Talk-Polywell.org

KitemanSA wrote:It certainly appears that the Krivit demo was bogus unless there was a WHOLE lot of condensing going on in the tube.

Does anyne remember seeing the initiation curve for the Krivit demo or had it reached "steady state"??

The data collection had a graph in the video.

My guess is 60 minutes steady state operation.

KitemanSA wrote:

chrismb wrote: What is ridiculous is the measurement (supposedly) of JUST 100C at one end of a 4m pipe, yet Rossi claims it is still 100C and has lost no heat by the end of the pipe! A perfectly insulated pipe, eh!?

Well, since it is steam at atmospheric, it pretty much HAS to be 100 C along the entire pipe. But the more that gets condensed, the smaller the trickle at the other end. Rossi's statement that it doesn't condense on the way is the most damning for this run. If there was 95% condensation along the way then the trickle at the end might be more realistic.

Chris, can you provide details of your set-up? Hose size and length...
[Edit]I see by a later post that you mention a 50cm length of hose. Thanks.
[/Edit]

I understand that you need not my explanations.
As you on a threshold of great discovery.
But nevertheless I will explain you if I wish how I would swindle lop-eared amateurs.
• 750W electric input heats up an empty jacket.
• At the same time water with flow 2g/s begins enter into jacket.
• 450-500W is enough for heating up all entering water to 100 Celsius deg.
• Remaining 250-300W will evaporate only part of entering water.
• Remaining water will slowly fill the jacket.
• For avoiding the filling I would install at the bottom of jacket a simple and small drain valve with very small hose.
That’s all, finita la commedia, my little quantum tunneling friend.

parallel wrote:As surmised, Defkalion has done a number of lab tests themselves. Hard to imagine they would contemplate their investment without doing so.

Indeed, assuming they're on the level. Remember, they're the ones collecting money from investors. The thing to watch will be how they spend the money. Between the Defkalion representative's statement and the interviews with Focardi, Levi, and even Celani in the "Low Energy Nuclear Revolution" video, it seems to me that the fence I've been attempting to sit on, comfortably but impatiently, has gotten exceedingly narrow. Either Rossi actually has something that works—or at least works well enough to convince a lot of presumably intelligent people that it works, or numerous people are involved in a rather massive fraud. It would have been nice if the Defkalion representative had answered each of barbierir's questions:

When did the tests began?
Who were the members of the team?
How were they selected?
How long before they were completely sure it worked?
Where were the tests done?
What kind of setup and instruments did they use?
Did Rossi put any restriction?
Will all the private reports (or part of them) be published after october?

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

Works for me, but now we need replication of the results.

Here is the reply from Krivit.
Looks like there is more to come from him.

Hi Giorgio,

You can copy this message to your board and I would appreciate if you would. Thanks for sending me the links. I don't have time to participate directly in the discussion, I am working on my next report (#2), due in about 48 hours, and I am working on reports #3, #4 and #5. There is a lot more to come. And lots more answers to the questions that many people are asking.

You can track my reports here: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiEC ... yzer.shtml

Grazie,

Steven

Ivy Matt wrote:Works for me, but now we need replication of the results.

Fine, I'll get the teapot ready. Who brings the cookies?

Giorgio wrote:

Ivy Matt wrote:Works for me, but now we need replication of the results.

Fine, I'll get the teapot ready. Who brings the cookies?

Not me. That is a tad far for tea and cookies. Now, throw in a Lamborghini and I'll see you soon!

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote:

Ivy Matt wrote:Works for me, but now we need replication of the results.

Fine, I'll get the teapot ready. Who brings the cookies?

Not me. That is a tad far for tea and cookies. Now, throw in a Lamborghini and I'll see you soon!

Awakening was a little unpleasant.
As there in little boy’s garage instead of Lamborghini was a big teapot wrapped up by insulating tape.

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote:

Ivy Matt wrote:Works for me, but now we need replication of the results.

Fine, I'll get the teapot ready. Who brings the cookies?

Not me. That is a tad far for tea and cookies. Now, throw in a Lamborghini and I'll see you soon!

If I had to spend that amount of money I would invest them in a PA28 more than a Lamborghini!

In the video, Rossi stated that the input water flow rate was 2 g - ml per second. The 7.2 kg/ hr is derived from this. Whether this was the actual flow rate is unknown, it is based entirely on Rossi's statement.
If he is claiming ~ 4 KW output, this would be consistant with ~ total conversion to steam 0f initially 30 degree C water. The question is if the output = input (no hidden plumbing bypassing the thermister), and/ or the percent of the boiling water actually converted to steam.

[EDIT] Later he said 7 liters per hour- pick one and go...

Dan Tibbets

Giorgio wrote:Here is the reply from Krivit.
Looks like there is more to come from him.

I am working on my next report (#2), due in about 48 hours, and I am working on reports #3, #4 and #5. There is a lot more to come. And lots more answers to the questions that many people are asking.

I bet this relates to why Rossi and Levi reacted so severely to Krivit's original post (which was skeptical in nature, but didn't seem at all to warrant the severity of the responses from Levi and Rossi).

I suspect based on the questions Krivit asked during his visit, they know that Krivit is likely to post far more damaging material and the severity of their reaction was geared more to what he hasn't yet posted than to his questions about steam measurement in his initial report.

KitemanSA wrote:

Giorgio wrote: 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.

Perhaps, but concrete is not a very good thermal conductor. Also, consider that the hose circumferential surface that is actually in contact would be a small fraction of the total., perhaps 10-20%. Also, the hose itself would not be an excellent conductor. It is hot because it has reached steady state between the heat inside (steam and hot water) and the radiation, convection and conduction losses on the outside. The argument is not how hot the tube would eventually become so much as what these insulation losses would add up to and how this compares to the heat content of dry steam flowing through the tube. If the steam flow rate is a few ml/ sec. a lot, if not nearly total condensation will occur. If the flow is up to several liters per second (2 gram of water per second= ~ 2 liters of converted steam per second if all of the injected water is converted (with the implication that this represents ~ 4-5 KW of thermal energy) I would expect that only a very small portion of the total flow would condense.

Dan Tibbets

KitemanSA wrote:

chrismb wrote: 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.

A reminder. The steam flow would not be 7 liters/ hr. The mass flow would be ~ 7 kg of steam/ hr. You have to convert the mass to gas volume with some assumed conditions- pressure and temperature. My calculation if the claimed thermal output was ~ 4-5 kw , which is necessary for nearly complete vaporization of the water would result in a flow of ~ 2 liters of steam per second, which coincidentally would be ~ 7,000 liters / hr. That is 1000 times as much.

Dan Tibbets

Joseph Chikva wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

chrismb wrote: What is ridiculous is the measurement (supposedly) of JUST 100C at one end of a 4m pipe, yet Rossi claims it is still 100C and has lost no heat by the end .....
[/Edit]

I understand that you need not my explanations.
As you on a threshold of great discovery.
But nevertheless I will explain you if I wish how I would swindle lop-eared amateurs.
• 750W electric input heats up an empty jacket.
• At the same time water with flow 2g/s begins enter into jacket.
• 450-500W is enough for heating up all entering water to 100 Celsius deg.
• Remaining 250-300W will evaporate only part of entering water.
• Remaining water will slowly fill the jacket.
• For avoiding the filling I would install at the bottom of jacket a simple and small drain valve with very small hose.
That’s all, finita la commedia, my little quantum tunneling friend.

Your tricks could certainly be used by someone trying to deceive, at least for a briefly witnessed demonstration. But, the steam output as a portion of the total water output (what percent is vaporized) introduces such a large difference in the true output, that manipulating this factor alone is enough to explain the claimed excess energy, without the need to use other deceits or unexplained physics.
ChrisMB's qualitative demo suggests that this may indeed be the the case.
ie, input heat, water flow rates and measured temperature may all be legitimate. It is the claim that (almost) all of the measured temperature is from dry steam, not a small portion of steam mixed with hot liquid water that can explain the discrepancy.

ChrisMB's demo certainly highlights this discrepency. Also, in the video, he pointed out that Rossi appeared to drain the tube before removing it from the sink drain fits with this picture of hot water draining through the tube with some relatively small quantity of steam bubbling/ percolating through the liquid.
If ChrisMB better quantitates his steam flow and heat input, the steam production claims of Rossi becomes increasingly indefensible.
As mentioned by others, actually quantifying the steam vapor flow by collecting it in a bottle (displacing liquid water) for a modest amount of time, and then demanding that Rossi do the same would fully expose the stupidity or fraud of the machine. It would remove the possibility of misleading steam production claims.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is a flawed setup an any case. There is no reason the water flow should not be increased till the delta T is some manageable number (such as 30 degrees C ) where phase transitions are irrelevant. Even course measurements would then suffice to prove or disprove the large heat gains claimed.

As you point out, other deceits still need to be eliminated if the device passes this basic and very easy test.

Dan Tibbets

Giorgio wrote:Fine, I'll get the teapot ready. Who brings the cookies?

I could make the cookies. Bringing them might be a little difficult.

KitemanSA wrote:

chrismb wrote: What is ridiculous is the measurement (supposedly) of JUST 100C at one end of a 4m pipe, yet Rossi claims it is still 100C and has lost no heat by the end of the pipe! A perfectly insulated pipe, eh!?

Well, since it is steam at atmospheric, it pretty much HAS to be 100 C along the entire pipe. But the more that gets condensed, the smaller the trickle at the other end. Rossi's statement that it doesn't condense on the way is the most damning for this run. If there was 95% condensation along the way then the trickle at the end might be more realistic.

Chris, can you provide details of your set-up? Hose size and length...
[Edit]I see by a later post that you mention a 50cm length of hose. Thanks.
[/Edit]

Why does steam at atmospheric pressure have to be at 100 degrees C?
This is true for wet steam- steam in contact with liquid water because the liquid water acts as a buffer because of the high heat of vaporization of water. But once the water is all converted to steam (dry steam) the steam can be heated like any other gas. In a fixed container the pressure would go up as described by the gas law. But if the steam can escape, the pressure would go up significantly only if there is a relatively tight aperture it has to go through. This is why some point out that dry steam coming from the Rossi device probably would be hotter. Once all of the water is vaporized, any excess heat energy remaining would start heating the steam to higher temperatures. Maintaining a water flow that perfectly matches the energy necessary to heat and then vaporize all of the water would be a delicate balance. No variations in the pump speed, power plant supplied voltage, insulation properties *, etc. would be tolorated. The limited views of the measured temps on the computer looked very steady. If all of the water was being vaporized, the base measured temperature would perhaps be 100.something degrees, but either not all of the water is vaporized (it could admittedly be a small portion), or the temperature readings would probably be bouncing around a few degrees above 100, as the input power varied. If there was enough thermal mass in the machine, these changes may be slowed but still present. Some have claimed that a measured average temp of ~ 110 degrees C would be more reasonable for dry steam. I'm not sure where that magnitude came from, but it seems reasonable.

If only 95% of the water was vaporized, the temperature readings may be steady at 100 degrees or slightly above, and Rossi's claims would still be ~ correct, but if only ~ 5% of the water is vaporized then the excess energy claims are wrong.

* The air conditioning turning on/ off in the room would probably be enough to tip the balance.

Dan Tibbets