10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

nferguso · Post by **nferguso** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:09 am

Giorgio wrote:

I see everyone there is still concentrating on the thermal gradient on the collector, while completely neglecting that you have a radiating body at 120C and a thermal probe wrapped under THE SAME thermal blanket at few cm distance from each other, yet no one is questioning if this could influence the sensor......

I saw that; it was a good point. BTW people keep talking about a 5 C dT, but from the table above it looks like dT was all over the place, especially during self-sustained ops. How can anyone draw any conclusions from those numbers about what is readlly going on inside the primary loop?

At this point my impression is that the catalyzer was generating some excess heat, somehow. It could be a lot less that S. Rossi claims, therefore not yet close to being marketable.

icarus · Post by **icarus** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:26 am

I'm starting to take a shine to Rossi. He is unflappably, disorganised and chaotic yet he is able to grasp the essence of what he is trying to show, albeit demonstrating in a seemingly clumsy manner to the naive observer.

He just could be the archetypical misunderstood genius .... I hope he can get the help he needs, if he needs any. Because he seems to grind a lot of people's feather up the wrong way, people who do not know him and seem to have little skin in the game except "i read about this guy on the Internet tubes ..."

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:57 am

Thank you parallel for posting the input/output energy graph with this 300% ratio. I have read many clever (and mostly benevolent) objections but little quantification of these. Maybe am I asking too much but it would help us progress in the discussion if the objections came with an estimate of how much of the input/output energy they might account for.
A few examples, on the input side:

-poor intensity measurement
-one or more cells hiding a pre-loaded battery (fraud)
-hidden micro-wave emission (fraud)
-poor measurement of the cold water temp (due to sensor-fluid interface or due to sensor itself)
-poor measurement of the flow in the secondary circuit

On the output size:

-heat radiating beneath the insulator from the primary circuit (vapor)
-bad location of thermocouples
-incorrect thermocouple grounding
-poor measurement of the warm water temp

Rather than rebutting every objection one after the other ("this alone cannot explain the 300% ratio"), summing them up would bring more clarity. Would all the uncertainties account for 10%, 100% or 1000% of the experimental results?

What is more, the graph shows a somewhat erratic output. Has Rossi ever expressed ideas on how the e-Cat could be controlled and stabilized (input current, water temp and flow)? A day like today, windmills and solar panels will provide an erratic output too, but that is not what I expect from a nuclear plant. Just as it is, it looks so far from an industrial equipment that the 1MW commercial plant does not make any sense to me. Not to mention safety of course.

sparkyy0007 · Post by **sparkyy0007** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:16 am

Here's a very simple example of thermocouple placement to gain some intuition.

Consider a bar of brass with a profile normal to heat flux 1cm^2 by 10cm long.

One end x=0 at 100C
the other x=10 at 35 C.

The temperature profile at any point along the bar will approximate:
T(x) = 100-6.5x

Now consider a million gallons a second of water at 35C cooling the 35C end.

RobL · Post by **RobL** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 8:31 am

olivier wrote: A few examples, on the input side:
-poor intensity measurement
-one or more cells hiding a pre-loaded battery (fraud)
-hidden micro-wave emission (fraud)
-poor measurement of the cold water temp (due to sensor-fluid interface or due to sensor itself)
-poor measurement of the flow in the secondary circuit
On the output size:

Other ways of cheating demo:

Take a container full of aluminium powder, heat and drip feed water. Water reacts with Aluminium powder to create hydrogen, releasing about 16MJ/kg (4.5kWh/kg) of aluminium. 5kg Al powder (in 3 liter container) would be sufficient for 80MJ of latest test.
Applying a voltage, using some caustic agent or agitating can increase reaction rate.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenand ... drogen.pdf

Hydrogen peroxide decomposes when passed over a catalyst, yielding water and oxygen. 1.6MJ/kg, so for 80MJ release would need about 50kg injected into water supply during test.

I don't think Rossi is a fraud, but he needs to be more open and practice much better calorimetry (ie he should be replaced).

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:21 pm

tomclarke

And that is supposing the temperature & flow readings are good. Which if past experiments are anything to go by is unlikely.

Truly amazing that Rossi could not manufacture any heat generation even with so little checking!

Tom, I have not seen your explanation of how you got it backwards. Even a school kid could see from the graph that the heat output was a lot more than the input. The total heat input was 33.6MJ with 101.3MJ output. Note this did not include the heat discharged from the primary circuit that was discharged down the drain (as was the secondary circuit) nor the amount of heat left in the E-Cat at the end of the experiment. See Rossi's comment on this below. Also Interesting was that he said the E-Cat ran at 660 - 680C.

Andrea Rossi
October 9th, 2011 at 6:29 AM

Dear Peter Roe:
The 99 Celsius water remained in the E-Cat at the moment in which we had to discharge it to inject cold water to cool down more rapidly the E-Cat to disassemble it and allow the ayyendants to look inside was about 20 liters.
The small difference of weight (the E-Cat had a weight slightly heavier than when it has been weighted before the test) is due to residual water. The stored energy in this amount of water is not significant, of course. Where the not-calculated-power-power produced by the reactor is relevant is the heating up to 660-80 celsius of the surface of the E-Cat, which is more than 5000 square cm. But we have chosen to allow a very conservative approach, to allow not biased People to understand well.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Andrea Rossi
October 9th, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Dear Vinnie Jones:
The E-Cat weights so much because the reactor has a huge shield of lead. Please read the Nyteknik Report (google Nyteknik report E-Cat October 6) and go to the part where is explained that the components have been weighted before and after the test: you will see that the E-Cat weighted some gram more after the test ( due to some water remained). Should the weight be made by a fuel, at the end of the test, burnt the fuel, the E-Cat would have weighted much less than before the test. The reason why the E-Cat and the calorimetric system have been weighted before and after was exactly to dissolve these fears.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Here is the list of the Scientists who attended the test of October 6th:
Prof. Petterson Roland – Uppsala University
Prof. Campari Enrico (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Bonetti Ennio (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Levi Giuseppe (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Clauzon Pierre (CNAM-CEA Paris)
Dott. Bianchini David (Univ. Bologna)
Ing. Swanson Paul D. (Space and Naval Warfare Systems- US Navy)
Prof. Focardi Sergio (Univ. Bologna)
Prof. Stremmenos Christos (Univ. Atene)
Prof. Jobson Edward (Univ. Goteborg)
Ing. Vandevalle Koen (Belgio)
Dr Enrico Billi (Fisico, Ricercatore, CINA)
This list does not include many other techicians who attended.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Tech · Post by **Tech** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:40 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5cFOsisAo

At 5:15 there is Prof. Roland Peterson speaking (in english) and he also speaks about a test in Uppsala and that they will make some changes to the setup, so hopefully they can do it the right way.

JoeP · Post by **JoeP** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:46 pm

RobL wrote:
olivier wrote: A few examples, on the input side:
-poor intensity measurement
-one or more cells hiding a pre-loaded battery (fraud)
-hidden micro-wave emission (fraud)
-poor measurement of the cold water temp (due to sensor-fluid interface or due to sensor itself)
-poor measurement of the flow in the secondary circuit
On the output size:
Other ways of cheating demo:

Take a container full of aluminium powder, heat and drip feed water. Water reacts with Aluminium powder to create hydrogen, releasing about 16MJ/kg (4.5kWh/kg) of aluminium. 5kg Al powder (in 3 liter container) would be sufficient for 80MJ of latest test.
Applying a voltage, using some caustic agent or agitating can increase reaction rate.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenand ... drogen.pdf

Hydrogen peroxide decomposes when passed over a catalyst, yielding water and oxygen. 1.6MJ/kg, so for 80MJ release would need about 50kg injected into water supply during test.

I don't think Rossi is a fraud, but he needs to be more open and practice much better calorimetry (ie he should be replaced).

If that aluminum trick is used, then where do you propose all the H2 was vented?

Also, the oxide layer would interfere with all the metal getting into the reaction.

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:54 pm

parallel wrote:Even a school kid could see from the graph that the heat output was a lot more than the input.

parallel, you cannot use such an argument. It deserves the answer "Even a school kid could see that many points remain obscure in the way this experiment was run."
I hope as much as you that the e-Cat will be proven to work (I keep a bottle of Champagne chilled, in case) but yes I am very, very skeptical, just because major breakthroughs in science are far less frequent than experimental and reasoning errors.
Suppose they made a big error in the measurement of the deltaT, which is very possible considering the grounding or insulations issues pointed out by Giorgio. Do you see how fast the 100 MJ can be turned into nearly nothing?

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:55 pm

PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 3:50 pm
Online

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:56 pm
Posts: 148
The technological breakthrough of LENR (or CANR) is no longer speculation. It is a fact that will eventually change the world’s energy problems and its sociopolitical divides through cheap, clean and green energy. The world needs LENR as a new energy source. Although change will not happen over-night, LENR will help reduce CO2 emissions, lower the cost of energy, and provide longevity to our planet’s energy needs.

Defkalion sees its role with responsibility and asks the community at large to continue its support.

Defkalion has:
• Enhanced technology and engineering on Rossi’s invention or similar inventions
• Prepared business models for international expansion
• Established a strong network of global contacts
• Prepared legislative and certification procedures
• Ensured national, regional and international network in politics and business
• Prepared global financing

Defkalion has worked in close partnership with Andrea Rossi for a very long time to prepare a commercially viable and industrially applicable product using his invention. Defkalion invested a lot of money to evolve Rossi’s E-Cat lab prototype into its Hyperion product. Defkalion is now at the stage where its industrial prototype is ready for production.

Defkalion has held direct business discussions with 62 interested companies who visited our offices in Greece and witnessed our work. Small industry and large energy players internationally were all impressed by our progress in technology and engineering. More are still coming. Despite this phenomenal progress, Defkalion never made promises.

Our aim has always been to inform and demonstrate to public our progress when the final product is ready for use, thereby avoiding any speculations.

Today, Hyperion engineering has completed version 7. We were surprised to see our old designs used in public testing. We were confused why our old designs were implemented wrongly, as well as witnessing insufficient use of instruments and testing protocols. We also identified confidential (yet shown in public) special instruments designed in collaboration with Rossi and prepared by Defkalion. These actions have already paved the way for more negative criticism (unworthy) against the inventor, which do not give credibility to his important work.

The plethora of positive and negative comments is not helpful, as pointed out recently on the Vortex mail archive:
(http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52357.html).

Defkalion fully supports and endorses this technology. Our mission is to introduce this technology on a global scale, responsibly. To date, we have self-financed all R&D and business development phases without asking for a single penny from anyone (private or public). We will soon be ready to announce the results of our extensive R&D with Hyperion final products.

Athens, October 10th, 2011
Defkalion GT S.A.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:09 pm

parallel wrote:Defkalion has:
• Enhanced technology and engineering on Rossi’s invention or similar inventions

My English is too bad for understanding.
What does this mean? (bolded)
They have one more genius like Rossi?

olivier · Post by **olivier** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:17 pm

It suggests that they may (it is a or not an and) have worked on other inventions in the same field.

Joseph Chikva · Post by **Joseph Chikva** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:27 pm

olivier wrote:It suggests that they may (it is a or not an and) have worked on other inventions in the same field.

No, there is present time and not past.
There is written "has" and not "had"
This is official press release of serious company?

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:08 pm

olivier,

parallel, you cannot use such an argument. It deserves the answer "Even a school kid could see that many points remain obscure in the way this experiment was run."

tomclarke stated "Truly amazing that Rossi could not manufacture any heat generation even with so little checking!" He has misread the data from Mats Lewan.
You might claim the measurements are bad, but that is not what he did. He used the same data that I did. He saw the graph as a check and still missed it. He concluded that I was insane...

As I wrote earlier, if you are convinced that LENR is impossible, anything that shows it must be wrong. All the suggestions of fraud, including steam quality, have now been eliminated. All you can claim is that the measurements are bad.

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:17 pm

sparkyy0007 wrote:
Crawdaddy wrote:As a followup to the above post.

Explain these graphs in the context of thermocouple placement:

http://imgur.com/a/oix51#WI8FO
The graphs show total energy output. How was this calculated?

I sort of think lots of effort on this is silly. Rossi has proved a serial bad experimenter. If LENR is correct he could get unambiguous high (10X) energy out/in.

Looking at these graphs we don't know how flow rate is measured. Mats talks about average flow rate. the high deltaT parts of the waveform could easily be when flow-rate was low, and so the device heats up. So you can see that Mats' "conservative" esitimate is the only proper one to take without more information.

Maybe parallel has this more information (like measured flow-rate continuously). But I have not seen it.

In which case, without looking further, we have heat out ~ heat in.

And we have not begun to consider other error sources...

Best wishes, Tom