Seems the 1 MW unit is really two 500kW units and so we don't know what the plumbing looks like.
I'm sure there will be pressure relief valves that negate much of the risk.
You don't have to have a license for developing something, only to sell the units.
Andrea Rossi
October 18th, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Dear David Roberson:
1- yes
2- we turn on series of 6
3- there are 2 pumps, one for each 500 kW system. We have divided the plant in 2 sections, each of 500 kW, each with its own dissipator.
4- yes
5- safety first
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Looks like it will then go "dark", so the skeptics who still don't believe LENR can continue their dreams for a while.
Andrea Rossi
October 18th, 2011 at 3:18 PM
Dear Sean Parker:
Yes, after the 28th no more public tests, we will be too engaged to manufacture and test for our Customers. We will continue R&D work with Bologna University and Uppsala University, but the work will not be public.
Actually, also the test of the 28th will not be public, being a test made by the Customer, with his experts, along a contractual protocol. Anyway it will be the last work with a public report made upon the resulting numbers.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Due to the geometry of the reactor container, every change in pressure will change the shape of the container. These forces will concentrate at the joints. This will work harden the joints and eventually cause them to fail.
Will they fail during the short test, I cannot say, it depends on the frequency and magnitude of pressure fluctuations as well as maximum pressure.
I completely agree that the design is retarded. As evidenced by the fact that the element tested in early October had a water leak that developed as the internal temperature rose to 120C and above (presumably a pressure of around 2 atm).
Based on the corrosion of the lid observed when the device was opened the element has seen some degree of use.
Can we agree then that if all the ecat elements perform in a manner similar to what was observed on october 7 (again assuming the test was legitimate) and the geometry of the greater steam manifold and 2" exit pipeline conforms to the assumptions listed in my previous post that there will not be an explosion if 1MW of steam is produced on october 28?
I agree that if the corners of the individual elements cannot withstand greater than 2 atmospheres of pressure then the experiment will likely end catastrophically.
If 2 bar internal pressure was generated in the Oct 7 test IMHO the vessel would have shown permanent deformation of both the lid and the side walls, of that I am sure.
2 bar on the lid (453 in^2) amounts to 6 tons of force!! On a box shape!
The pressure was calculated from a temperature reading, not directly measured.
If 2 bar internal pressure was generated in the Oct 7 test IMHO the vessel would have shown permanent deformation of both the lid and the side walls, of that I am sure.
2 bar on the lid (453 in^2) amounts to 6 tons of force!! On a box shape!
The pressure was calculated from a temperature reading, not directly measured.
If the individual elements cannot sustain the back pressure, then they will explode. If they can sustain 2 atm then the geometry of the reactor is poorly designed but capable sustaining the required steam flow?
Aside from the indirect temperature data, the video of the test in mid september showed the main chamber of an e-cat element being vented.
Do you think that the flow at around 7min of the video at the top of the text in this link is consistent with 2 atm?
This is a stress and FOS plot for the container if it is made of 1/8 mild steel.
The FOS is 0.3
The pressure I used was only 1 bar!
If it had been pressured up to even 1 bar it would have shown perminant deformation. Maybe its just my bad eyes but in the photos, the plate looked flat and the sides looked square.
This is a stress and FOS plot for the container if it is made of 1/8 mild steel.
The FOS is 0.3
The pressure I used was only 1 bar!
If it had been pressured up to even 1 bar it would have shown perminant deformation. Maybe its just my bad eyes but in the photos, the plate looked flat and the sides looked square.
There is a picture of the top plate of the reactor after the demonstration in that link.
I wonder what pressure such a reactor could sustain without deforming.
The reported temperature results and observed venting of the e-cat element (if that pressure is as high as the flow rate would suggest) are in conflict with the simulation data.
I think your observation is very interesting. I suggest posting it on the VORTEX forum, which is the main discussion group related to the e-cat. If these results cannot be explained it is excellent evidence that not only is the 1MW plant impossible but the last two tests of the e-cat have been misreported.
Some of the most recent posters in the VORTEX forum have been posting data from simulations of various parts of the reactor in order to model the effect of thermocouple placement, and may be very interested in your result.
Vortex is too longwinded, that's why I like polywell
Ha!
Just drop it into the mix and stand back. It deserves an explanation, and there are several posters there that seem to have lots of inside information. It would be interesting and for once information could flow from here to there instead of from there to here.
@Crawdaddy
Steam needs experience to be handled correctly. Even long time engineers had to face hard setbacks when handling for the first time steam and related equipment. Rossi does not have this experience, refuses the help of people who have it and pretends to design a 1MWt distribution pipeline with an high school formula. Makes sense to you?
@Crawdaddy
Steam needs experience to be handled correctly. Even long time engineers had to face hard setbacks when handling for the first time steam and related equipment. Rossi does not have this experience, refuses the help of people who have it and pretends to design a 1MWt distribution pipeline with an high school formula. Makes sense to you?
There are many qualitative factors that influence the degree of interest in the e-cat. If Rossi was working in his basement alone and claimed what he has claimed, none of us would have even bothered to register his existence. Characterizing Rossi as a lone idiot/crazy person is not going to end speculation at this point.
Showing that the devices that have been tested cannot have worked based on an analysis of the data is the only effective method of debunking the device at this point.
Sparkyy0007's efforts at simulation are an excellent example of the necessary quantitative and well reasoned arguments that are required.
Crawdaddy wrote:Characterizing Rossi as a lone idiot/crazy person is not going to end speculation at this point.
I a not characterizing him. I am just pointing out how little sense some of his actions have and, because of this, how little consideration should be given to his ability to correctly set up a definitive (and safe) experiment all by himself.
Designing and handling an unconventional 1MW steam generator is not something that you can do lightly as he is doing. Many of his believers thinks the opposite, but engineering does not work in this way and his errors could even become fatal for someone at a certain point.
Crawdaddy wrote:Showing that the devices that have been tested cannot have worked based on an analysis of the data is the only effective method of debunking the device at this point.
I think that the few data that we have has been analyzed, crunched, dissected, reasoned upon and digested more here on talk-polywell than in any other website I am aware of.
The real problem is just that many people here are simply too superficial and do not really read the comments for what they say but for what they want to read into them.
I think that the few data that we have has been analyzed, crunched, dissected, reasoned upon and digested more here on talk-polywell than in any other website I am aware of.
The real problem is just that many people here are simply too superficial and do not really read the comments for what they say but for what they want to read into them.
You should try reading the VORTEX list. Here is a summary of the data analysis of the recent tests that appeared there.
The people that monitor the VORTEX discussion also have direct connections to Rossi and his associates. Posting Sparkyy0007's simulation there would be the quickest way to resolve the discrepancy between the reported results and his.
We will continue R&D work with Bologna University and Uppsala University, but the work will not be public.
I would also add that he continues to misrepresent. The above statement again implies (even asserts) that he has been in an official cooperative effort with folks that say he is not. The folks associated with the above have attend of their own violition, not as offical representatives.
I really do hope that Rossi is on to something, but man-o-man has he been working overtime to convince folks otherwise.
I am with Giorgio, 110%, doing what he is doing, he is running an ever greater risk of hurting someone. I have seen several steam ruptures on 10s of megawatt plants. The worst one I saw, I was about 15 feet away when it popped, and it was just a 1/2inch(as I recall) line feeding a trap, that the bonnet blew off. If I had been next to it, I would have not just gotten cooked, I would have lost body parts and/or been perf'd. High energy steam is not meant as a toy. There is a reason you look for leaks with a stick and not your hand.
Giorgo and Ladajo are 100% on target here. I would accept no less than a design reviewed and certified by a professional engineer, installed by experienced contractors using certified welders. Sober oversight is necessary to avoid tragedy.
Best regards
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.
I hadn't looked that closely before but at 2:34 it is quite clear, with his finger
on the top plate and its shadow, the thickness is closer to 16 gauge sheet than 1/8 inch.
