10KW LENR demonstrator (new thread)

[Skipjack]

So, no radiation? Or Rossi lied saying that it does produce?

From what I understand the actual e- cat modules are in 3 separate enclosed boxes embedded in what we see here. The modules themselves were not opened (Rossi claims he wants to keep their content a secret), but they are quite small. Not big enough to contain any batteries or other ways to produce the output (you cant even see them in the picture.
One might probably be lead to assume that any residual radiation is contained by that.
They also had a cooldown period. So most of any residual radiation outside the "black boxes" is probably gone by then.
Just one guess at an explanation for the lack of radiation. But then, your guess is as good as mine.

[Joseph Chikva]

So most of any residual radiation outside the "black boxes" is probably gone by then.

Now we should know the nature of radiation. If neutronic, by definition residual radiation can not disappear or go down in a few hours. Let's say a few years, months but not hours. Does Rossi provide any data? Did he use any protective assets when disassembled device after test (show, performance)?
Also, if that is radiation source, so, device requires licensing. Let's imagine that such a device without any shielding you will place in the car, leave in the street and switch on. Not terrorism threat?
And such device will be sold in USA? The country having very strict limitation on length of gun barrel? If you are not law enforcement officer or military man you can not hold the gun with barrel shorter certain value. As short barrel gun more suitable for hidden carrying.
Very difficult to imagine that 1MW power plant will be sold without licensing.

[nferguso]

parallel wrote:

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.

Please correct my understanding, so far. Regardless of the amount of the energy being generated, so long as there is boiling, the hot side of the exchanger's collecter will rise to, and remain at, 100-130 C, and the temperature on the secondary side will be near tap water temperature. Wouldn't it be easy by trial and error to find the place on the collector housing where the temperature will always be about 5 C warmer than the secondary output? It would be the worst case possibility that S. Rossi did that to prove substantial energy output that isn't really there. Or the positioning could be faulty, but unintentionally. Or the positioning could be perfectly okay.

With greatest respect, parallel, this issue has been well beaten, but I haven't seen where the points I have repeated above have been refuted. Then again, it's a very long thread. Could you refer me to the message that does so? Because, so far, from what I can see (not from anything S. Rossi claims), we don't know what the true energy output was. It could have been as indicated by dT, or it could have been very little, or arguably it could have been none.

[Am]

He might (to quote Georgio), "Only have a degree in Japanese", but his reasoning is still sound: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@es ... 52546.html

[sparkyy0007]

Wouldn't it be easy by trial and error to find the place on the collector housing where the temperature will always be about 5 C warmer than the secondary output? It would be the worst case possibility that S. Rossi did that to prove substantial energy output that isn't really there. Or the positioning could be faulty, but unintentionally. Or the positioning could be perfectly okay.

Actually, if it's fraud (and I am not saying it is) just spraying a shot of silicone into the cooling water output fitting before the demo would reduce the cold water thermal transfer in the manifold and cause its temp to rise.
That's why the water, not the manifold needs to be measured.

Come to think of it, it could be something as simple as hydrocarbon cutting oil residues in the passages. The hot side would self clean, the cold side may not. We really need to know the temperature of the water not the manifold.

[sparkyy0007]

From Vortex

Alan Fletcher
Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:24:53 -0700

That's terrible, then. The thermistor is (my eye) 2.5 cm from the closest
point of the incoming steam line (the center of the block) through solid brass.

My 2-resistor calculation then gives a 5V (5C) offset. (I couldn't find the
22passi link).

I tried a triangular resistor mesh with 21 elements (a crude approximation of a
tube with a 0.2cm wall thickness) and it gets even worse, not better ...
10V/10C.

I think a repeat test might be on the horizon.

[Am]

From Vortex:

[Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

Jed Rothwell
Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:24:38 -0700

Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it.
Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a
box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain
at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water.

[sparkyy0007]

From Vortex:

[Vo]:Look at the BIG PICTURE and you will see this is irrefutable proof

Jed Rothwell
Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:24:38 -0700

Or if it is refutable, let's see someone make a serious effort to refute it.
Stop quibbling about details. Get the heart of the matter, and tell us how a
box of this size with no input power can boil water for 3 hours and remain
at the same high temperature while you cool it with 1.8 tons of water.

1.8 tons of water did not go through the box and we don't actually know how much cooling occurred if we don't have an accurate Tin / Tout.

[Crawdaddy]

sparkyy0007

1.8 tons of water did not go through the box and we don't actually know how much cooling occurred if we don't have an accurate Tin / Tout.

Is it your contention that there are two thermocouple placements that could explain the observed data?

How does thermocouple placement explain the constant delta T while the resistive heater was off?

Please explain how the device was heard to boil for hours after the power was cut. Since the observers looked inside the box we know there is no complicated heat storage mechanism. In fact the enormous surface area inside the e-cat would bring the entire device to the same internal temperature almost as soon as the power was turned off.

All you have to realize is that the rate of heat transfer between two materials is given in W/m^2/K to understand that without any input energy the temperature of a system like the e-cat will decay exponentially. Your unsubstantiated observation of thermocouple placement does not address this fundamental truth of thermodynamics.

How does your argument address the observed temperature stability over many hours?

[Crawdaddy]

As a followup to the above post.

Explain these graphs in the context of thermocouple placement:

http://imgur.com/a/oix51#WI8FO

[polyill]

Crawdaddy wrote:

Please explain how the device was heard to boil for hours after the power was cut.

Uh... the e-cat was shown to weight 1 kg more after the test then before.
Imagine a container with 1kg of water filled when the test started, then it is sealed by means of elevated temp. or by supplied power
and that is what was boiling for hours - 1kg water in a closed loop inside the box.
Since there is no knowledge of the inside arrangement, is this possible?
---- edit ----
Also there was a report of 115W power supply during the "self-sustained mode"
would that allow for keeping the 1 kg boiling?

[Crawdaddy]

Pictures of the inside of the device are all over the internet. One is even posted at the bottom of page 59 in this thread.

Please try to check the facts before posting ideas off the cuff.

[polyill]

The pictures you are referring to do not show anything to refute the possibility I spoke about, imho. Definately not the one posted on page 59.

[parallel]

Some comments from Mat Lewan who wrote the NyTeknik report may be helpful:

The hose was plastic. Personally I was skeptic regarding the position of the thermocouple at the output, being afraid that the hot side, the vapor inlet, could heat it (check the video to see it). But several physicists present assured they thought this doubt was wrong. One reason is that the vapor flow was much lower -- about 1 g/s compared to the water flow in the secondary circuit of 180 g/s. The water was cooling with much higher efficiency than the heating of the steam.
Mats Lewan, Ny Teknik 8 Oct 2011

Energy couldn't be stored as the heat exchanger heated the water in the secondary circuit also during start up, at a power about the same as the electric input power.
In any case, thermic intertia couldn't behave like this, with a temperature during self sustained mode that was even increasing slightly. It should be steadily falling.
Mats Lewan, Ny Teknik 8 Oct 2011

Hi all,
As I wrote in the article, the accuracy of the readings from the thermocouples seemed low. The hightest readings seemed unlikely, and might have been due to some airbubble that got stuck where the thermoecouple was mounted. We also discovered that the two thermo couples were offset at least one degree high compared to others, in several ways, among them putting the thermocouples in a glass of water with ice, where they measured one degree.
But in any case, feeling the water boil after over three hours of self sustained operation, I couldn't doubt that there was heat production in the Ecat.
Mats Lewan, Ny Teknik 8 Oct 2011 17:04

[sparkyy0007]

sparkyy0007

1.8 tons of water did not go through the box and we don't actually know how much cooling occurred if we don't have an accurate Tin / Tout.

Is it your contention that there are two thermocouple placements that could explain the observed data?

How does thermocouple placement explain the constant delta T while the resistive heater was off?

Please explain how the device was heard to boil for hours after the power was cut. Since the observers looked inside the box we know there is no complicated heat storage mechanism. In fact the enormous surface area inside the e-cat would bring the entire device to the same internal temperature almost as soon as the power was turned off.

All you have to realize is that the rate of heat transfer between two materials is given in W/m^2/K to understand that without any input energy the temperature of a system like the e-cat will decay exponentially. Your unsubstantiated observation of thermocouple placement does not address this fundamental truth of thermodynamics.

How does your argument address the observed temperature stability over many hours?

If you can tell me how much energy comes out of the box,
without the Tin Tout data, I will comply. Without that I can't answer these questions.
My contention is the validity of this data based on the problems discussed and if little
energy actually left the box then thermal storage from an internal hot source is a possibility whether it was boiling or not.