were therefore unsuitable for production. Supposedly, COP values > 100 have been achieved, but I'm not sure anyone "reputable" has witnessed them.