10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Giorgio]

If you have a low dT the flow rate will be higher and thus easier to measure.

What you call flow rate is just the speed of the fluid at the section of the pipeline. You can have a high dT with an high flow rate, you just need to change the right pipeline diameter.

I much doubt that the margin will be so close that temperature measurement error will be a factor.

It will all depend on the setup he will choose to use.
As you said, few days and we will have our answers.

[KitemanSA]

Having a small dT on the secondary loop will make all the measurements of the experimental variables more prone to bring an error when calculating the removed heat from the primary circuit.

Well there is small and there is SMALL. 50ish degrees actually seems kind of BIG to me.

If they can provide STEAM (even marginal quality steam) and measure Δ5+degrees C across a short HEX due to condensing that steam, and have enough flow to calculate out to several kW with <1kW input... well then.

[Joseph Chikva]

Having a small dT on the secondary loop will make all the measurements of the experimental variables more prone to bring an error when calculating the removed heat from the primary circuit.

Well there is small and there is SMALL. 50ish degrees actually seems kind of BIG to me.

If they can provide STEAM (even marginal quality steam) and measure Δ5+degrees C across a short HEX due to condensing that steam, and have enough flow to calculate out to several kW with <1kW input... well then.

I do not know for what Rossi is using two cooling loops. That is conventional practice for fission reactors for localization of radiation in not a big volume. If he has not radiation, there is no any necessity in two loops. As the power measured in the second loop will always be less than real yield. But that difference will be in favor of Rossi.
But that is his right - he can use even triple loops - does not matter.

About turbulence.
Is the flow turbulent or laminar depends on flow velocity:

laminar flow occurs at low Reynolds numbers, where viscous forces are dominant, and is characterized by smooth, constant fluid motion; turbulent flow occurs at high Reynolds numbers and is dominated by inertial forces, which tend to produce chaotic eddies, vortices and other flow instabilities.

If flow is laminar at low velocity of coolant, for intensification of heat transfer various types of very simple design turbularizators are used. But if Rossi is going to use standard heat exchanger he should not be worried on type of flow at all. As every supplier of exchanger provides also data of input flow that should be kept.

At least I see right answers of Rossi's fan about temperature measurement. Without appeals to moral, idiocy of “patalogic skeptics” and usage of such a laughable argument that Rossi is right because if he wrong, he would have a nervous breakdown.
The temperature will be measured about accuracy 0.1deg. Ok.

Let's wait.

[sparkyy0007]

What I said was "there is No data to back Rossi's excess energy claims"

Sure there is data, but there is debate about the quality and validity of said data. Heck, there seems to be more data on the Rossi reactor than the Polywell.

to which you responded that I didn't read and you provided me with the math on the available data. Fine, but the fact that you provided "math on the available data" just proves my quote above.

I am not trying to be an @ss, but on this topic your definition of data and mine appear to conflict.

[bk78]

Because the primary circuit is supposedly a closed loop, this energy will not be lost. Instead, it would reduce the electricity consumption for heating.

If it's closed, the condensate should be received by some sort of a reservoir where the pump can pick up. The residual steam from the primary loop must condense before it can be pumped back into the reactor.
Where will this heat go?

It will heat the reservoir. The reactor then has the choice of either reducing electric heating (which would give more convincing results) or increasing pump flow.

It is quite possible to measure temperatures to better than 0.1°C accuracy.

Please show me the thermometer and the procedure to achieve such an accuracy.

All that is needed is to show that the excess heat is more than x6 the input electrical energy.

Where does that number come from? Can we take you at your word, if the test shows i.e. a factor of 3? (In a practical sense, this would indeed be a failure, because no one would buy such a device.)
The last test showed only a factor of about 1.5 to 3, according to nyteknik, with the higher number easily shown to be false. Was this test a failure in your eyes?

[Giorgio]

Well there is small and there is SMALL. 50ish degrees actually seems kind of BIG to me.

If they can provide STEAM (even marginal quality steam) and measure Δ5+degrees C across a short HEX due to condensing that steam, and have enough flow to calculate out to several kW with <1kW input... well then.

Ok, maybe I am not expressing my point well enough.
If they can provide steam (meaning 100+ C), than WHY they should not provide an higher dT? Getting 70 to 80C output with 100C input is trivial.
There is NO sense whatsoever to provide a low dT.

[parallel]

bk78

Please show me the thermometer and the procedure to achieve such an accuracy.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you, but as an engineer I have done that on several occasions.

parallel wrote: All that is needed is to show that the excess heat is more than x6 the input electrical energy.

bk78 wrote: Where does that number come from? Can we take you at your word, if the test shows i.e. a factor of 3? (In a practical sense, this would indeed be a failure, because no one would buy such a device.)
The last test showed only a factor of about 1.5 to 3, according to nyteknik, with the higher number easily shown to be false. Was this test a failure in your eyes?

The sale of Rossi's 1 MW plant depends on him exceeding the x6 factor, as you would know if you had been following the subject.

[parallel]

Well there is small and there is SMALL. 50ish degrees actually seems kind of BIG to me.

If they can provide STEAM (even marginal quality steam) and measure Δ5+degrees C across a short HEX due to condensing that steam, and have enough flow to calculate out to several kW with <1kW input... well then.

Ok, maybe I am not expressing my point well enough.
If they can provide steam (meaning 100+ C), than WHY they should not provide an higher dT? Getting 70 to 80C output with 100C input is trivial.
There is NO sense whatsoever to provide a low dT.

More to the point, why should he? The capacity of the heat exchanger needs to be well above the normal output of the E-Cat as we know the E-Cat can produce a range of outputs and may not be stable. Better to have some capacity in hand for safety reasons.

Providing the ΔT is enough to measure reasonably accurately why should you (or anybody else) care? I wouldn't be surprised if the flowmeter is less accurate than the thermocouples - why not complain about that too?

[KitemanSA]

I am not trying to be an @ss, but on this topic your definition of data and mine appear to conflict.

Seems so. I suspect you use the term "data" as synonymous with "information". If you had used "information" in your first statement, I would be less likely to argue it.

[KitemanSA]

Well there is small and there is SMALL. 50ish degrees actually seems kind of BIG to me.

If they can provide STEAM (even marginal quality steam) and measure Δ5+degrees C across a short HEX due to condensing that steam, and have enough flow to calculate out to several kW with <1kW input... well then.

Ok, maybe I am not expressing my point well enough.
If they can provide steam (meaning 100+ C), than WHY they should not provide an higher dT? Getting 70 to 80C output with 100C input is trivial.
There is NO sense whatsoever to provide a low dT.

Agreed.
But I am a bit confused. Did anyone (I mean anyone in the know) say the test would be "low ΔT"?

[ladajo]

Not that it matters much for the scale Rossi is seeking to demonstrate, but I wonder how he is accounting for pump heating of his working fluids.

I also agree with Joseph and Giorgio in that Rossi really has no need to complicate this with a heat exchanger boundary and secondary system. Proper management of flow in a single closed loop system can provide him a demonstration with no phase change that is easy, convincing, and good science. For goodness sakes we are even arguing laminar flow considerations. Any heat exchanger surface can develop a laminar flow boundary, and thus impact efficiency. But operating conditions are what manage that. So why add to the error? limit the number of boundaries crossed is what I say.

Why can't Rossi heat a pot of water 30 degrees from ambient and measure how long it took to do it? Gahh....

[Giorgio]

More to the point, why should he? The capacity of the heat exchanger needs to be well above the normal output of the E-Cat as we know the E-Cat can produce a range of outputs and may not be stable. Better to have some capacity in hand for safety reasons.

I assume heat exchangers are not your field, because if they were you should know that heat exchanger capacity is proportional to the coolant flow for a wide range of values.

A properly selected heat exchanger can be throttled quite smoothly to get four or five times the load without issues.

Providing the ΔT is enough to measure reasonably accurately why should you (or anybody else) care? I wouldn't be surprised if the flowmeter is less accurate than the thermocouples - why not complain about that too?

Because mass flow is way more easy to be measured than a temperature profile across a pipeline section. A small dT will induce a value error (greater or lower) that is also depending on the position of the thermocouple.
A greater dT will tend to nullify this "temperature profile" error.

Gentlemen, this is the ABC of heat exchange technology, there should really be nothing to discuss about these points.

[parallel]

Not that it matters much for the scale Rossi is seeking to demonstrate, but I wonder how he is accounting for pump heating of his working fluids.

I also agree with Joseph and Giorgio in that Rossi really has no need to complicate this with a heat exchanger boundary and secondary system. Proper management of flow in a single closed loop system can provide him a demonstration with no phase change that is easy, convincing, and good science. For goodness sakes we are even arguing laminar flow considerations. Any heat exchanger surface can develop a laminar flow boundary, and thus impact efficiency. But operating conditions are what manage that. So why add to the error? limit the number of boundaries crossed is what I say.

Why can't Rossi heat a pot of water 30 degrees from ambient and measure how long it took to do it? Gahh....

1. The heat from the pump in negligible.

2. At least a closed system would prevent the reactor from furring up and there may be other advantages to keeping the two systems at different temperatures or pressures for domestic use. You don't know.

3. It would be a BIG pot if the test is run at 20kW (the rated size of one module) for 24 hours. Anyway, even that would not satisfy the critics. They think it doesn't work so any measurement showing that it does must be in error.

[Giorgio]

Agreed.
But I am a bit confused. Did anyone (I mean anyone in the know) say the test would be "low ΔT"?

I have been reported this info but I also stated that it could be plain wrong.

The point of the discussion was simply to say that IF it will be another low dT test than the results might be questionable, while if it is an high dT test the results could really prove (or disprove) Rossi claims.

[parallel]

Giorgio,

A properly selected heat exchanger can be throttled quite smoothly to get four or five times the load without issues.

Please quit trying to teach granny how to suck eggs.
I suppose what Dr. Levi found - a range from 15 - 130 kW - should be ignored.
Obviously, you think you know more about the system than the inventor.