10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:07 pm

Jed Rothwell saves me the trouble of writing this.

Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote:

So, you will go on the record? The demonstrations have proven excess heat?
> This is irrefutable?
>

Unless someone refutes it, I suppose. I have not seen any credible
refutations yet. If the Krivit hypothesis is the best the skeptics come up
with, I would say the debate is over.

I cannot fully believe a claim until it is "widely replicated." This is
experimental science and replication is the acid test. There is no
substitute for it. How many replications you need is a matter of taste. I
would like to see 4 or 5 other labs observe this before I am fully convinced
it cannot be a mistake or fraud. Apparently this claim has been
independently replicated by Defkalion. If I see credible proof from them
that will pretty much wrap it up.

If this was a brand new unprecedented claim such as Steorn's, or an
antigravity machine, or a particle moving faster than light, I would
probably hold out for 10 or 20 solid replications, rather than 5. However,
this is similar to many other cold fusion claims. We already have Mills,
Piantelli and several other Ni-H claims, so this is not such a stretch.

There is a very slight chance of fraud, but it is so small I do not take it
seriously. The likelihood that some skeptic such as Krivit, Murray or Park
will come up with a credible, believable explanation is even smaller. They
have nothing. Zip. Bupkis to 5 significant digits. I find it hard to believe
they themselves take their hypotheses seriously. I thought that Krivit
understood more about heat and calorimetry, and he would not come up with
that ridiculous notion that you can "store heat" such that not one joule
comes out until you wave a magic wand, and then it comes out in varying
levels, rising and falling, in complete disregard for Newton and his silly
old law. Ignorant people have been saying that sort of thing since 1989. You
would think Krivit has heard that before, and understands why it is
impossible, but apparently not.

It reminds me of Steve Jones and his claim that recombination can magically
explain all results, including McKubre's in a closed cell where total heat
far exceeded I*V. These things are not "explanations." They are magic
spells. You are confronted by an ugly truth. A fact you cannot face. You
have made a dreadful mistake, and you are far out on a limb. You repeat
"recombination, recombination, recombination" or "heat storage, heat
storage" until the ugly facts vanish, and you are back safely in the world
of your own imagination.

- Jed

Crawdaddy · Post by **Crawdaddy** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:15 pm

Here is some data analysis.

http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8

nferguso · Post by **nferguso** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:17 pm

I see in the NyTeknik report what appears to be a severe problem with the test. From the report:
"Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C.
Room temperature was between 28.7 °C and 30.3 °C.
T2 – temperature at output, inside the E-cat
T3 – water inlet temperature of E-cat
Tin – water temperature at inlet of heat exchanger
Tout – water temperature at output of heat exchanger"
.......
"18:53 Tin = 24.3 °C Tout = 29.0 °C T3 = 24.8 °C T2 = 116.4 °C
18:57 Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 328 g in 360 seconds, giving a flow of 0.91 g/s. Temperature 23.8 °C.
19:22 Tin = 24.2 °C Tout = 32.4 °C T3 = 25.8 °C T2 = 114.5 °C
Measured outflow of primary circuit in heat exchanger, supposedly condensed steam, to be 345 g in 180 seconds, giving a flow of 1.92 g/ s. Temperature 23.2 °C."

T1, T2, Tin, and Tout are numbers produced by thermocouples on the tested system. I am assuming that the "measured outflow" measurements were made independently by an observer with his own thermometer.

As you can see, Tin and T3 are about the same, to be expected since they are input water from the tap. Tout is the measurement with which the system output energy is calculated.

The problem is that the measured temperature of the primary (condensed steam) output is 23-24 C, which is about the same as Tin (24.2 C).

Isn't this physically impossible? Isn't it true that, if the exchanger is working properly, the measured primary output temperature cannot be less than the secondary output temperature (Tout)?

I see two possibilities. First is that the independent measurement was faulty, or that it was taken at a point where the condensed water had already radiated its excess energy away. The second possibility is that the heat exchanger wasn't set up or working correctly; for example the secondary water connections were the reverse of what they should have been, or the Tin and Tout thermocouples were located at positions where their measurements were distorted by thermal wicking.

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:24 pm

Crawdaddy wrote:Here is some data analysis.

http://imgur.com/a/iwZQ8

"Energia" graph shows the total out/in ratio ~3

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:24 pm

Crawdaddy,
Thanks for the link. As Jed writes above, the skeptics cannot explain the heat generated after the power is turned off, but nothing will deter them from trying.
Rossi is right: the only way is by sale of commercial units.

nferguso · Post by **nferguso** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:47 pm

... The problem is that the measured temperature of the primary (condensed steam) output is 23-24 C, which is about the same as Tin (24.2 C).

Isn't this physically impossible?

Upon reconsidering, I suppose it depends on the geometry and efficiency of the heat exchanger. Perhaps it's why the dT was kept relatively low - any higher and all of the excess heat in the primary would not have been exchanged . (Optimistic theory.)

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:05 pm

The self righteous politicizing of this stupid catalyzer and its "inventor" is getting old. This thing is starting to be like climate "science".

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:05 pm

nferguso,
No. It is a contra-flow heat exchanger. The exit temp of the primary loop is suspect.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:32 pm

parallel wrote:Crawdaddy,
Thanks for the link. As Jed writes above, the skeptics cannot explain the heat generated after the power is turned off, but nothing will deter them from trying.
Rossi is right: the only way is by sale of commercial units.

I can and fairly easily.
It's the same principle of a home water heater.
Once it if full and hot you can extract from the top all the hot water at the same temperature even if cold water is injected from the bottom because cold and hot water tend to stratify and not to mix.

The water volume of the e-Cat is 25 Lt and the measured outflow of water on the primary was of 3.5Lt/h (if I remember well).
In 4 hours that means 14 lt which is way less than 25 lt volume of hot water present inside once power was turned off.

Jed should stop giving advices in areas were he has no experience nor knowledge.

By the way, Talk-polywell is again visible from China

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:06 pm

Of course it is. The Chinese wish to make this technology as widely available as possible, in China, and where can one find a better archive than this site?

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:14 pm

Interesting. I was becoming skeptical but these tests, whle not perfect, seem fairly convincing.

Rossi said that no more tests are planned at the moment.

“Within a few months the product will be on the market, and the best test is done by the customers who will come back with the product if it doesn’t work”, he told Ny Teknik.

Indeed.

I'm still not convinced Rossi really has the right theory of his device, but either there's something here or Rossi is one of the most proficient charlatans of our age. His financial dealings are either the actions of someone who really believes in what he's doing or a truly epic example of commitment to a bit.

We shall see. 2012 should be interesting. Keep in mind this is a very new and poorly understood tech, there may some initial failures that don't disprove the underlying notion.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:23 pm

Giorgio,

There have been reports that you could feel the insulated E-Cat box still boiling inside nearly four hours after the power was turned off. Not only that, the heat generated went up as well.
That would be quite a trick for a fairly shallow box of hot water wouldn't it?

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:50 pm

parallel wrote:sparkyy0007
Your drawing looks wrong in many ways. In particular the wall thickness and general proportions.

What difference do the proportions make?

stefanbanev · Post by **stefanbanev** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:55 pm

parallel wrote:Giorgio,

There have been reports that you could feel the insulated E-Cat box still boiling inside nearly four hours after the power was turned off. Not only that, the heat generated went up as well.
That would be quite a trick for a fairly shallow box of hot water wouldn't it?

Well, the skeptic defense can be quite simple: all data points gathered during experiment are bogus so any analysis is pointless besides Rossi looks and acts as a jerk and no-radiation detected plus coulomb barrier... besides MIT has proved that CF is a BS therefore, it is an apparent scam and anybody supporting it is a self-delusional idiot. Academia will never admit its stupidity; ignore it, make a lot of $$ and buy their "expertise", they will comply with $$ they always do...

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Sat Oct 08, 2011 10:55 pm

What difference do the proportions make?

A longer thin walled tube will show water temperature with little heat conducted from the hot side.