Carl White wrote:Apparently, if the hydrogen is removed (e.g. replaced with nitogren gas), the reaction halts, although that wasn't stated in the particular video.
I have already posted to ask him why he did not run a protocol where he runs his device without hydrogen in it, then admits it to show the delta.
I have another fun idea for a list. Let's list times in this thread that someone asks someone else to do something that they are not willing to do themselves.
1) Provide Facts.
2) Perform an experiment.
3) Give a percentage chance of success.
4) Tone it down.
5) Make a list.
chrismb wrote:Also check how much Rossi sweats under scrutiny!
My poker player opinion is that he definitely got more agitated during the steam part of the video. He clearly showed a 'tell' of wanting to end the steam conversation twice in the video. The tell is to give a short 'definitive' answer to a question and then quickly turn away in an attempt to forgo follow up questions. It was clear as day, IMHO. No thermal camera needed.
The steam area of the conversation was particularly uncomfortable to him. Might be because he was mad about it, as he demonstrated later. Might be because he knew it was a vulnerable part of his demonstration.
Also note that when he first picks up the hose, he pretty clearly tries to drain out all of the water in it before showing the steam.
Joseph Chikva wrote:There in that youtube demo/presentation/experiment was nothing about hydrogen consumption.
Actually, Rossi stated that at least 1g of hydrogen had been introduced, which he said was enough to run the device for a day.
Apparently, if the hydrogen is removed (e.g. replaced with nitogren gas), the reaction halts, although that wasn't stated in the particular video.
In terms of hydrogen usage, the Rossi reactor must leak hydrogen like a sieve through the hot stainless steel walls of the reaction vessel.
The hydrogen consumption of the Rossi reactor cannot well inform how efficiently the basic underlying cold fusion process consumes hydrogen.
By using more exotic structural materials like tungsten, another reactor design might only use a very small amount of hydrogen, but one must ask if such a design would be cost effective over its design life.
Seedload - I would hate to be a criminal and have you in the jury.
If you insist on using circumstantial evidence then you have to accept circumstantial evidence that supports the device is real and there is plenty of it.
Carl White wrote:Apparently, if the hydrogen is removed (e.g. replaced with nitogren gas), the reaction halts, although that wasn't stated in the particular video.
I guess that Nickel Hydride formulation between hydrogen and nickel nanopowder (chemical activated nickel) goes there. Which is exothermic reaction.
So, no hydrogen - no reaction.
breakaway wrote:1. a kettle has a fixed quantity of water. It will not be the same as a stream of cold water.
Why? A given quantity of water being evaporated off is a given quantity of water? So long as equilibrium condtions are allowed long enough to develop, I do not understand why you think there would be a difference.
breakaway wrote:2. the speed of the steam at the end of kettle would be different if you attach a 5m hose due to condensation.
Again, once equilibrium is met and there is no increase nor decrease of condensation going on, why?
Carl White wrote:The hose was lying on the floor, with both ends raised. If there was significant condensation, would it not fill up with water and then start to spray and belch water at the open end?
The simple answer No..well, kinda.
Depending on the thermal loss of the hose per meter, a boundary
condition will exist somewhere along the hose where the degree
of superheat from the ecat will keep the steam from condensing.
After that boundry some condensation will occur keeping the hose at 100C.
If the hose is long enough, all the steam will condense leaving only
so called saturated water (water just at the point of vaporization) http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/st ... -water.asp
If the hose is longer still, the sensible heat of the water will try to keep the
hose at 100C but it will loose the battle with the temperature exponentially falling to amb.
If you integrate the temperature loss along that length you end up with the entropy of the steam at the ecat, or any other boiler.
Condensation of the steam releases a lot of energy and in such a short
hose, only a small amount of water condensing is enough to keep the hose at 100C, but not above (at atm pressure anyway)
The rest of the uncondensed vapor builds a slight pressure
against the condensate blocking the hose and blows it out.
If there is enough vapor, it won't fill up but it will belch as
you put it.
Does this clarify.. or mudify?
Sounds reasonable- ie like a Coffey pot. The important point is that when the hose was in the sink pipe drain, it was at presumed steady state. The nonconverted (or condensed)liquid water was sputtering out. But once the tube was raised into the air (perhaps 2-3 ft higher), would result in ~ 2 feet of empty space, the percolating would continue but at the previous layer- the wet steam would exit, but the liquid water percolating around would be near the level of the wall drain. It would take a period of time for the ~ 2 ml/ sec water flow to fill up to the new level and become obvious as percolating flow. If you look at the NyTeck video with the hose in a bucket the gurgling and the dripping can be seen (remember it is only a few ml-cc per second.. When the hose was under water the bubbling (presumably from the steam) was seen. Without trying to derive the steam flow from the bubble rate, volume, and hose inside diameter, it does look like a lot less than several liters per second.
As far as as the length of hose - insulation level- steam flow rate. I assume that several liters per second of even 100 degree C steam would keep the inside surface of the hose hot enough that a very small percentage of the steam flow steam would actually need to condense in order to maintain the temperature. If the actual steam flow was less the condensation as a percentage of the total flow would increase. This is implied when I said that the video showed significant cloudy condensing steam already present at the tube mouth. It suggests lower flow rates.
Carl White wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I think I understand... but what if it is wet steam that is entering the hose? Is the apparent absence of intermittent bursts of water any evidence that it is mostly dry?
The way he lifted the end of the hose, I am convinced he was draining accumulated condensation
but that's just speculation,we couldn't see the sink. That was however mentioned in Krivit's initial
report and he had the same take on it.
If the above is true, it will take a while for enough water to condense to give the effect
you mentioned, but it's a non issue.
The video with steam exiting into the pail is a good example of the condensation sputtering from the hose.
seedload wrote: [I have another fun idea for a list. Let's list times in this thread that someone asks someone else to do something that they are not willing to do themselves.
1) Provide Facts.
2) Perform an experiment.
3) Give a percentage chance of success.
4) Tone it down.
5) Make a list.
Good idea. Other than "perform an experiment", none applies to me. Where do you stand on each?
By the way, I am not sure anyone has asked anyone for a percentage chance of success. Did I miss it?
Axil wrote: By using more exotic structural materials like tungsten, another reactor design might only use a very small amount of hydrogen, but one must ask if such a design would be cost effective over its design life.
Are we really concerned over fractional GRAMS of hydrogen leakage?
