10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[ladajo]

In that case, I'd prefer a known speaker of both to clarify his statements. Does this mean his previous statement that research has started at UoB was a translationg error meant to mean it will start soon?

could mean that the contract is in place, which would be the initial step. ICBW.

Kiteman interpretation is correct.
He thinks in Italian and than writes in English, hence many phrases are tough to understand but make sense if you translate them back in Italian.
Language barrier.

But it still does not answer the mail that every time UoB is asked about working with Rossi, they say they are not. He claims so, they when asked say not so. That, and his lack of understanding about Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow topics (Thermo) make me wonder.

[bk78]

* Having an AC voltage of 231V and a current of 11.4A does not neccesarily mean you have a electric Power of 2.6kW. If the current is only drawn at the voltage peaks, the average voltage at that current is about 40% higher. The circuitry for this is extremely simple.
* Mats says, the output/input ratio could be 1.5 to 3. For the maximum value he assumes, that ALL of the water at the outlet was vaporized. This does not make sense - as soon as the steam condenses, it releases it's heat. Such amounts of energy have nowhere to go inside the e-cat, since to be able to condense the steam, it has to be cooler than 100C
* Was the weight of the e-cat measured at the end? The amount of steam was calculated assuming all of the input water reappeared at the outlet. If there was a leak inside the ecat, the amount of steam is less
* This "stability" issue seems to me like an excuse for everything. It is basically possible to control a heat generator with positive feedback coefficent with an additional heater. Lets say, the output of the e-cat rises from 3kW to 4kW when the temperature rises from 130C to 140C. If the controller decreases heater power from 2kW to 0 over that range, the device would be stable. (The intuitive way to controll such a device would be to increase the water flow when it gets too hot, maybe combined with a meltplug for the pressurized hydrogen.). However, this will not work anymore once the heater is turned off and the power is 0 to begin with. One can not design a real self-sustaining device like that.

@Crawdaddy
Heating steam from 120C to 130C needs surprisingly little energy - about 1% of that needed to heat water from 30C to 100C and turn it to steam. So the change in flow rate needed to fake that is only 1%. Also, as soon as the heater is turned of, boiling may stop there, pressure decreases and flow rate (inside the ecat) is reduced momentarily. This may very easily fake small temperature fluctuations.

If you have a small contact area from heatet steel (or aluminium? more capacity per weight) to the water, and the steel gets increasingly hotter, at some point the formed steam will insulate the water from the metal, thus reducing heat flow You can create some sort of self regulation this way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_boiling

[Crawdaddy]

bk78

I agree completely that if the reactor geometry was specifically designed to fake the result it would not be difficult to fake this demonstration. It is very unlikely that this result could be explained by honest error however.

If the demo was a fraud there are much much easier ways of faking the result.

[Crawdaddy]

bk78

* Having an AC voltage of 231V and a current of 11.4A does not neccesarily mean you have a electric Power of 2.6kW. If the current is only drawn at the voltage peaks, the average voltage at that current is about 40% higher. The circuitry for this is extremely simple.

If the current is only being drawn at the voltage peaks wouldn't the total power be less because the duty cycle would not be 100%?

[Giorgio]

But it still does not answer the mail that every time UoB is asked about working with Rossi, they say they are not. He claims so, they when asked say not so. That, and his lack of understanding about Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow topics (Thermo) make me wonder.

Because technically they are not working with Rossi, they have a simple agreement that could become a work if some preconditions will be met.
In Italian it makes perfect sense.

[sparkyy0007]

sparkyy0007

I have some comments on your theory.

The rate of heat transfer between metals and water is on the order of 300W/m^2/K and the observed rate of heat transfer must follow an exponential decay.

for example.
Steel at 775C will transfer around 229kW/m^2 to 100C water. Steel at 101C will transfer only 300W/m^2.

This is correct however, the 778C thermal mass is coupled to the boiler by a thermal bridge and not directly in contact with the water. A bridge could consist of a short length of solid copper dowel with one end at 778C and the other end tightly thermally coupled to the boiler at the temperature of the water. A temperature gradient is thus produced along the thermal bridge limiting the energy transfer to:
Heat flux=(thermal conductivity per meter/length) x delta T
dq/dt= kdT

The linear nature of the temperature decline after the power is shut off would require an exponential decrease in flow rate or an exponential change in the area of hot steel in contact with water.

I only analyzed the time before boiling due to the difficulties making assumptions with limited data on the construction and steam measurements. The point in time at which steam is noted however gives us a valuable timing reference for 100C which is useful.

Another observation, is that the transfer of heat from hot steel to water would occur throughout the demonstration after the boiler is full. An examination of the extremely high transfer rates of heat from steel to water should convince you that it is not possible for steel in contact with water to reach the temperatures in your calculation.

The thermal gradient along a thermal bridge does allow the 778 C as above, and you are right, the heat from the high temp mass would occur throughout the demonstration. The heater would need to be attached to the high temperature mass, not the boiler.

Lastly in the final part of your calculation you use a value of 3.6L for cold intake water. The power was turned off for 35 minutes at 15L per hour this is more than 7.5L of intake water.

Otherwise we would have continued. Supposedly this Ecat needs 10
minutes of full power electric input after every 30 minutes of self
sustaining operation, for stability reasons, in the worst case.

Ah yes, I missed the word "after" and you missed 30.
This would account for :

Available energy above 100 C = ( 778 C -100 C ) x .49kJ/kg k x 20) =6644.4kJ

Energy required to heat cold intake water for 30 min to 100C ( 5.4 L) = 1808kJ

Available for boiling = 4836.4 / 2260 kJ/kg(vap q) = 2.14L

The energy transfer rate from a high temperature mass to a thermal sink (the boiler) is proportional to the temperature difference dq/dt=kdT as above, so boiling at a declining exponential rate could continue for a long time (assuming good insulation on the high temp mass and boiler).
If the liquid water is 130C under pressure in the boiler as it appeared to be when they vented, this energy would also increase the available stored energy by:

Q water=4.186 kJ/kg k x 22.5 kg x 30 C = 2825 kJ
Vapor generation with this energy to 100C = 2825 kJ / 2260 kJ/kg = 1.25 L (as steam)

The flow rate was only 15 L/h with no pressure and reduced after boiling.

Water was collected in a small pot for 2:08 minutes. Net weight was 562
grams, which gives a flow of 4.39 grams/s or 15.8 kg/hour.
During the test the water flow was lower (see below).

Flow during boiling: 11.08 kg/hour.

The point of my post was really to discuss where 7332 kJ disapeared to at time 21:05.
That energy has to be some where, it cannot just disappear.

[sparkyy0007]

Just a theory

Maybe only a theory, but well developed and well expressed.

Thanks!

[bk78]

bk78
If the current is only being drawn at the voltage peaks wouldn't the total power be less because the duty cycle would not be 100%?

The clamp amperemeter MS2102 displays the AVERAGE current. (For the Digimaster DM 201 the expression "TRMS" is not mentioned, so I suppose it measures average, too. I have problems finding a source though - when I google it, the Ny Teknik report shows up on the first page). So it could be i.e. +/-22.8A for half of the time.

[parallel]

Browsing for information on LENR I see that dozens of experiments showing transmutation of elements have been reported. Mostly though biological processes. Here is one example that is not biological, that seems easy enough to replicate.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html
http://blazelabs.com/n-transmut.asp

I suppose that if Rossi's E-Cat is proven to work in October, this whole area will be revisited with more open minds and some aspects of nuclear science will have to be modified.

[parallel]

Regarding the research contract with Bologna U. I came across this.

A Contract Has Been Signed, Between Red and the Dept. of Phys. of Bologna. The deadline for the beginning of the experiments is now January, 2012 . It is a long stuff, indeed, two in part to the recent financial crysis. Regards Loris Ferrari

[tomclarke]

Browsing for information on LENR I see that dozens of experiments showing transmutation of elements have been reported. Mostly though biological processes. Here is one example that is not biological, that seems easy enough to replicate.
http://amasci.com/freenrg/carbiron.html
http://blazelabs.com/n-transmut.asp

I suppose that if Rossi's E-Cat is proven to work in October, this whole area will be revisited with more open minds and some aspects of nuclear science will have to be modified.

You have no evidence now that minds ae not open. Indeed the number of LENR researchers chasing results which never get above limits of experimental error, in spite of the claimed mechanism allowing unambiguous results, indicates a lot of VERY open minds. Some would say so open most of the sense has fallen out...

[KitemanSA]

I suppose that if Rossi's E-Cat is proven to work in October, this whole area will be revisited with more open minds and some aspects of nuclear science will have to be modified.

As far as I can tell, no aspect of nuclear science does not allow the possibiliy of LENR. What must be modified is the prejudices of the nuclear scientists.

[parallel]

tomclarke,

You have no evidence now that minds ae not open. Indeed the number of LENR researchers chasing results which never get above limits of experimental error, in spite of the claimed mechanism allowing unambiguous results, indicates a lot of VERY open minds. Some would say so open most of the sense has fallen out...

Two questions.
1. How much grant money has the government provided for civil LENR research in the last 20 years?
2. Why is it not possible to get a US patent for anything that mentions cold fusion or LENR?

A lot of the reason is that too many go along with the consensus view, like yours of your last sentence, without bothering to find out about the subject.
You can get megabucks for laser fusion or proving AGW or even $19 billion for that cathedral to science called ITER. but not even $2 million to replicate anomalous heat experiments with results published in journals.

[Crawdaddy]

sparkyy0007

Thanks for your response. We are in agreement. If the device was specifically designed give the temperature curve observed then the result can be explained by deliberate fraud.

Tomclarke

I think you misinterpreted what parallel meant. I, for one, am chomping at the bit to devote the resources of my research institute to exploring cold fusion. Suggesting it now would be an absurd joke in the eyes of the majority of my colleagues. If the e-cat actually works then I have no doubt that the result will be eclipsed within a short time by smarter and better trained people worldwide.

[parallel]

Kiteman,

As far as I can tell, no aspect of nuclear science does not allow the possibiliy of LENR. What must be modified is the prejudices of the nuclear scientists.

As it stands, the current theory of the Coulomb barrier does not allow fusion at low temperatures and there is no well accepted theory explaining how else to get anomalous heat. Particularly without high radiation.


Crawdaddy,

Suggesting it now would be an absurd joke in the eyes of the majority of my colleagues.

The same is true for DOE according to my contact. Of course, those in the field work in hot fusion, so are not keen on the competition. Most, like tomclarke, dismiss it as impossible without really looking.