10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

Unless he prefers to do this by himself I'll post Chris videos, with a request of explanation, on Rossi blog tonight once I am back from dinner.

I don't mind, but I am planning to do it in a more controlled manner, else it only looks as good as Rossi's 'demo', and it should look better than that!!

Agree! I'll wait for the new tests. We are not in a hurry anyhow.

[chrismb]

If anyone has a hot-line to Krivit, I think it would be worthwhile pointing out the inconsistency in the pressure/bp data. After all, one teeny little bit of objective data but, hey, we're super clever and can work that one piece of info. Right?

[KitemanSA]

In other words, if there was a flow rate of 7 litres/hr of dry steamcoming out of the pipe, then there would be a pressue drop of 11kPa. As we know the pressure at the end of the pipe is ambient, so the pressure in the E-cat must be just over 1.1 bar, and the boiling point at just over 1.1 bar is... around 104 degrees C, I believe.

So either he's not boiling water at his measured 100C in the E-cat, or he's not flowing 7l/hr. He can't be doing both.

Except this is just incredibly sensitive at this point. I did 7,6,13,.59 and the P went down ~40%. At 6,4,15,.59 ir is down to 1540Pa. No smoking gun here.

6 = remainder after condensation
4= hose seemed shorter to me
Rossi said ~22mm, I didn't think so.
.59 from their table.

[KitemanSA]

Of course my conclusions are tentative because CMB hasn't provided peer reviewed, publiched results...

I peer reviewed it and he published on the Journal of talk-polywell.org.
Isn't that enough as credentials?

Heck, thats almost as good as in the "Journal of Nuclear Physics" where Rossi publishes!

[Giorgio]

I run a small simulation out of fun with my thermal dissipation software.
456 w/h with a dT of 70 'C and a length of 6 meters.

with conduction to concrete? Water @ 100c in contact with a hose at whatever in contact with a concrete floor at 25?C may conduct away MUCH more than gas-solid-gas transfer.

Concrete will add more dissipation than solid-gas, but not so much to make a substantial difference.
Additionally I have been very generous giving it a percentage of contact of 20%, while in reality it will probably not reach 10%.

[Giorgio]

If anyone has a hot-line to Krivit, I think it would be worthwhile pointing out the inconsistency in the pressure/bp data. After all, one teeny little bit of objective data but, hey, we're super clever and can work that one piece of info. Right?

I sent him an e-mail.

[Giorgio]

In other words, if there was a flow rate of 7 litres/hr of dry steamcoming out of the pipe, then there would be a pressue drop of 11kPa. As we know the pressure at the end of the pipe is ambient, so the pressure in the E-cat must be just over 1.1 bar, and the boiling point at just over 1.1 bar is... around 104 degrees C, I believe.

So either he's not boiling water at his measured 100C in the E-cat, or he's not flowing 7l/hr. He can't be doing both.

Except this is just incredibly sensitive at this point. I did 7,6,13,.59 and the P went down ~40%. At 6,4,15,.59 ir is down to 1540Pa. No smoking gun here.

6 = remainder after condensation
4= hose seemed shorter to me
Rossi said ~22mm, I didn't think so.
.59 from their table.

Of course the biggest difference will be made by tube diameter.
Anyhow, even if one has to assume little to no back pressure, and 101'C constant on all e-Cat and tube, the point that chris showed with his experiment is clear. There is not enough flow of steam in Krivit video to justify a 5 Kw/h (or even 4 Kw/h if we remove thermal dispersions) steam flow.

[KitemanSA]

Did you include conduction into cold concrete?

No, with a 31'C room temperature you can hardly have a cold concrete floor.

The concrete should probably be about the same temperature as the water in the 'reservoya" since evaporation will cool it. Air temperature does not overcome evaporation unless there is 100% RH. Concrete sweats ground moisture and cools.

I can even simulate a 15'C floor and a 20% contact surface between tube and floor, but the result will stay well inside the 500 w/h.

Really?? Seems odd. Are you assuming a gas to solid heat trasfer mechanism for the steam to pipe? If so, you might try a water/solid model, it is much more realistic, IIRC. Of course, how you do that only at the bottom of the pipe...

[KitemanSA]

Concrete will add more dissipation than solid-gas, but not so much to make a substantial difference.
Additionally I have been very generous giving it a percentage of contact of 20%, while in reality it will probably not reach 10%.

I was thinking more a vapor-liquid-solid-solid (steam-water-hose-concrete) model with radiation and convection on the outside too. Don't know how to do that.

[KitemanSA]

All I can say is that unless chris is lying, and IF the Krivit demo was consistent with the others, then this thing probably doesn't work.

But...

[Giorgio]

I can even simulate a 15'C floor and a 20% contact surface between tube and floor, but the result will stay well inside the 500 w/h.

Really?? Seems odd. Are you assuming a gas to solid heat trasfer mechanism for the steam to pipe? If so, you might try a water/solid model, it is much more realistic, IIRC. Of course, how you do that only at the bottom of the pipe...

My mistake, I thought I wrote 15'C in the simulator while I wrote 25'C.

Look, if we want to be safe, let's consider a 1Kw/h thermal dispersion for the whole 6 mt.
If the input is 5Kw/h than what must come out of the other end of the tube (in a way or the other) is 4Kw/h of thermal energy.

[seedload]

FYI

Andrea Rossi
June 24th, 2011 at 9:10 AM
Our Customer DEFKALION has made a new site:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com
and an annexed blog. We kindly suggest to our Readers to take a look, for an insight in the industrial development of the E-Cats .
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Science
The science behind the E-Cat increases the probability of particles overcoming the electrostatic potential Coulomb barriers in order to penetrate the nucleus by the quantum mechanical tunneling effect, yielding in an exothermic reaction between Hydrogen and Nickel. By decreasing the surface upon which a given amount of pressure is exerted, the odds for the tunneling effect to occur are increased, allowing for higher penetrability of the Coulomb barrier.

[Joseph Chikva]

Science
The science behind the E-Cat increases the probability of particles overcoming the electrostatic potential Coulomb barriers in order to penetrate the nucleus by the quantum mechanical tunneling effect, yielding in an exothermic reaction between Hydrogen and Nickel. By decreasing the surface upon which a given amount of pressure is exerted, the odds for the tunneling effect to occur are increased, allowing for higher penetrability of the Coulomb barrier.

Delirium.

[ladajo]

In other words, if there was a flow rate of 7 litres/hr of dry steamcoming out of the pipe, then there would be a pressue drop of 11kPa. As we know the pressure at the end of the pipe is ambient, so the pressure in the E-cat must be just over 1.1 bar, and the boiling point at just over 1.1 bar is... around 104 degrees C, I believe.

So either he's not boiling water at his measured 100C in the E-cat, or he's not flowing 7l/hr. He can't be doing both.

Except this is just incredibly sensitive at this point. I did 7,6,13,.59 and the P went down ~40%. At 6,4,15,.59 ir is down to 1540Pa. No smoking gun here.

6 = remainder after condensation
4= hose seemed shorter to me
Rossi said ~22mm, I didn't think so.
.59 from their table.

Of course the biggest difference will be made by tube diameter.
Anyhow, even if one has to assume little to no back pressure, and 101'C constant on all e-Cat and tube, the point that chris showed with his experiment is clear. There is not enough flow of steam in Krivit video to justify a 5 Kw/h (or even 4 Kw/h if we remove thermal dispersions) steam flow.

I agree. I could not put my finger on what has bothered me about the demos until this discussion. Claimed energy levels do not seem to be exiting the device at the rates suggested.

For those looking for a brush up on thermo, this link may help:

http://www.unene.ca/un702-2005/text/section04.pdf

I am also looking for the full up steam table from my nuclear days, but have not found a good one yet.

Try this for visualization:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molli ... d_308.html

Edit: Added mollier for steam, and fixed spelling.

[ladajo]

And I like this one for vapor percentage:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/File:Mollier_Diagram.png