10KW LENR Demonstrator?

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:25 am

Sir Winston Churchill: Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

People, 100C steam isn’t good for much except hot water heating. You cannot generate electric power with any degree of thermodynamic efficiency(Carnot efficiency) with that low temperature heat. Forget about the wall of light bulbs. You need fast neutrons to make electric power.

I doubt that Lenr will ever contribute anything to electric power production because of the low temperature heat that it produces. High heat and ionic coherence of hydrogen just aren’t compatible. I am sure that the amount of heat produced in Rossi’s device will go down as the temperature of that heat output goes up.

But I do want a Rossi device to heat my house. 100C water will work well in my base board radiators.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:40 am

cgray45,

Rossi is quoted as saying: “In this field the phase of the competition in the field of theories, hypothesis, conjectures etc etc is over. The competition is in the market. If somebody has a valid technology, he has not to convince people by chattering, he has to make a reactor that work and go to sell it, as we are doing.”

Snip
"The report of the test that has been made by the independent reviewers in Bologna will be put online as soon as the Prof. of the University of Bologna, who made the test, will deliver it. I think it will take a week, while they are elaborating the data. The publication will be made on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, and all the magazines and blogs will be free to publish them."

The first units are supposed to ship in three months. So it seems we will not have wait too long to see if it is real. I gather you don’t like BlackLight Power either. Because of the delays in selling a commercial unit or because of the physics? All can agree on the delays, but what theory do you believe?

Seems to me that there is adequate proof of heat generation for both BLP & Rossi’s device, but this is ignored because it can’t be explained satisfactorily. It wouldn’t be the first time. The Wright brothers were not believed by consensus science either. Was their science “strictly controlled?” If they had waited for that someone else would have flown first. Rossi’s demonstration was instrumented and monitored by independent scientists. Short of having a commercial unit that anyone can buy, no matter what is done, there will always be skeptics.

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:47 am

Axil,

Why don't you read what has been written before speculating?

Rossi says that the efficiency of the device rises markedly with temperature but he has selected this lower temperature to begin with, for reasons of safety.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:56 am

There is a fundamental difference in the technology between “BlackLight Power” and the Rossi device.

In the BlackLight Power approach the nickel is consumed in a high heat reaction. After one use, you need to reprocess/recycle the nickel. The business plan for BlackLight Power is to supply activated nickel as a commodity like coal.

The Rossi device is a catalytic process where the nickel alloy catalysis can be used for years. But the Rossi nickel cannot be overheated or it loses its heat producing activity.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:07 am

parallel wrote:Axil,

Why don't you read what has been written before speculating?

Rossi says that the efficiency of the device rises markedly with temperature but he has selected this lower temperature to begin with, for reasons of safety.

Bear with me; speculating is fun! Just because Rossi says it, does not meat I believe it.

When I see high temperature operations, then I will believe it. The nickel catalyst must be far hotter than the output coolant temperature because of low thermal transfer efficiencies.

Tco – Tb = q”/h = q”’*Rfo2/(h*Dco)
Tco = Outer Clad Temperature Tb = Coolant Bulk Temperature
q” = Heat Flux h = Heat Transfer Coefficient
q”’ = Heat generated Rfo = Radius of Fuel Pellet
Dco = Diameter of Outer Clad

The fuel pellets in a light water reactor run at a temperature of in excess of 1000C

What will the output temperature specification of the commercial Rossi device be? Why is this high temperature a secret? Let Rossi come out and state what temperature the device will run at. This high temperature is the key to the value of the device. If it is to be sold in three months, when will high temperature operations be demonstrated?

cgray45 · Post by **cgray45** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:17 am

Axil wrote:
parallel wrote:Axil,

When I see high temperature operations, then I will believe it. The nickel catalyst must be far hotter then the output coolant temperature because of low thermal transfer efficiencies.

What will the output temperature specification of the commercial Rossi device be? If it is to be sold in three months, when will high temperature operations be demonstrated?
Supposedly, it already has:
Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. It reduced the electric bill by 90%. Also, the reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to have an input. The device will be scheduled for maintenance every six months. You control it "just as you turn on and off your television set."

And that triggers my alarm-- you have a process running for two years without any external verification? Why? This sounds, sadly a bit like the western snake oil salesman who blows into town, telling you, friend, yes YOU! of the incredible cures his medicines have provided...for that town over there.
As for Mills and the Black light power-- It's yet another in a long line of free energy ideas, that continually promises that this year, the world will be changed...usually about the time a new investor shows up.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:25 am

I'd be satisfied with 10kW of fairly low grade heat (100+º C) for 1kW electrical input for > 24hr with no connection other than a SMALL tank of H2 and the instrumented power cord.

cgray45 · Post by **cgray45** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:39 am

KitemanSA wrote:I'd be satisfied with 10kW of fairly low grade heat (100+º C) for 1kW electrical input for > 24hr with no connection other than a SMALL tank of H2 and the instrumented power cord.

Yeah-- emphasis on the instrumented.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:30 am

What can the Rossi device do as currently demonstrated? With 100C heat, first and foremost, it will be great for space heating.

It can power a “steam” car:

It can drive a steam train

It can generate mechanical power for a grain mill:

parallel · Post by **parallel** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:31 am

The piece I linked earlier stated that the H2 was split into atomic H before reaching the nickel. I don't know how you do that short of an electric arc, but I assume there are catalytic ways at lower temperature.

I wondered if this was the reason for Rossi's preference to keep resistive heating on a separate supply, as a means of controlling the reaction.

Otherwise the demonstration would have been more attractive without an external power input that some would think a possible source of fraud.

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:59 am

Rossi might be using a polymer electrolyte membrane to convert H2 into H+.

Of course, this will preclude any possiblity of high temperature operations.

This membrane type’s distinguishing feature is lower temperature/pressure operation (50 to 100 °C) and a special polymer.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 6:15 am

Axil wrote:People, 100C steam isn’t good for much except hot water heating. You cannot generate electric power with any degree of thermodynamic efficiency(Carnot efficiency) with that low temperature heat. Forget about the wall of light bulbs. You need fast neutrons to make electric power.

You actually can generate quite a lot of electricity even with low temperature heat using a secondary low boiling point fluid (ammonia or CO2) to drive the turbine stage.
Generally anything above 75 C will be enough.
Total efficiency is generally low and GPM of primary fluid (hot water) is generally very high.

If I am not mistaking there is a city somewhere in Alaska that is relying completely on power generated from hot water less than 100 C coming from a geothermal well.
Can't remember the name now.

EDIT:
It is the Chena hot spring resort in Alaska:
http://www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermal-power/

Axil · Post by **Axil** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:08 am

It is cold in Alaska, on a cold day; you can get 25% efficiency there.

Power Capacity

A heat engine operating between two given temperatures is subject to a Carnot efficiency of, Efficiency =T1- T2/T1, with T1 our Lenr thermal temperature of 206° F and T2 being our cooling water temperature from the a cold well at 59°F. Changing the temperatures to the Rankine scale and solving the equation gives Efficiency = 1- 519/666 or 22%. Since this does not include any losses, friction, etc. our efficiency will be less than the maximum possible of 22%. With water temperature losses and/or production losses, the power generation efficiencies are generally found to be less than 10%. (Rafferty, 2000).

If could take 10 KWt to produce 1KWe. What would your energy return on energy investment turn out to be?

You need to refine the nickel and produce and refine the hydrogen and your Q is only 20.

Not Good!

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:33 am

Axil wrote:It is cold in Alaska, on a cold day; you can get 25% efficiency there.

Power Capacity

A heat engine operating between two given temperatures is subject to a Carnot efficiency of, Efficiency =T1- T2/T1, with T1 our Lenr thermal temperature of 206° F and T2 being our cooling water temperature from the a cold well at 59°F. Changing the temperatures to the Rankine scale and solving the equation gives Efficiency = 1- 519/666 or 22%. Since this does not include any losses, friction, etc. our efficiency will be less than the maximum possible of 22%. With water temperature losses and/or production losses, the power generation efficiencies are generally found to be less than 10%. (Rafferty, 2000).

Correct. The chena power plant was designed at 8% thermal to electrical efficiency.
Efficiency is not really an important factor when your heat source is free.

Axil wrote:If could take 10 KWt to produce 1KWe. What would your energy return on energy investment turn out to be?

In the chena case the simple payback time was around 4 years.
Electricity costs passed from 0.36$/KW from Diesel generator to 0.05$/KW .
Again, free heat offsets a lot those type of calculations.

Few interesting links:
http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/2007GRCPaper.pdf
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalener ... _chena.pdf

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:39 am

Seeing how much money people here spend on heating and hot water, this thing would still be gods end (if it worked, which I think it wont). Most of the polution in old, european cities comes from heating with coal and oil. So for this purpose this would be awesome!
In fact for this purpose, you would not even need 100 degrees. Even 70 degrees (C) would be more than sufficient for anything in the household from heating to bath tub water.