10KW LENR Demonstrator?

[Giorgio]

Just question: Is not it possible that the length of the hose affects it?

Length of the hose effects the starting pressure you need to have inside the reactor to push out the same quantity of steam.
Longer hose will need an higher starting pressure in respect of a shorter one.

An higher starting pressure (inside the reactor) will require more heat to convert the same quantity of water into steam (or a lower flow of water for the same quantity of heat).

In a way or the other, an equilibrium will be reached.
This equilibrium is not consistent with the water and heat flow that Rossi is stating.

One more thing: If e-cat is supposed to work as heater, is not it a bit impractical that it produces the steam?

You are absolutely correct.
By producing only steam they are probably just convincing themselves that they actually discovered something.

[Giorgio]

chrismb - maybe you can use Lewan's numbers - we know by weight he was seeing 4.12kg/h go into the ECat - then you could use 345W from his measurements as well as 780W from the Krivit demo.

If you assume the 4.12 kg/h than:

0.345 Kw/h will rise temperature of that flow of "only" 72'C, so, hardly no steam will come out.

0.780 Kw/h can convert to steam slightly more than 1Kg/h of water. Anything more than that must come out as water.

[ladajo]

You know another point here we are not considering as well is the difference in heat transfer to oxygenated water verses oxygen free water. The water he is using, one would assume is tap water and highly oxygenated.

But in any event, his previous demos claiming 15ish KW should have produced more steam than what was shown. And that drain hose should have been smokin hot. Certainly to hot to touch, espedcially near the device.

Certainly the length of the hose matters as well as a long run will start to act like a condenser tube, especially at lower flows.

[sparkyy0007]

Certainly to hot to touch, espedcially near the device.

Certainly the length of the hose matters as well as a long run will start to act like a condenser tube, especially at lower flows.

A misconception that has been perpetrated too many times for me to continue to ignore is the temperature of the
hose (((IT'S 100C +- 1C ALL ALONG THE HOSE!!)))!! Including the end!!
Steam at 1atm condenses at 100C !!!
As long as steam is coming out the end and with the low flow of the Krivit demo.

Disclamer:
Assuming little insulation value of the rubber, Ah but remember, it's very hot.

Certainly the length of the hose matters as well as a long run will start to act like a condenser tube, especially at lower flows.

Very true.

[cg66]

chrismb - maybe you can use Lewan's numbers - we know by weight he was seeing 4.12kg/h go into the ECat - then you could use 345W from his measurements as well as 780W from the Krivit demo.

If you assume the 4.12 kg/h than:

0.345 Kw/h will rise temperature of that flow of "only" 72'C, so, hardly no steam will come out.

0.780 Kw/h can convert to steam slightly more than 1Kg/h of water. Anything more than that must come out as water.

That is the idea! If water comes pouring out of the chrismb's hose its pretty good indication that there is extra heat coming from somewhere in Rossi's device.

[chrismb]

That is the idea! If water comes pouring out of the chrismb's hose its pretty good indication that there is extra heat coming from somewhere in Rossi's device.

Not sure I understand. Water came out of my hose, which is a good indication that there would be water in Rossi's hose. In the Nytek video, you can hear it gurgling (just like mine) and in the Krivit one, Rossi empties the water out before lifting the hose.

[cg66]

Not sure I understand. Water came out of my hose, which is a good indication that there would be water in Rossi's hose. In the Nytek video, you can hear it gurgling (just like mine) and in the Krivit one, Rossi empties the water out before lifting the hose.

If you are simulating an e-cat and can regulate input power to 780W a input water at a 4kg/h - what would the output hose look like? By Giorgio's calculation - 3/4 of the water wouldn't turn to steam. Or were you already doing this with your set up?

[chrismb]

Mine was already freed of carry-off water droplets on account of my pipe running vertically for 50cm from the kettle orifice (which itself was on the top and ~10cm above the boiling water surface). Whereas with Rossi's set-up, the exit was quite close to the horizontal line of the vessel, so water droplets thrown up by boiling action could be taken down the pipe more easily than in my setup. In the worst case, if that pump just kept on pumping water in, then eventually it'd get pushed (as water) down his pipe, and pushed along and out by the steam. I don't think the latter case is probable (who knows but Rossi?), but the former seems highly possible. In mine, the pipe length was very short and that's why it comes out of the pipe with no carry-through visible steam.

My setup was not an attempt at running an equivalent power. Mine was simply to measure the max steam emission rate I could achieve (25g/min), then see what that looked like.

Now that I can see how much heat needs to go into a body of water to get 25g/min out of it, I think it is unlikely I could feed in as much heat power as Rossi is claiming for his. But I will see if I can set up something next week to reach maybe 2kW electrical, to see what that looks like and what emission rate I get.

[D Tibbets]

Just question: Is not it possible that the length of the hose affects it?

Length of the hose effects the starting pressure you need to have inside the reactor to push out the same quantity of steam.
Longer hose will need an higher starting pressure in respect of a shorter one.

An higher starting pressure (inside the reactor) will require more heat to convert the same quantity of water into steam (or a lower flow of water for the same quantity of heat).

.

One more thing: If e-cat is supposed to work as heater, is not it a bit impractical that it produces the steam?

You are absolutely correct.
By producing only steam they are probably just convincing themselves that they actually discovered something.

Just to clarify, the amount of heat needed to convert 1 gram of water to 1 gram of steam at the same temperature does not change. What does change is the temperature where water can stay liquid. It goes up with increased pressure. In a way having increased pressure allows hotter liquid water to be maintained without it flashing into steam. At constant heat input and mildly increased pressure, a little more of the heating energy would go into heating the water an additional degree or two. The percentage of steam production at constant water flow would go down.
If the water had to be heated an extra degree or two, the correction would be relatively small compared to the excess heat that is implied by near total conversion to steam. The initial temperature of the input water would make a larger difference. If there was some ice in the water, or if the water was from the hot water facet, this would make up to several hundreds of watts input difference before steam conversion became significant. Actually having a thermometer in the input water bottle in the demonstration is another variable that is not presented in the several demo videos I have seem. We have to depend on Rossi's quote. This is important in those demos where the claimed watt input was lower to the degree that the claimed water flow could not have been heated to the ~ 100 degrees, without excess heat production. If the input water started out at -eg: 50 degrees C instead of 15 degrees C. this discrepancy might be resolved. This doesn't directly imply deceit, but lack of confirmed measurements does allow for it.

This brings up a point reinforced by the discussion on the New Energy Times website. These devices have a vertical chimney. If this fills up with liquid water to the drain hole, the water column would increase the pressure. If the chimney is ~ 4 inches high, or ~ 10 cm, this 10 cm of water pressure. This would be ~ 10 cm/ 1000 cm/ atm would increase the pressure by about 0.01 atm. At 2 atm the boiling point of water is ~ 120 degrees C.Increased by 20 degrees. At 0.01 atm increased pressure only from the water column, would result in a boiling point raised by ~ 0.2 degrees C. The machine that was claimed to be producing 10-20 Kw was larger, with a taller chimney. This may be consistent with the reported temperature of ~ 100.5 to 101 degrees C
Any stricture, friction in the draining tube would increase the pressure further (assuming condensation in the tube is not contributing much to the steam volume). This pretty much voids the arguement that the steam must be dry because the measured temperature is above. 100.000 degrees C. Then you have to consider the actual barometric pressure in the room.

Dan Tibbets

[Giorgio]

Not sure I understand. Water came out of my hose, which is a good indication that there would be water in Rossi's hose. In the Nytek video, you can hear it gurgling (just like mine) and in the Krivit one, Rossi empties the water out before lifting the hose.

If you are simulating an e-cat and can regulate input power to 780W a input water at a 4kg/h - what would the output hose look like? By Giorgio's calculation - 3/4 of the water wouldn't turn to steam. Or were you already doing this with your set up?

More than 3/4 would not turn to steam, because I calculated the maximum flow of water that 780W can convert completely to steam.
If you increase the flow from that amount the amount of steam will decrease.

If you consider a water flow of 4kg/h at 25'C than we can roughly calculate that to rise water flow to 100'C we will consume 4*4.19*75=1257Kcal
Hence what is left to convert water to steam is only 1551Kcal.
This will allow conversion of slightly less than 690gr of the water to steam, or only 17% of the water input.
You can imagine how the output hose will look like.

[parallel]

Here is a youtube video either with subtitles, or English, that is more interesting than the endless, repetitive speculation on whether the E-Cat is a fake. In particular the few minutes starting at 22 minutes in, where the radiation levels are discussed. It seems there is a large burst of gamma radiation at the start-up of a new E-Cat and then it settles down to about 50% over ambient levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMB ... r_embedded

[Joseph Chikva]

Here is a youtube video either with subtitles, or English, that is more interesting than the endless, repetitive speculation on whether the E-Cat is a fake. In particular the few minutes starting at 22 minutes in, where the radiation levels are discussed. It seems there is a large burst of gamma radiation at the start-up of a new E-Cat and then it settles down to about 50% over ambient levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMB ... r_embedded

Oops, now gamma radiation appeared.

[sparkyy0007]

Here is a youtube video either with subtitles, or English, that is more interesting than the endless, repetitive speculation on whether the E-Cat is a fake. In particular the few minutes starting at 22 minutes in, where the radiation levels are discussed. It seems there is a large burst of gamma radiation at the start-up of a new E-Cat and then it settles down to about 50% over ambient levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7lAlzMB ... r_embedded

Oops, now gamma radiation appeared.

I am still waiting for the heat

[Joseph Chikva]

I am still waiting for the heat

What heat?
If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.

[parallel]

If reaction goes with gamma radiation, radiation appears for a short time and then stopped, so - reaction was stopped too.

What part of "the gamma radiation then dropped to about 50% above ambient and it was variable" did you not understand?