Rossi "long term test" data

An ECW reader noted that the Rossi data on his (notionally buyable) 1MW e-cat has an interesting lacuna:

Quote

I'm having a problem with the spec sheet. It says max 1500 kg of water per hour, raised by about 100 degrees c. So that's 1,500,000 grams times 100 degrees times 4 joules per gram degree = 600,000,000 joules per hour. Divide by 3600 seconds in an hour to get watts, and the power delivered to the water is about 167 kW, exactly the average electrical INPUT power to the ecat, or COP equals exactly 1 meaning "Rossi Effect" is nil. What's up???

http://ecat.com/ecat-products/…w/ecat-1mw-technical-data

Of course, the phase change latency means that a 100C temperature rise + phase chnage would give around 1MW so this observation is not exactly proven.

But... Often evidence comes from strange coincidences.

1500kg * 100C * 4.2 kJ/(kg K) = 630,000 kJ/h = 175kW

But the water input will be around 10C-20C. So the ecat 1MW plant power in is just right to get the water up to a nice ~ 100C state where it boils, but not enough to chnage it from wet steam to dry steam. For dry steam at some (must be greater than 1 atm) pressure we have a temperature quite a bit higher than 100C.

Rossi's earliest demos had this problem where Rossi assumed dry steam, including the enthalpy of vaporiation, when in fact he had wet steam.

I cannot think of a single time when Rossi has learnt from his critics, so maybe he still operates under the same misconception.

This thread for necessarily speculative comments on the 1MW plant.

The boiling point of water depends on pressure.

At 4 bar (the specified Rossi device water pump max pressure) we have b.p. = 148C.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…ng-point-water-d_926.html

Thus 120C gives us water or very wet steam.

I therefore think you are wrong to discount this.

Steam dryness depends on the temperatue and pressure it emerges from the heater with.

You suggest that steam at 1 atmosphere is the output pressure because it is not specified. But that is impossible: 1 atmosphere at the steam would never move from the heater to wherever it is used in the factory.

It is true that we don't know the pressure of the output steam. My objection was to the comment above that stated there was no question of steam wetness due to the 120C output temperature. There certainly is such a question.

A pressure of 2 atmosphere gives a boiling point of 120C. Thus if this pressure is applied to the steam output (less than commonly used in domestic hot water systems) we have wet steam. The percentage of wetness can be arbitrarily large, and hence the spec will happily imply COP=1 for very wet steam.

For a pressure lower than 2 atmospheres and dry steam the issue is whether the piping is large enough to allow the high volume of steam needed ( approx 400 liters/second total) for the length required (must be at least 10m you'd think, probably more) without too large a pressure drop.

It is certainly possible to engineer piping that keeps steam dry at low pressure - the question remains whether Rossi has done this. The specification is vague on this point as it is on the pressure.

So I think you mean from this that no assumption can be made in this case about the output pressure at which this spec is interpreted?

The point about the vagueness of this spec is that rossi could have a device that is in fcat an electric heater and meets the spec, with the exception of the COP. However, there can be no direct measurement of COP for this device where the output is steam and its dryness is not specified.

I'm thinking that, just as with the early steam demos, Rossi could be convinced COP was high when he has no direct measurement of COP and his indirect measurements rely on incorrect assumptions. In the context of a long-term factory test it would not necessarily be easy for anyone to know the COP, because there would be no other direct measurement of heat, only an indirect measurement of other heat sources used less. That could have large uncertainty.

This reminds me rather of the Lugano test where again the measurement of COP is indirect and turns out wrong through an error in the assumptions made (in that case the assumption that Alumina has a temperature-dependent grey body emissivity - which is far from reality).

You would not normally jump at such a misunderstanding - but also you would not normally exclude it.

In Rossi's case we seem to have many past instances of similar misunderstandings which I don't think he has ever learnt from, since he has always (to my knowledge) maintained that his measurement procedures are correct.

Did you know - BTW - that Mats' book says Cherokee made their investment only after the requirement of a long-term test with positive independent results was met. That long-term test was Lugano. That means that the whole Cherokee investment was made on a false basis, since it is now proven that the Lugano excess heat measurements are null.

I'll read Mats's book. I'm only going by an Amazon review of this which said what I've said. But reviews are often innacurate.

Quote

No, I said that as the spec cannot refer to the entire Mollier diagram, if output pressure is not specified, it should be assumed that output temperature is relative to conventional pressure of 1 atm. Anyway, as I said, it should be better to explicitate it given past issues about calorimetry.

OK, but in that case my point remains. For a relative pressure of 1 bar we have b.p. of water exactly 120C, and you can realise that the specified temperature and (you claim could be implicitly specified) pressure give no clue as to how dry is the steam.