10KW LENR Demonstrator?
A few notes. It was mentioned that having oxygen disolved in the input water would increase the output vapor. Yes, but not by much. Oxygen does not dissolve in water very much. The dissolved nitrogen would be more significant. And, if he wanted to provide even more vapors, carbonated water would be best.
Also, I'm curious about the water pump. In some videos the pump is thumping away with loud bangs. I thought it might be noise from some other source, but in one video, the input water line can be seen bouncing with each pulse. I guess that this implies that the pump is perhaps a high pressure pump with a valve that only opens noisily when some pressure condition is reached. This would suggest that the water pressure in the device may be above atmospheric. In another test the pump was not thumping, was it even on? Or was the water in the internal reservoir being allowed to boil off. this would certainly change the input water average flow rate. So, add another measurement, continuous recorded water input flow rate. Weighing the water tank intermittently leaves another method for manipulating time dependent steam production. Without this the observer would have to continuously monitor the steam/water output. Taking an observation every hr or so wont work, unless everything else is under your control, not Rossi's.
This would provide an alternative to cranking up the current in the Ny TekNik video. He might have been boosting the water flow momentarily instead of boosting the current.. If the water flow was shut off or decreased, the steam production would decrease as the liquid water made less contact with the heat producing vessel. This core could heat up to higher temp. without needing much current. When water was reintroduced it would quickly flash into steam. The same principle as dropping hot rocks into water to cook your soup. This would only allow for intermediate manipulation, and couldn't run completely dry or the thermometer would indicate it. Continuous charting of temperature, pressure, input power, input water flow, and output water flow , along with avoidance of steam production or careful determination of the actual percentage of steam vs hot liquid water leaving the machine.
Careful timing of the pump cycle, heating current level, water level within the machine, could be manipulated for this pulsating system to appear steady state to a casual observer.
Dan Tibbets
Also, I'm curious about the water pump. In some videos the pump is thumping away with loud bangs. I thought it might be noise from some other source, but in one video, the input water line can be seen bouncing with each pulse. I guess that this implies that the pump is perhaps a high pressure pump with a valve that only opens noisily when some pressure condition is reached. This would suggest that the water pressure in the device may be above atmospheric. In another test the pump was not thumping, was it even on? Or was the water in the internal reservoir being allowed to boil off. this would certainly change the input water average flow rate. So, add another measurement, continuous recorded water input flow rate. Weighing the water tank intermittently leaves another method for manipulating time dependent steam production. Without this the observer would have to continuously monitor the steam/water output. Taking an observation every hr or so wont work, unless everything else is under your control, not Rossi's.
This would provide an alternative to cranking up the current in the Ny TekNik video. He might have been boosting the water flow momentarily instead of boosting the current.. If the water flow was shut off or decreased, the steam production would decrease as the liquid water made less contact with the heat producing vessel. This core could heat up to higher temp. without needing much current. When water was reintroduced it would quickly flash into steam. The same principle as dropping hot rocks into water to cook your soup. This would only allow for intermediate manipulation, and couldn't run completely dry or the thermometer would indicate it. Continuous charting of temperature, pressure, input power, input water flow, and output water flow , along with avoidance of steam production or careful determination of the actual percentage of steam vs hot liquid water leaving the machine.
Careful timing of the pump cycle, heating current level, water level within the machine, could be manipulated for this pulsating system to appear steady state to a casual observer.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
-
painlord2k
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Some topic covered by this thread can be easily explained if you do a bit of lateral thinking:
1) Rossi was testing the numerous e-cat he need for the 1 MW plant he must deliver. He was not conducting some specific show for Kivrit and the other journalists. This is a specific reason the power input and output is different in the different videos.
2) What would you do if you need to test these e-cat in a room?
Do you let the steam go in the air, so it will spread around and make the room a sauna? Kivrit measured 30 °C there and Bologna is not Miami even in May. I would simply take the bucket, fill it half of cold water and put the hose there. The steam not condensed in the hose would condense in the water of the bucket (1-2g of steam per second inside a bucket with 5-6 kg of water). This would prevent the hose from sputtering around hot water. Rossi appear very concerned with security of his apparatus and, surely, don't want incidents harming him or someone else.
3) No one have noted, talking about the speed of the steam out of the hose, that a gas under pressure will expand on all directions inside another gas with a lower pressure. So, if a 2600 cm3 of steam go out of the hose, you will need to account for a sphere of 8 cm of radius every second or a sphere of little more than 10 cm after 2 seconds (the radius increase with the cube of the volume). Given the steam's speed have a value and a direction and the air a resistence as well, there will not be an expanding sphere but something more between a cone and a half sphere (mushroom?). Add to this the fact the steam is at 100°C and the air at 30°C, then the steam will move up higher and the geometry of the steam cloud will be more deformed. And, add to all of this the fact the steam is expanding, so its temperature is falling.
This account for the apparent low speed of the steam just out of the hose.
If you look at the video of January, when celani speak, he talk about a spike at the start, a spike at the end and a pulsing in the middle, with gamma stay over the backgorund of the place. The 50% more gamma than the background is some data added in the last interview. But he clearly, for me, talk about a someway pulsing emission during the working of the e-cat. I don't think he would talk about pulsing emissions with only two spikes.
In the last video, Levi say clearly that the "neutrons" found by Focardi is an interesting claim but the bubbles in the neutron detectors could be from the explosin shock also. He say they will, if possible, try to blow some e-cat to verify it, but this will need time and all the R&D program must be done in a very professional and detailed way to prevent critics from flaming them for shortcomings (distilled water used instead of tap water, for example).
1) Rossi was testing the numerous e-cat he need for the 1 MW plant he must deliver. He was not conducting some specific show for Kivrit and the other journalists. This is a specific reason the power input and output is different in the different videos.
2) What would you do if you need to test these e-cat in a room?
Do you let the steam go in the air, so it will spread around and make the room a sauna? Kivrit measured 30 °C there and Bologna is not Miami even in May. I would simply take the bucket, fill it half of cold water and put the hose there. The steam not condensed in the hose would condense in the water of the bucket (1-2g of steam per second inside a bucket with 5-6 kg of water). This would prevent the hose from sputtering around hot water. Rossi appear very concerned with security of his apparatus and, surely, don't want incidents harming him or someone else.
3) No one have noted, talking about the speed of the steam out of the hose, that a gas under pressure will expand on all directions inside another gas with a lower pressure. So, if a 2600 cm3 of steam go out of the hose, you will need to account for a sphere of 8 cm of radius every second or a sphere of little more than 10 cm after 2 seconds (the radius increase with the cube of the volume). Given the steam's speed have a value and a direction and the air a resistence as well, there will not be an expanding sphere but something more between a cone and a half sphere (mushroom?). Add to this the fact the steam is at 100°C and the air at 30°C, then the steam will move up higher and the geometry of the steam cloud will be more deformed. And, add to all of this the fact the steam is expanding, so its temperature is falling.
This account for the apparent low speed of the steam just out of the hose.
If you look at the video of January, when celani speak, he talk about a spike at the start, a spike at the end and a pulsing in the middle, with gamma stay over the backgorund of the place. The 50% more gamma than the background is some data added in the last interview. But he clearly, for me, talk about a someway pulsing emission during the working of the e-cat. I don't think he would talk about pulsing emissions with only two spikes.
In the last video, Levi say clearly that the "neutrons" found by Focardi is an interesting claim but the bubbles in the neutron detectors could be from the explosin shock also. He say they will, if possible, try to blow some e-cat to verify it, but this will need time and all the R&D program must be done in a very professional and detailed way to prevent critics from flaming them for shortcomings (distilled water used instead of tap water, for example).
-
sparkyy0007
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
Who cares about radiation signatures if there is no heat.painlord2k wrote:He was conducting a specific show for Krivit, as he said 7Kg/h.1) Rossi was testing the numerous e-cat he need for the 1 MW plant he must deliver. He was not conducting some specific show for Kivrit and the other journalists. This is a specific reason the power input and output is different in the different videos.
Then he calculated the power for Krivit and the world, on camera.
http://youtu.be/YrTz5Bq6dsA
Don't let them boil water and do a proper analysis of the real heat?2) What would you do if you need to test these e-cat in a room?
The steam not condensed in the hose would condense in the water of the bucket (1-2g of steam per second inside a bucket with 5-6 kg of water).
If the bucket were half full I might agree with you but there was maybe a couple of inches of water in the bucket and when the hose went back in there was more steam than before.
Are you trying to convince us there was significant "pressure" in the Krivit demo???3) No one have noted, talking about the speed of the steam out of the hose, that a gas under pressure will expand on all directions inside another gas with a lower pressure.
This makes no sense.So, if a 2600 cm3 of steam go out of the hose, you will need to account for a sphere of 8 cm of radius every second or a sphere of little more than 10 cm after 2 seconds (the radius increase with the cube of the volume). Given the steam's speed have a value and a direction and the air a resistence as well, there will not be an expanding sphere but something more between a cone and a half sphere (mushroom?). Add to this the fact the steam is at 100°C and the air at 30°C, then the steam will move up higher and the geometry of the steam cloud will be more deformed. And, add to all of this the fact the steam is expanding, so its temperature is falling.
This account for the apparent low speed of the steam just out of the hose.
What would be your explanation for chrismb demo flow appearing so large in comparison?
If you look at the video of January, when celani speak, he talk about a spike at the start, a spike at the end and a pulsing in the middle, with gamma stay over the backgorund of the place. The 50% more gamma than the background is some data added in the last interview. But he clearly, for me, talk about a someway pulsing emission during the working of the e-cat. I don't think he would talk about pulsing emissions with only two spikes.
In the last video, Levi say clearly that the "neutrons" found by Focardi is an interesting claim but the bubbles in the neutron detectors could be from the explosin shock also. He say they will, if possible, try to blow some e-cat to verify it, but this will need time and all the R&D program must be done in a very professional and detailed way to prevent critics from flaming them for shortcomings (distilled water used instead of tap water, for example).
The whole purpose of this device is heat and that's not proven in any of the demos.
-
painlord2k
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:35 pm
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
-
sparkyy0007
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 8:32 am
- Location: Canada
-
Joseph Chikva
- Posts: 2039
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:30 am
“He was not conducting”, “he meant so”, “he has best wishes”, “he takes care on safety”,...painlord2k wrote:Some topic covered by this thread can be easily explained if you do a bit of lateral thinking:
1) Rossi was testing the numerous e-cat he need for the 1 MW plant he must deliver. He was not conducting some specific show for Kivrit and the other journalists. This is a specific reason the power input and output is different in the different videos.
2) What would you do if you need to test these e-cat in a room?
Do you let the steam go in the air, so it will spread around and make the room a sauna? Kivrit measured 30 °C there and Bologna is not Miami even in May. I would simply take the bucket, fill it half of cold water and put the hose there. The steam not condensed in the hose would condense in the water of the bucket (1-2g of steam per second inside a bucket with 5-6 kg of water). This would prevent the hose from sputtering around hot water. Rossi appear very concerned with security of his apparatus and, surely, don't want incidents harming him or someone else.
3) No one have noted, talking about the speed of the steam out of the hose, that a gas under pressure will expand on all directions inside another gas with a lower pressure. So, if a 2600 cm3 of steam go out of the hose, you will need to account for a sphere of 8 cm of radius every second or a sphere of little more than 10 cm after 2 seconds (the radius increase with the cube of the volume). Given the steam's speed have a value and a direction and the air a resistence as well, there will not be an expanding sphere but something more between a cone and a half sphere (mushroom?). Add to this the fact the steam is at 100°C and the air at 30°C, then the steam will move up higher and the geometry of the steam cloud will be more deformed. And, add to all of this the fact the steam is expanding, so its temperature is falling.
This account for the apparent low speed of the steam just out of the hose.
If you look at the video of January, when celani speak, he talk about a spike at the start, a spike at the end and a pulsing in the middle, with gamma stay over the backgorund of the place. The 50% more gamma than the background is some data added in the last interview. But he clearly, for me, talk about a someway pulsing emission during the working of the e-cat. I don't think he would talk about pulsing emissions with only two spikes.
In the last video, Levi say clearly that the "neutrons" found by Focardi is an interesting claim but the bubbles in the neutron detectors could be from the explosin shock also. He say they will, if possible, try to blow some e-cat to verify it, but this will need time and all the R&D program must be done in a very professional and detailed way to prevent critics from flaming them for shortcomings (distilled water used instead of tap water, for example).
I would believe if you say that Mr. Rossi is a good man, good father of family and so on.
But nobody interested in it.
Interesting only a few questions:
• What did he discover?
• Has he a theory explaining the process? And if yes, is he going to publish that?
• Has Mr. Rossi any experience of putting experiment and interpreting experimental results?
• For what electric power input in self-sustained exothermic reaction?
• Does his device produce any radiation? And if yes, is that constant during running the device when device produces constant heat or that is time dependent?
Please do not reply in such a manner "on 20th minute of video someone said". If you know answer. Because everybody can make assumptions. Me too.
For example by my opinion David Copperfield is much better conjurer.
Not sure what you mean, but you need about 5-6 times more energy to evaporate 1Kg of water than to bring it to 100'C. Pressure will rise, and the system will find a new equilibrium point that will depend on the quantity of steam (energy) that leaves.bk78 wrote:@Dan: When the temperature is around 100 degrees, power increase would result very quickly in steam production, (there is no thermal ineria in play), and as soon as steam is produced, pressure rises instantly and is has to come out somewhere. I don't think it has to do anything with microphone position, as you can hear it for quite a while in the other room.
painlord2k wrote:Some topic covered by this thread can be easily explained if you do a bit of lateral thinking:
.......
2) What would you do if you need to test these e-cat in a room?
Do you let the steam go in the air, so it will spread around and make the room a sauna? Kivrit measured 30 °C there and Bologna is not Miami even in May. I would simply take the bucket, fill it half of cold water and put the hose there. The steam not condensed in the hose would condense in the water of the bucket (1-2g of steam per second inside a bucket with 5-6 kg of water). This would prevent the hose from sputtering around hot water. Rossi appear very concerned with security of his apparatus and, surely, don't want incidents harming him or someone else.
3) No one have noted, talking about the speed of the steam out of the hose, that a gas under pressure will expand on all directions inside another gas with a lower pressure. So, if a 2600 cm3 of steam go out of the hose, you will need to account for a sphere of 8 cm of radius every second or a sphere of little more than 10 cm after 2 seconds (the radius increase with the cube of the volume). Given the steam's speed have a value and a direction and the air a resistence as well, there will not be an expanding sphere but something more between a cone and a half sphere (mushroom?). Add to this the fact the steam is at 100°C and the air at 30°C, then the steam will move up higher and the geometry of the steam cloud will be more deformed. And, add to all of this the fact the steam is expanding, so its temperature is falling.
This account for the apparent low speed of the steam just out of the hose.
If you look at the video of January, when celani speak, he talk about a spike at the start, a spike at the end and a pulsing in the middle, with gamma stay over the backgorund of the place. The 50% more gamma than the background is some data added in the last interview. But he clearly, for me, talk about a someway pulsing emission during the working of the e-cat. I don't think he would talk about pulsing emissions with only two spikes.
In the last video, Levi say clearly that the "neutrons" found by Focardi is an interesting claim but the bubbles in the neutron detectors could be from the explosin shock also. He say they will, if possible, try to blow some e-cat to verify it, but this will need time and all the R&D program must be done in a very professional and detailed way to prevent critics from flaming them for shortcomings (distilled water used instead of tap water, for example).
The description of steam flow sounds reasonable. But, then claiming that this description explains the difference between Rossi's and Chrismb's steam flow is nonsense. The steam flow from Chrismb's ~ ~ 700 Watt output traveled further from the end of the tube, and was obvously a larger volume per second. The Rossi's steam flow was slower and expanded faster, despite claimed ~ 4000-5000 Watts of heating. The only real difference is the length of the hose. The question then becomes how much of the steam (if you are generous and believe that ~ 4500 Watts of steam is actually being produced) recondenses within the tube. My impression that several liters of steam per second flow through a ~ 1/4 to 1/2 inch inside diameter thick walled rubber tube would not condense much . Even if you claim 500-1000 Watts of heat being lost through the walls of the insulating rubber tube, that would still leave more than 3,000 Watts of steam exiting the tube, which would be ~ 4 times the volume as in the Chrismb demo. As the tubes are ~ the same diameter, the flow rate should be ~ 4 times as fast, which implies greater pressure. This is obviously not the case. To eliminate the flow resistance of the longer tube and presumptive high levels of condensation within the tube (which I believe is unsupported- 3,000 to 4,000 Watts of heating would quickly melt the tube). The liquid condensed water within the tube would prevent this, but only by being converted back into steam. Does anyone believe that the heat loss through this thick walled rubber tube could add up to ~4,000 Watts in several meters of tube? Chrismb could lengthen his tube to ~ 3 meters, but I doubt it would make much difference in the steam appearance, once the tube had reached steady temperature.
Your mention of placing the hose end under water to trap the steam's heat makes since (within limits). Adding measurements of temperature and cumulative water volume/ mass in the bucket would allow for accurate measurement of heat output without this silly steam volume/ condensation issue. This has been suggested, but Rossi has refused to do this, at least in any forum where the claimed results could be verified by outsiders.
Rossi's 'safety' considerations about sputtering boiling water spewing from the tube is a not an excuse for avoiding proper observations. As stated, a clear rubber hose could be used, immersing the end of the hose in a water trap could be used, or at least briefly the hose could be removed. hot water and steam percolating out the exit nipple (or Rossi's claim of dry steam) would quickly clarify the issue. From a safety standpoint an even better solution would be to use water flows that permitted heating only to levels well below the boiling point of water, it would be safer, and much more accurate and reliable.
No, Rossi's claimed steam performance is not only unreliable, but is also less safe.
The neutron issues, and mention of high pulsed radiation levels at the beginning and end of the run makes no sense. It has been emphasized that the heat production is constant, not highly erratic of pulsed. If the start up radiation pulse is real and a nuclear process, then the radiation disappears, or almost disappears, that implies that there are at least two separate processes occurring- two unexplained new physics processes occurring, not one. And, why would it pulse again at the end?. If you claim that the neutrons produced in some way are near thermal, then claim that they are captured before they can reach the neutron detector tube, then neutron production that lasts months may not be detectable. But this implies that that the claimed neutron burst at the begining must have more energy (eV) in order to reach the detector. The detector can collect the neutrons for hours, perhaps days. If the initial burst of neutrons have the same kinetic energy as the trickle of neutrons later, then if the bubble detector was filled with bubbles in only a few seconds or less, then even fluxes of millions of fewer neutrons/sec. would give a signal with exposure times 10,000 to 100,000 longer time frames. And if the initial neutron burst was even greater in magnitude, with all or most of the energy being absorbed within the machine, then you would need to worry about the machine exploding in a steam explosion. The claimed neutrons would need to be of different energies (different nuclear reactions) or only neutrons were produced at startup- this would preclude any neutron producing reactions being involved with nuclear reactions that produces energy (or consumes it) during the weeks of claimed steady state heating. This would preclude [EDIT-nucleosynthesis] of copper from nickel and neutrons. That would only leave nickel plus protons, which normally require tremendous input kinetic energy. But, of course there is the secret catalyst
If you mean the the neutron counts spike at the beginning from a shock- from a pulse of neutron radiation, but not later, then again this would require two completely separate nuclear processes that are involved.
If you mean a shock, such a 'BOOM' , again I find this curious. Bubble neutron detectors work by local vaporization of a superheated liquid gel. It is extremely resistant to electronic noise or other effects. A shock wave may trigger artifacts, but I suggest this shock wave would be obvious to anyone in the room, or possibly even in the building, burst tubes, broken windows, breaking of the glass tube that contains the neutron detecting gel, etc. [EDIT- thermal issues may be a more likely culprit. there is an operating temperature range for the bubble detectors]
To me it seams that the reported effects that I know of is a hodgepodge of effects that someone clever, but not very knowledgeable conspirator would cook up. eg: It is a nuclear process, so we must present some evidence of radiation, and of course we must show excess energy, so what do we have to do?
I think their biggest mistake is the magnitude of their claimed energy gain. Less lofty claimed results would take longer disillusionment. Helion Energy may have the better plan. Still, I am amazed how uncritical several supposedly expert reviewers have been.
Dan Tibbets
Last edited by D Tibbets on Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To error is human... and I'm very human.
I've been lurking for some time and have thoroughly enjoyed the last 200 entraining pages. I truly hope Rossi has found something so life changing. I liked chrismb's demo so much I thought I'd try a little demo myself. I have a 10kW steam generator so I took a little video and made a couple measurements.
Crude "demo" details:
Mr. Steam MS Super 1 - 10kW <http://www.mrsteam.com/products/steamba ... ecs01.html>
Input Voltage: ~240V
Measured input current: ~39A (see video)
~25' of 1/2" copper tubing to shower steam outlet (somewhat insulated)
11' of 5/8" ID insulated heater hose
Youtube video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRpnN6CAd8>
Steam output placed in 5 gallon bucket of cold water for ~7mins
Start water temp: 21.3C
Start water weight: 12.3kg
End water temp: 81.0C
End water weight: 13.8kg
I'll leave the calculation of the output power at the end of the hose as an exercise for the reader, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly less than 10kW of steam
Water temp at inlet of Mr Steam ~61C.
Not a real experiment by any means, but fun none the less.
Back to lurking.
Bruce
Crude "demo" details:
Mr. Steam MS Super 1 - 10kW <http://www.mrsteam.com/products/steamba ... ecs01.html>
Input Voltage: ~240V
Measured input current: ~39A (see video)
~25' of 1/2" copper tubing to shower steam outlet (somewhat insulated)
11' of 5/8" ID insulated heater hose
Youtube video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shRpnN6CAd8>
Steam output placed in 5 gallon bucket of cold water for ~7mins
Start water temp: 21.3C
Start water weight: 12.3kg
End water temp: 81.0C
End water weight: 13.8kg
I'll leave the calculation of the output power at the end of the hose as an exercise for the reader, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly less than 10kW of steam
Water temp at inlet of Mr Steam ~61C.
Not a real experiment by any means, but fun none the less.
Back to lurking.
Bruce
This also begs another mystery for the Rossi machine regarding its internal thermal efficiencies for the transfer bouundaries.
In your case the 10KW refers to input power, and does not address actual losses during energy transfers, and thus does not really tell you how much "steam energy" you will get out of it.
This is another thing I have wondered about Rossi's machine, if he claims "y" KW output, what is "x" KW at the source? And can the designed components handle the claimed sourcing energy levels if we knew the efficiencies front to back?
Typically anything involving fluid heating does not make for stellar efficiencies front to back. An given what we know about Rossi's design, it does not seem a thermally efficient setup for the "Reactor" to transfer heat. It would seem to be akin to running cool water over a hot metal rock.
In your case the 10KW refers to input power, and does not address actual losses during energy transfers, and thus does not really tell you how much "steam energy" you will get out of it.
This is another thing I have wondered about Rossi's machine, if he claims "y" KW output, what is "x" KW at the source? And can the designed components handle the claimed sourcing energy levels if we knew the efficiencies front to back?
Typically anything involving fluid heating does not make for stellar efficiencies front to back. An given what we know about Rossi's design, it does not seem a thermally efficient setup for the "Reactor" to transfer heat. It would seem to be akin to running cool water over a hot metal rock.