10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Crawdaddy]

I hadn't looked that closely before but at 2:34 it is quite clear, with his finger
on the top plate and its shadow, the thickness is closer to 16 gauge sheet than 1/8 inch.

WOW..

Indeed.

It would be interesting to reconcile this discrepancy. The only possibility other than some sort of fraud that I can see is if the flange is thinner than the main surface of the box top. A report from a person who has actually seen the device open would be useful.

[ransompw]

Crawdaddy:

Will 14psi really deform the container? Also, I don't understand Sparky's 1bar comment, does that mean his model is showing a vacuum outside the box, obviously in reality there is 1 bar outside also. I really think this needs to be checked.

[icarus]

Can only imagine the truth-is-stranger-than-fiction scene if we have some sort of explosive mishap with the 1MW device whilst a gaggle of skeptics are crowded around rolling their eyes to each other and speaking behind their hands "this will never work".... whilst an army of reporters and photographs are blissfully clicking and scribbling away.

It takes me back to some reports of the first steam engine demos and other "first ever exhibits" of inventions and wondrous contraptions of the Victorian science era ... now where did I leave my steampunk garb? I might head to Bologna for the weekend of the 28th Oct.

[Crawdaddy]

Crawdaddy:

Will 14psi really deform the container? Also, I don't understand Sparky's 1bar comment, does that mean his model is showing a vacuum outside the box, obviously in reality there is 1 bar outside also. I really think this needs to be checked.

The one bar comment refers to the difference between the inside and outside of the container (2 bar of absolute pressure).

As to whether 1 bar of pressure will deform the reactor:

This is unknown. Sparkyy0007 has done some good theoretical calculations that show a reactor with the specifications in the simulation would deform. In order to test these calculations, the theoretical reactor must be compared to the real one. Since we don't have good pictures of the lid or the base of the square pressure vessel the simulation is just a well reasoned and worthy attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the e-cat is real.

Should the simulation prove to be accurate or not, sparkyy0007's simulation is the proper way to skeptically question the e-cat, quantitative predictions deserve quantitative answers.

One piece of qualitative evidence, which is certainly not sufficient to adequately prove or disprove the simulation result, is the observed venting of the square e-cat in the september test. If you watch this video from around 6:30 you will note that there are many questions that remain unanswered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4

[sparkyy0007]

Crawdaddy

Since we don't have good pictures of the lid or the base of the square pressure vessel the simulation is just a well reasoned and worthy attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the e-cat is real.

I don't think the simulation proves anything besides the design is unsafe, at pressure here's why.
The temperature probe measured ~120C during the test implying significant pressure but this may not be the case.
The reactor apparently has a top and bottom heat sink which may be supplied heat independently (from the same heat source). If only the bottom heat sink is submerged with the cat 1/2 full at 100 C, the top heat sink can superheat the vapour. The proximity of the probe was very close to the top heat sink and would follow the vapour temperature, not the water in the lower half.

This scenario would not generate significant pressure but still give the 120C indication.

[RobL]

One piece of qualitative evidence, which is certainly not sufficient to adequately prove or disprove the simulation result, is the observed venting of the square e-cat in the september test. If you watch this video from around 6:30 you will note that there are many questions that remain unanswered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4

Thanks for link. Temperature gets up to 133.5°C at 5:52 in video, that is 3bar absolute (2bar guage =30psi) if it is saturated steam.

Stress for bending plate is proportional to 1/thickness³, so the actual stresses will be very sensitive to thickness. Still a seriously stupid design.

Might have actually solved some problems if it had blown up and hurt someone. Then would have then been subject to civil/criminal investigation that could well have leaked out details and forced Rossi to get the technology licensed sooner.

[Crawdaddy]

Crawdaddy

Since we don't have good pictures of the lid or the base of the square pressure vessel the simulation is just a well reasoned and worthy attempt to falsify the hypothesis that the e-cat is real.

I don't think the simulation proves anything besides the design is unsafe, at pressure here's why.
The temperature probe measured ~120C during the test implying significant pressure but this may not be the case.
The reactor apparently has a top and bottom heat sink which may be supplied heat independently (from the same heat source). If only the bottom heat sink is submerged with the cat 1/2 full at 100 C, the top heat sink can superheat the vapour. The proximity of the probe was very close to the top heat sink and would follow the vapour temperature, not the water in the lower half.

This scenario would not generate significant pressure but still give the 120C indication.

I agree that this would explain the result. However at 4:10 of the video I linked above we can see that there is a significant and pulsed (in time to the pump strokes) flow of liquid water from the outlet of the reactor. If the reactor geometry is the same in this test as in the october 7 test, isn't this consistent with water overflow? Under these conditions would a heat exchanger be able to super heat steam to the degree observed? Not to mention the observed, yet not quantified, pressure of the reactor at 6:30 in the video.

I think your simulation proves that a reactor of the design you simulated would be unsafe. The next step is to compare it to the actual reactor design using all available information. It was for this reason I encouraged you to post it on VORTEX.

aside:

It is interesting to note that if there is no cold fusion reaction, but only resistive heating, the design you simulated should be perfectly safe!

[Crawdaddy]

One piece of qualitative evidence, which is certainly not sufficient to adequately prove or disprove the simulation result, is the observed venting of the square e-cat in the september test. If you watch this video from around 6:30 you will note that there are many questions that remain unanswered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4

Thanks for link. Temperature gets up to 133.5°C at 5:52 in video, that is 3bar absolute (2bar guage =30psi) if it is saturated steam.

Stress for bending plate is proportional to 1/thickness³, so the actual stresses will be very sensitive to thickness. Still a seriously stupid design.

Might have actually solved some problems if it had blown up and hurt someone. Then would have then been subject to civil/criminal investigation that could well have leaked out details and forced Rossi to get the technology licensed sooner.

Sad but true.

Of course, all doubt could have been eradicated with, a 5 minute calibration procedure, a couple more flow meters, and 3 or 4 more thermometers in the last test. A great disappointment.

[sparkyy0007]

It is interesting to note that if there is no cold fusion reaction, but only resistive heating, the design you simulated should be perfectly safe!

The only way that design is perfectly safe regardless of the heat source is if Rossi unbolts the top and cooks spaghetti in it.

[ransompw]

Sparky:

I am not criticizing your analysis, I am just trying to understand the Stress and FOS plot you posted which is somewhat hard to read. As I understand it, inside the box is 1Bar pressure above any outside pressure (so 2Bars in Rossi's case). Not sure how the water is taken into account, but assuming steam at the lid under pressure is your model predicting psi equivilent of 2500 to 3500 in places or am I reading this wrong?

[sparkyy0007]

Sparky:

I am not criticizing your analysis, I am just trying to understand the Stress and FOS plot you posted which is somewhat hard to read. As I understand it, inside the box is 1Bar pressure above any outside pressure (so 2Bars in Rossi's case). Not sure how the water is taken into account, but assuming steam at the lid under pressure is your model predicting psi equivilent of 2500 to 3500 in places or am I reading this wrong?

The 1 bar represents differential pressure between the inside and outside of the box.
In industry the pressure is usually specified as gauge or PSIG rather than PSI which is the pressure a gauge on a pressure vessel will read.

The FOS is the factor of safety pertaining to how close you are to elastic limit of the specified material. A FOS of less than 1 indicates the stress will exceed that limit and reach the yield point or proportional limit resulting in permanent deformation. This does not necessarily mean it will fail, but It will change shape.
The yield strength limit for mild steel is between 35,000 - 50,000PSI and many places far exceed this at only 1 bar if 1/8 plate is used.
Looking at the video it is evident that the steel may be a lot thinner.

but assuming steam at the lid under pressure

Pressure is the same on all internal surfaces of the box, not only the lid.

Example: If the reactor was containing 2 bar internal pressure (29 PSIG) the upward force distributed on the lid will be :
F=Pressure x Area = 29 PSIG x (23 inches x 19 inches) = 12673 LBS

If you consider a BBQ propane bottle, It can safely withstand over 120 PSIG with the same material thickness ~ 1/8 mild and a FOS of at least 5. The reason is its symmetry, it is round and the ends are shaped to distribute the force evenly so no part is over stressed.

[icarus]

Summarising current thinking:

So not cold fusion but enhanced electron capture (inverse beta decay) leading to transmutation decay of nickel isotopes into copper, LENR, with energy release. Enhanced electron capture has been achieved through 'some' mechanism involving nano-particle powder of the nickel isotope, a secret catalyst in a pressurised, heated hydrogen atmosphere. Heat is generated from the gamma and X-ray (possibly beta also) emissions resulting from the accelerated nuclear decay. The thickness of lead makes me assume most likely some very energetic X-rays products (maybe gammas).

A somewhat controlled accelerated nuclear decay process leading to excess heat ... basically a nuclear battery, with heat output instead of electricity. A clever variation and scaling down on the big nuclear ideas but still E=MC2 energy ....

[Crawdaddy]

Summarising current thinking:

So not cold fusion but enhanced electron capture (inverse beta decay) leading to transmutation decay of nickel isotopes into copper, LENR, with energy release. Enhanced electron capture has been achieved through 'some' mechanism involving nano-particle powder of the nickel isotope, a secret catalyst in a pressurised, heated hydrogen atmosphere. Heat is generated from the gamma and X-ray (possibly beta also) emissions resulting from the accelerated nuclear decay. The thickness of lead makes me assume most likely some very energetic X-rays products (maybe gammas).

A somewhat controlled accelerated nuclear decay process leading to excess heat ... basically a nuclear battery, with heat output instead of electricity. A clever variation and scaling down on the big nuclear ideas but still E=MC2 energy ....

There is no data to support a mechanism of the e-cat's function.

Personally I would embrace all well reasoned arguments with regards to mechanism put forward by those with sufficient knowledge of theory, as long as they make predictions that can be tested by experiment and are consistent within a mathematical framework that agrees with existing experimental data (e.g. known nuclear physics).

I don't think "inverse beta decay" falls into this category. Windom-Larsen theory is not well regarded by physicists, who point out that it is falsified by existing experimental data from conventional nuclear physics experiments. Sadly, due to the preponderance of crackpots associated with the topic of cold fusion wild claims are circulated and re-circulated without reason.

If the e-cat actually works, mainstream science will quickly discover the mechanism by which it proceeds and there will be far fewer crackpots involved.

[KitemanSA]

a mechanism of the e-cat's function.

Personally I would embrace all well reasoned arguments with regards to mechanism put forward by those with sufficient knowledge of theory, as long as they make predictions that can be tested by experiment and are consistent within a mathematical framework that agrees with existing experimental data (e.g. known nuclear physics).

I don't think "inverse beta decay" falls into this category.

Try Kim's BECNR theory.

[bhl]

Summarising current thinking:

There may also be some kind of stimulation added as well to induce the nuclear process. Pulses have been mentioned, a frequency generator was used on Oct. 6th. There is also a patent I read about using RF energy to increase radioactive decay.