10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[sparkyy0007]

Dear sparkyy0007,

I did not follow the technical issues/details you've pointed out; besides, I have no sufficient expertise with thermocouples. May you summarize the possible effects of these issues; how it could effect the Energy out/in ratio through all run, may you assess the ranges as non-favorable to e-cat and also favorable as well.

Thanks

When a bare thermocouple is in contact with a metal surface, a seebeck voltage is developed between the thermocouple and the metal.
The hotter the metal, the higher that voltage will be. This is not a problem with a single thermocouple because that voltage is not seen by the meter.
If however 2 thermocouples are connected to the same instrument and both thermocouples are at different temperatures on the same metal substrate, a differential voltage will develop between the thermocouple inputs and this causes problems with offset and intermittent contact errors.

The solution is simply to use floating/isolated thermocouples, cheap and easy solution, standard industry practice.

This may not be a problem in this demonstration, but it is a possibility.
I won't comment on it's implications of the "excess energy " generation however, without knowing accurate temperatures, how can calculate anything.

[parallel]

Girogio,

What he didn't think of (but which can make a big difference) is that the collector will not only have a temperature gradient over his body, but will also radiate large amount of heat from the 120C side. This heat will be trapped under the insulator, but than, the sensor is under the same insulator at few cm of distance......

Not clear to me which "collector' you are referring to. In the box, isn't the whole thing under water?

[Joseph Chikva]

Joseph Chikva

It is interesting for me does device produce radiation? Or no?

Externally no. Internally I don't know. Rossi says it does.

Second question is did Rossi disassemble device after test?

[parallel]

sparkyy0007,
You commented correctly. Such contact can lead to an error in absolute temperature reading, but in this case we are more interested in the change. I don't think that would be effected.

[parallel]

Chikva,
Look at the video here http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 284823.ece

[Giorgio]

Girogio,

What he didn't think of (but which can make a big difference) is that the collector will not only have a temperature gradient over his body, but will also radiate large amount of heat from the 120C side. This heat will be trapped under the insulator, but than, the sensor is under the same insulator at few cm of distance......

Not clear to me which "collector' you are referring to. In the box, isn't the whole thing under water?

The heat exchanger collector. The one where the sensor is measuring the dT of 5 degree. The issue being that they might not be 5C but less, due to the errors we have been discusing till now.

That sensor is not in touch with the water at all.

[stefanbanev]

Dear sparkyy0007,

I did not follow the technical issues/details you've pointed out; besides, I have no sufficient expertise with thermocouples. May you summarize the possible effects of these issues; how it could effect the Energy out/in ratio through all run, may you assess the ranges as non-favorable to e-cat and also favorable as well.

Thanks

When a bare thermocouple is in contact with a metal surface, a seebeck voltage is developed between the thermocouple and the metal.
The hotter the metal, the higher that voltage will be. This is not a problem with a single thermocouple because that voltage is not seen by the meter.
If however 2 thermocouples are connected to the same instrument and both thermocouples are at different temperatures on the same metal substrate, a differential voltage will develop between the thermocouple inputs and this causes problems with offset and intermittent contact errors.

The solution is simply to use floating/isolated thermocouples, cheap and easy solution, standard industry practice.

This may not be a problem in this demonstration, but it is a possibility.
I won't comment on it's implications of the "excess energy " generation however, without knowing accurate temperatures, how can calculate anything.

Thanks...

[Giorgio]

sparkyy0007,
You commented correctly. Such contact can lead to an error in absolute temperature reading, but in this case we are more interested in the change. I don't think that would be effected.

But it could be effected by the creation of a secondary ground at a potential different from the first one as I explained before.

[parallel]

Giorgio,
If you are referring to location of the thermocouple measuring the outflow of the secondary heat exchanger, that has already been beaten to death. The could be a small error, but not enough to negate proof of LENR.

The secondary ground is only important for the absolute temperature and you can see what that was before the E-Cat started up. It would not effect the change in temperature over 5C significantly.

Rossi mentioned that the temperature of the water was taken separately as a check on the thermocouples. I hope we get comments from some of the others that were there.

[sparkyy0007]

sparkyy0007,
You commented correctly. Such contact can lead to an error in absolute temperature reading, but in this case we are more interested in the change. I don't think that would be effected.

If, (and I am not completely convinced that there is a problem with the thermocouple ground loop), intermittent contact may have caused some of the observed temperature anomalies.
I don't know.
It's too bad they didn't choose a higher dt.

[Giorgio]

Giorgio,
If you are referring to location of the thermocouple measuring the outflow of the secondary heat exchanger, that has already been beaten to death. The could be a small error, but not enough to negate proof of LENR.

The secondary ground is only important for the absolute temperature and you can see what that was before the E-Cat started up. It would not effect the change in temperature over 5C significantly.

Ok, you are not reading what I am writing. I already had that impresion but I wanted to be sure.

[parallel]

Giorgio,
I added this to my previous post but your response was fast enough to miss it.

Rossi mentioned that the temperature of the water was taken separately as a check on the thermocouples. I hope we get comments from some of the others that were there.

Why do you think I'm not reading your posts?

[Joseph Chikva]

Chikva,
Look at the video here http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_m ... 284823.ece

If you are about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4 there is not any disassembly there as well as its weighing.
Today somewhere I saw the picture of disassembled device's parts. So, no radiation? Or Rossi lied saying that it does produce?

But searching that pic I saw the following:

According to Lewan, Rossi’s device released an average of 2.5 kilowatts of heat in 3.5 hours. This amounts to 31.5 megaJoules of energy.

However, Rossi heated the device with 2.7 kilowatts of electricity for four hours in advance. This amounts to 38.88 megaJoules of energy. He also heated the device during the phase which Lewan called “self-sustaining.” The input was 115 Watts for 3.5 hours. That’s 1.44 megaJoules of energy.

Let’s do the math of the total energy input versus energy output: (38.88 + 1.44) – 31.5 = 8.82.

[sparkyy0007]

sparkyy0007,
I doubt you were using a thermocouple to measure 3200C (I was using platinum-rhodium/platinum-rhodium for 1600C)
I'm more than happy to just discuss the facts. I thought you were straying away from that, but perhaps that was not your intention.

You are absolutely right of course, what I used for the sensor was tungsten. I used a 6 inch hairpin of tungsten , applied 10khz (at a constant RMS current) to the ends, made two more contacts close to the middle, and routed that signal out of the chamber. That AC signal gives the resistance hence the temperature of the tungsten.
We originally used an optical pyrometer but the configuration prevented line of sight and vignetting caused problems. The design temp of the furnace was 3000C but we did accidently take it to 3200 once and turned our zirconium sample to mush.

[parallel]

Chikva,
The article I linked also has this picture

that is as much as you are going to see