Does Peter Gluck know the test results?

  • Peter Gluck wrote:

    Think about these Mottoes and try to answer to this- how many words worth can be a very significant Number?Let's take 21 - it happens to be exactly the half of Douglas Adams' hyper-magic number- and in this case it is - at least I hope so- the global- and average COP of the Rossi-[lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] 1MW LENR plant communicated by the ERV. The plant has delivered 8400000 kWh energy to the Customer who confirms this value officially and has consumed a few kWatts less than 400000. This value says a lot- is worth more than 1 million words but cannot be correlatedwith any IP element- the maximum daily value is perhaps a bit more talkative.I wonder why it was not declared officially at Feb. 17, 2016 when the test has ended. But it will and till then please consider "21" just a co-product of fantasy and wishful thinking.


    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.d…-worth-million-words.html


    Dr. Gluck sounds pretty sure about this COP 21. Wonder how he came up with that? He had mentioned before there was an "Executive Summary" floating around LENR land, and predicted it would be leaked within 12 days. Not 12 days yet, but getting close...so is this the first leak?


    To be honest, I don't understand this "I have a secret" where those in a position to know, LENR insiders, are privy to something important yet won't talk. Just too much of that in LENR. Even researchers in the field play the same game.


    Come now Peter, if you have a secret, get it out. You can tell us, we won't tell anyone. :D

  • I reckon he's read it. This is a quote from February:


    "We LENR-ists are much more interested in the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY that is already circulating 1 front page plus appendices but the essential is shown in less than 20 sentences."


    Which is quite a specific statement.


    Get the blighter leaked Peter! We promise we'll keep it quiet...

  • Quote

    The plant has delivered 8400000 kWh energy to the Customer


    If averaged for 10 months/30 days/24 hours = 1,166 MWh or a power of ~ 0.3MW ?

    Quote

    has consumed a few kWatts less than 400000


    Probably he means 400,000kWh Then COP= 8400000/400000= 21 average Not bad when it's working ;-)

  • Gluck has it, as in veile Gluck! COP 21, the opportunities to make this known, particularly in the Stars and Stripes newspaper, which I and my fellow veterans, and those still active, read will be very pleasing. When an energy related article surfaces, my comments will be 21 times more emphatic. So I'll be on the lookout for more info tomorrow or even later today! Happy times.

  • Dear David,
    A comment - with pleasure: If this idea brings the official announcement with a week earlier- than it is a contribution.
    It is unfair to keep friends and supporters in the so called but impossible; "positive or negative result" mystery situation. It is about friends- the enmies still willo tell that it was not a truly independent test they are not rational people.


    Peter

  • If this idea brings the official announcement with a week earlier- than it is a contribution.
    It is unfair to keep friends and supporters in the so called but impossible; "positive or negative result" mystery situation. It is about friends- the enmies still willo tell that it was not a truly independent test they are not rational people.



    Dr. Gluck,


    Thank you!

  • Quote

    It is unfair to keep friends and supporters in the so called but impossible; "positive or negative result" mystery situation. It is about friends- the enmies still willo tell that it was not a truly independent test they are not rational people.


    One thing I have learnt from the Lugano "independent test" is that "independent" is a flexible word when applied to Rossi's tests, and also that apparent results, when looked at carefully, can turn out to lie.


    That is a rational statement, backed by clear evidence. Making the same points about the current mysterious test is at least a rational initial guess, till more infomation is available.


    Dividing commenters into "friends" and "enemies" is I think unhelpful, and can easily lead to a loss of objectivity.

  • Hello friends,


    Since the secret customer must be able to operate his factory without the contribution from Rossi’s device we may perhaps conclude that this contribution is only a small part of the total quantity of steam that is used. Therefore it could be difficult to establish exactly how big part of the total that is delivered by Rossi. So how do you calculate the power that the big cat delivers?


    Well, we are acquainted with the general principle. You measure the feed water flow and temperature. The water passes the heating apparatus and on the outgoing pipe you measure the temperature and find it to be well above 100 degrees Celsius. Therefore all the water must have turned into steam. With these data it is easy to calculate that the COP is 21, clearly a winning number.


    Just speculating.

  • I looked up the value of those figures for some context.


    Average industrial price per kwh in NC over the past year is ~6.24 cents, EIA reference.
    So in NC that 8,400,000 kwh would have been worth about $524,160.
    The 400,000 kwh input power would be worth $24,960.
    Subtracting input costs from the output's value leaves us with a total value of $499,200.

  • 400000 but without units.


    First, could be watts.


    Note that 8,400,000 kWh = EXACTLY 350 days * 24 hours * 1000 kW. No coincidence there


    The quoted number is likely 400000 W = 400 kW. 1000/400 = COP 2.5.


    Other possibility is Mr. Gluck left off a zero and the number is kWh. Then 8,4000,000/4,000,000 = COP 2.1.


    Both of these (2.1 to 2.5) COPs are plausible. If the COP indeed is 21, then the unit may be able to produce electricity using any other number of methods, including an organic (lower temperature) working fluid Rankine cycle system.

  • I cant see using the price of electricity for heating as a comparison, Im pretty sure the Ecat heat would be used to offset natural gas heat or oil heat, not electric heat. Secondly is .06 per KW/h the energy cost only or does this include distribution, transmission and taxes?

  • The specific heat of raising 1 kg of water 1 degree is 1 calorie.
    1 calorie is 4.186 kJ or 0.00412 MJ/kg.


    The specific heat of vaporizing 1 kg of water once brought to 100 C is 2.2 MJ/kg.


    You can hide a LOT it those two differences. For instance (just to say - not that anyone is making this specific claim), if we have a stream of water that is 25 C to start with, and we wish merely to raise it to boiling (but not boil off but the smallest amount) then the amount of energy is approximately


    ( 100 C - 25 C ) * 0.00412 MJ/kg = 0.309 MJ/kg (or per liter - again 'almost')


    But if you now want to entirely vaporize that to transparent ("process") steam, it takes an additional 2.2 MJ or about 8 times the total energy of 'just' raising its temperature. If one starts with even hotter inlet stream water, the difference is even more apparent. Actually the 2.2 MJ/kg is essentially a constant when starting with liquid water - assuming atmospheric pressure as the head on the process steam.


    The biggest problem for process engineers and LENR advocates both is being able to qualify (and quantify) just how 'wet' is the stream of steam. If 50% of the mass is lil' atomized droplets ("white steam") then the actual investment of energy isn't 2.2 MJ + 0.309 MJ, but is 50% (2.2) + 0.309. And so on.


    Thus, a 'densely wet' steam generator might only really be vaporizing 5% to 15% of the actual water. And lemme tell you, as a practicing engineer with a physics specialization ... such quantifications are damned difficult to achieve. At least with a straight face.


    ______


    Nope - in my mind there are only a couple of qualification systems that matter in this LENR enterprise: Getting RID of any dependency on vapor-phase calculations (condensation of a steam stream into a finite amount of well-below-boiling water, so as to measure the well-mixed temperature rise given a known and calbrated flow rate, OR, to bulk-heat tanks of water having again finite and calibrated masses (volumes). Measure, heat, mix, measure.


    It worked in the 1800s when the famous thermodynamics guys were doing their endless measurements, and it would work just fine today.


    The slippery side of claiming 8,400,000 kWh of heat (energy) production on an unqualified (as yet) measurement system, is that a lot of claim can held high on top of a lot of measurement fluff.


    Because 8,400,000 kWh / (24 * 365) = an uptime duty-cycle of 96%. ... of 24 / 365 operation. Rather suspiciously like a calculation based on the factory's uptime and just filling in 8760 hours times 1000 kW, and making that as the claim.


    Know though that the 400,000 kWh is actually easy to quantify, and easy to certify. Its called a kilowatt-hour meter. I'm pretty sure that the Blue Rossi MegaCat container would have had one on its input line. EAsy, cheap, relatively unimpeachable.


    GoatGuy

  • One thing I have learnt from the Lugano "independent test" is that "independent" is a flexible word when applied to Rossi's tests, and also that apparent results, when looked at carefully, can turn out to lie.


    That is a rational statement, backed by clear evidence. Making the same points about the current mysterious test is at least a rational initial guess, till more infomation is available.


    Dividing commenters into "friends" and "enemies" is I think unhelpful, and can easily lead to a loss of objectivity.


    Your quotient of objectivity is suspect.


    Scientists seek concepts and principles, not subjective perspectives. Thus, we cling to a myth of objectivity: that direct, objective knowledge of the world is obtainable, that our preconceived notions or expectations do not bias this knowledge, and that this knowledge is based on objective weighing of all relevant data on the balance of critical scientific evaluation. In referring to objectivity as a myth, I am not implying that objectivity is a fallacy or an illusion. Rather, like all myths, objectivity is an ideal -- an intrinsically worthwhile quest.


    “One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that that aim is unattainable.


    “There is no absolute knowledge… All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility.” [Bronowski, 1973]

  • One thing I have learnt from the Lugano "independent test" is that "independent" is a flexible word when applied to Rossi's tests, and also that apparent results, when looked at carefully, can turn out to lie.


    That is a rational statement, backed by clear evidence. Making the same points about the current mysterious test is at least a rational initial guess, till more infomation is available.



    Tom,


    Sorry, but I am taking you off my New Years party invite list. You'd probably spoil the fun explaining to my guests what could go wrong the upcoming year. Such a party pooper! :)

  • I am a bit confused (more than usual, alas).
    If the "plant" had an inefficient heat source to begin with; would not any result that improves on the old plant show significant improvement?


    If my old car got 10 miles to the litre and the new one gets 20, this is an improvement for sure. But, if we do not know what our apple looks like how can we know how much orange juice will be produced? I know I am missing something here, but do we know what the criteria is here at all? Was there a document that makes this clear somewhere?

  • A COP of 21 would bring us near to a scenario like that (found on Twitter)


    The energy of a giant super-oil-tanker inside a single oil-barrel for cost that are not worth taking about!


    If it is true we will have flatrate energy (like flatrate telecommunication today) and the only way to earn money in this sector in the future will be to produce, or licence the necessary technology and offer service.



  • Pressed to get around the Rossi patents, it won't be long before there will be technology developed that will produce LENR formated hydrogen using high pressure chemistry. That process will not require nickel and lithium to be involved in the metalized hydrogen manufacturing process. One can only begin to imagine how much power that metalized hydrogen would produce through the use of just a single barrel of liquid pure high potency LENR active hydrogen,

  • "Sorry, did we have steam?"
    will probably be a frequently asked question the next few weeks.


    As it has been during the never ending story of the E-Cats. Here is a small replay of just one example. Not to get bored, start at 3 minutes:


    And here is a remake of a video trying to prove that Mats said what he said. The sound has been replaced with the original sound but with the critical words repeated four times for clarity:

  • Branzell,


    we do not know If the 1MW plant delivered pressurised hot liquid water or steam to customer. Rossi have not revealed that data yet.


    anyhow, knowing the mass flowrate, temperature and pressure, you would know the phase and energy flow content of the water.


    and Rossi needs to think T-ford If he wants to compete against Cheap heating oil for Industrial heating....