parallel wrote:
A 5C temperature difference is sufficient to measure the heat accurately enough for this test. It being relatively easy to measure to 0.1C.
That is true. However accurately knowing that measured temperature is the output water temperature is potentially much more dificult. Especially given the experimental setups we have seen, with output thermometer poked into the reactor.
Rossi has only ben able to provide experimental results which are cloudy as ditchwater. Strange, when incontrovertible results (say input in range 5-25C and output in range 50-90C) would be very easy.
(1) Rossi/Levi/etc have proven scientifically incompetent in tests observed by others. Why should we expect more competence when left to their own devices? hence can't trust these figures.
(2) as pointed out above the problem here is opposite. the output temperature is close to room temp with input temp below.
See my post above.
1. They certainly have not been proven to be incompetent. It is just speculation that they were.
2. Do you really think the water will heat up appreciably due to room temperature difference with a flow rate of nearly 1 liter/sec?
You must be really desperate to find something wrong.
Regarding your depreciating comment about Rossi's scientific ability, how come all the scientists you so revere have not come up with a working LENR device and it seems he has? How come the penny hasn't dropped, for you and they, that LENR is even possible?
Parallel, take a room temp. pot of water (measure 3 cups). Stick your kitchen thermometer in it. Write it down. Turn on the element for 3minutes on high, measure temp again and write it down. Video the process.
Then do a high school level calculation, and you can tel lhow much energy the water absorbed. If it reads about 212, then do ver and cut 1 minute off the heat time until you get noted increase but less than boiling point.
Why can't Rossi do what what my 12 year old can do in our kitchen?
Rossi has only ben able to provide experimental results which are cloudy as ditchwater. Strange, when incontrovertible results (say input in range 5-25C and output in range 50-90C) would be very easy.
Easy. They could have run another two E-Cats in series to heat up the input water temperature. That would have presented you with at least another two opportunites to show how he is a fraud.
Great idea to run the cooling water close to the limit (you suggested 90C) with a device that is so unstable and difficult to control (remember it peaked at >300KW) that Rossi downsized it for safety reasons. They could have had an explosion and killed everybody there. Perhaps you would be in favor of that as you could then say "See, he never demonstrated the 1 MW plant. I told you so."
Rossi has only ben able to provide experimental results which are cloudy as ditchwater. Strange, when incontrovertible results (say input in range 5-25C and output in range 50-90C) would be very easy.
Easy. They could have run another two E-Cats in series to heat up the input water temperature. That would have presented you with at least another two opportunites to show how he is a fraud.
Great idea to run the cooling water close to the limit (you suggested 90C) with a device that is so unstable and difficult to control (remember it peaked at >300KW) that Rossi downsized it for safety reasons. They could have had an explosion and killed everybody there. Perhaps you would be in favor of that as you could then say "See, he never demonstrated the 1 MW plant. I told you so."
parallel,
You seem to be REALLY stretching for straws. Implying evil intent via your statement above (bolded by me) is ludicrous and shameful.
You also wrote:KitemanSa,
A 5C temperature difference is sufficient to measure the heat accurately enough for this test. It being relatively easy to measure to 0.1C. Possibly Levi or Rossi were concerned about the max heat output that reportedly peaked at over 300KW in the test.
I did not contest that and it is indicative that you countered something I did not contest. What I contested is the statement that the 5degree change necessarily came fro LENR.
Remember how hot Kivit commented the room was? How do you know the 5 degree change in temperature wan't due to a heat pump in that "reactor". With a decent efficiency and the COP between those two temperatures, that amount of heat could easily be pumped from the air to the water, no LENR involved.
I have been accused of being a Rossi supporter since I demanded that Rossi antagonists provide scientific reasons to disprove his work.
Seem you think I am one of those antagonists. I am not. I am a seeker of TRUTH, REALITY. None of the data sets provided so far are reliable indicators of truth. But, no data exists to the best of my knowledge to show it CAN"T work. So I remain CAUTIOUSLY (and slightly) optimistic.
parallel wrote:ScottL
You want me to confirm my confirmation? Next I suppose you will want confirmation of the confirmation of my confirmation.
Pity you can't keep your word and leave this thread.
No, you've misunderstood. First you said you had an inside source that Nasa would be testing, then you followed by saying Rossi said Nasa wouldn't be testing. I'm confused on which you're going with at this point.
parallel wrote:Giorgio,
I wouldn't have to repeat it if some of the skeptics here got it the first time.
Prof. Levi SAYS that he did the test, but refused to release any data whatsoever about this test. As far as I am concerned there is nothing to discuss until he shows some data.
That has nothing to do with me being a skeptic, that has to do with the first rule of preservation I illustrated in the previous post.
You cannot believe someone claiming to be the holder of the truth just because he is stating so.
History teaches us that whenever this rule is broken you can only have problems. A cold shower in the best case, death in the worst case.
KitemanSA,
My comment was addressed to tomclarke, not you. You are right that my sarcastic jab to him was unnecessary, but I tire of him constantly insulting Rossi. It maybe that he has actually discovered something remarkable and these insults will then look very silly. That should be enough.
Your suggestion of a heat pump is ludicrous as you would need a large and therefore visible heat exchanger to play that trick. I don't care how hot the room was (and no one here knows) it would not be enough to heat water flowing at 1 liter/sec appreciably.
ScottL,
I never wrote Rossi said NASA wouldn't be testing E-Cats, but that he had not said anything about it. This in answer to tomclarke who claimed Rossi would use NASA's test for propaganda to get money.
Now will you leave as promised?
Giorgio,
You claimed that Levi "refused to release any data whatsoever."
Obviously he has.
parallel wrote:ScottL,
I never wrote Rossi said NASA wouldn't be testing E-Cats, but that he had not said anything about it. This in answer to tomclarke who claimed Rossi would use NASA's test for propaganda to get money.
Now will you leave as promised?
And I'm the rude one...haha. Yeah I'll leave you be on this topic. The dead horse has been beat enough I think.
parallel wrote:KitemanSA,
Your suggestion of a heat pump is ludicrous as you would need a large and therefore visible heat exchanger to play that trick. I don't care how hot the room was (and no one here knows) it would not be enough to heat water flowing at 1 liter/sec appreciably.
Most if not all of the "demonstration" set-ups have been on a large metal surfaced table. It would be quite simple to build a HEX into that metal table and hide it from view. Pull the evaporatively cooled "reservoir" water into the end, pass it down thru the legs into and around a loop under the surface of the table, back up thru the legs, and off to the "outlet". If the room is 25 °C, might that not raise 15 °C to 20 °C even WITHOUT a heat-pump?
Then of course there is the "placement" issue with the thermometer.
The point is we don't even know what the ambient conditions were for that test. Without better, reliable, data the test is meaningless.
It is disconcerting to me that with every demonstration to date, there has been SOME obvious chance for trickery/dishonesty.
I have eliminated the "mistake" option from my list. This is either:
Real;
Fraud; or
Insanity.
Most if not all of the "demonstration" set-ups have been on a large metal surfaced table. It would be quite simple to build a HEX into that metal table and hide it from view. Pull the evaporatively cooled "reservoir" water into the end, pass it down thru the legs into and around a loop under the surface of the table, back up thru the legs, and off to the "outlet". If the room is 25 °C, might that not raise 15 °C to 20 °C even WITHOUT a heat-pump?
You're wrong,
Do the sums for 1 liter/sec and see.
Most if not all of the "demonstration" set-ups have been on a large metal surfaced table. It would be quite simple to build a HEX into that metal table and hide it from view. Pull the evaporatively cooled "reservoir" water into the end, pass it down thru the legs into and around a loop under the surface of the table, back up thru the legs, and off to the "outlet". If the room is 25 °C, might that not raise 15 °C to 20 °C even WITHOUT a heat-pump?
You're wrong,
Do the sums for 1 liter/sec and see.
How can I be "wrong" when I asked a question?
What are your assumptions for the calculation? Was there a fan in the room? What was the ambient temperature? Was there sub-floor radiant heating? Did anyone measure the temp of the table? Was the table moved with the set-up on it? If not, were there heat pipes up thru the legs? Yada Yada, Yada. I am pretty sure I could fake it if I wanted. Exactly how would take more thought than I am willing to invest at this time, but it wouldn't be overly hard.
It would be fairly simple to conduct a definitive demonstration of the "Black Box". It has yet to be done. Oh well.
According to Dr. Levi the heat generated was 15 kW/hour.
Rule of thumb for IC engines is that the heat removed by the radiator is about equal to the power of the engine in kW. About 100kW for a typical 6 cylinder car. In this case you have to consider the small temperature difference and the very low air speed without a fan. I don't think it worth the trouble of finding the coefficients: you can see it wouldn't work without doing the sums.
Q = UA∆Tm where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, A is the total plate area, and ∆Tm is the temperature difference. U is dependent upon the heat transfer coefficients in the hot and cold streams.
...meanwhile, somewhere in Shanghia, 1000 busy labs each of 1000 busy engineers, busy themselves with heating up bits of zinc.... while still others busy themselves arranging the necessary levels of bribery to ensure they are first to market...