To discus the 'science' behind the dispute between Rossi and Industrial Heat

@Tom P, interesting idea... Send steam out, get steam returned back, pretend you just boiled some water. The problem is the pipe diameters as seen in photos of the shipping container.

The outlet pipe looks to be about 125mm diameter. In order to send 1MW of steam down such a pipe, the steam velocity would be approx 25m/s. The return pipe looks to be about 25mm in diameter, a 25 times reduction in cross sectional area.

This means if this pipe contains steam, it's velocity would be approx. 525m/s... 1.55x the speed of sound! (This would be a very bad thing from an engineering/safety perspective)

Dewey Weaver... If you don't mind me saying, I think you should stick to what you are good at, namely venture capitalism, and trolling forums - not pontificating on thermodynamics. To reply to a post full of numbers with a sarcastic comment is pretty bad form anywhere, but particularly so on a science forum.

Sure, I didn't include all my workings as (a) it would have taken to long to type, (b) people don't want to read about Nusselt and Prandtl numbers, (c) anyone with the ability to check my workings will likely have their own spreadsheets or simulators if they want to check what I said is correct.

Really, you should be more grateful. I just saved you $1000's of dollars that you could of blown on having someone model this...

The thing is, thermodynamics isn't an art... it's a science. It's based 100 year old theories and 'simple' calculations. Hence (unless the shipping container is crammed into a tiny little room) anyone you pay to do the calcs will get pretty much the same answers as I gave.

Unless you have some proper drawings for what's inside the 250kW ecats (i.e. insulation type(s) and thickness), it will be a useless exercise anyway... My calculations are only intended to show that it would be exceptionally easy to design a system that doesn't "boil your fish bowl" or whatever expression you wish to use... Between 10 to 50mm of bog-standard insulation is all that's necessary.

One little hint: When you are looking for your expert to do this supposed thermal modelling, make sure they have an engineering qualifications; Japanese language translators, who have once visited a ships engine room, are rarely up to the necessary calibre... Including have been running their own LENR library for years.

EDIT: The fourth picture down this page shows 4.4MW's of boiler stuck in a basement, with a HVAC system smaller than found in a small (500 person) nightclub. Funny that.

http://supaflex-agencies.com/s…t-london-bridge-city.html

Well the simulation is in. I've learned that the SINGLE roof vent had a broken exhaust fan. The two fans over the 1MW unit were both broken and did not work for most of the test. One would work for a little while before throwing a breaker so they left it off. The other roof "vent" is a skylight.

Regarding the simulation, at a 250kW setting on the 1MW system, the temperature in the control unit is approx. 88C after 3.5 hours inclusive of the 3kW air conditioner unit (that was dumping even more heat into the building space) from a cold start. I had the bowl of guppies (or was it goldfish?) placed near the same spot where Rossi's head lives when he is at his workstation in the control module. Looks like they are overcooked after about 2.4 hours.

At a 500kW setting, the building temp is so hot that the steam remains steam no matter where it is in the system (assuming a working system of course). I've asked for a 100kW setting run - anybody want to give me a weight for the turkey that we'll cook in the same spot during that simulation?

Slad - thanks for the guidance. Did you mean to imply that I'm good at anything?
Regarding the IH thermal experts, not too worry, we've hired the best and the fun is just getting started.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

When will anybody realize, that in a closed loop "inflowing water" means "ALL WATER".

Tom P. It seems there is some hope for you... I thought you were suggesting that the return pipe contained steam, not water.

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Regarding the simulation, at a 250kW setting on the 1MW system, the temperature in the control unit is approx. 88C after 3.5 hours inclusive of the 3kW air conditioner unit

Are these supposed models, modelling the e-cat units as having no internal insulation???

EDIT: I'm was explicitly stating that you are good at VC'ing and trolling. The implicit statement is that you aren't very good at anything else! Although I wanted to leave that as being implied, as it's a bit rude, and unlikely to be true.

Slad - Yep - the insulation and plywood for each reactor box are included in the simulation. You should see what happens when the plywood catches fire. Don't fret - it's a pro model - these folks were previously submarine power plant and turbulent combustion professionals.

Got another batch of experts having fun with the "ERV".

If I would be a judge I would order the parties to agree on a test that basically prove or disprove the issue. It would be much
cheaper than spending time to win by argument and a cost effective way to rule. If there is weaknesses one rerun until all holes
in this mess is fixed. That's what a good judge would do. If IH has good argument do the blody test addressing it or give them
right and vice versa. Rossi can't say it's expensive or difficult, it's peanuts compared to what's at stake. And IH wouldn't dissagree
with water tight proof of cause. It's all that simple. Or is it, what am I missing?

Saving this one for posterity:

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Slad - Yep - the insulation and plywood for each reactor box are included in the simulation. You should see what happens when the plywood catches fire. Don't fret - it's a pro model - these folks were previously submarine power plant and turbulent combustion professionals.

Dewey, you are so full of it, pal. What's the plywood doing in there?

LOL, Dewey, talk about overkill to win an argument. If the world revolved around sanity you would just need to
have an expert testify that measuring for certainty is crucial due to this unbelievable result, show that there might
be some fishy things and that you clearly want to control more things in the test. Ask the judge to agree with you wanting
to address those questions through a rerun of the test and be done with it. That's a fair request from you and if not Rossi
comply he loose. You are certain that he is cheating so the end result is that he loose. What's the difficulty? You need to
ask yourself and your experts how this test would best be done. To me it really look like you are focusing on the wrong thing.
Of cause I have not all info about this as you do, but you can correct my ignorance.

Quote from Slad

Tom P. It seems there is some hope for you... I thought you were suggesting that the return pipe contained steam, not water.

Ok Slad, that saves the time to ask, where you got your assumptions from.

I took the leaked "facts" as a starting point:
- 101°C (wet) steam flow
- 36m^3 per day
- 20 kw (at least) permanent electrical input

And my assumption is 99°C water return.

If you are an expert in the field, you may calculate with these values and prove the plausibility.

Quote from stefan

If I would be a judge I would order the parties to agree on a test that basically prove or disprove the issue. It would be much
cheaper than spending time to win by argument and a cost effective way to rule. If there is weaknesses one rerun until all holes
in this mess is fixed. That's what a good judge would do. If IH has good argument do the blody test addressing it or give them
right and vice versa. Rossi can't say it's expensive or difficult, it's peanuts compared to what's at stake. And IH wouldn't dissagree
with water tight proof of cause. It's all that simple. Or is it, what am I missing?

The IH business plan must have a failed test because they don't want to manufacture LENR reactors. They need a failed test.

stefan - code words spotted. If the judge decides that he wants to hear this case and not throw it out, then he gets to judge from available data and evidence. Expert on expert. Rossi may get a chance at one more test to avoid bigger legal problems with the paid-up license agreement but that will not be on his terms.

Quote from Slad

Saving this one for posterity:

Quote from Dewey Weaver: “Slad - Yep - the insulation and plywood for each reactor box are included in the simulation. You should see what happens when the plywood catches fire. Don't fret - it's a pro model - these…

@Slad Thanks for good analysis and this thread again proves weavey is repeating same old pattern here. When relevant questions are discussed, amount of his nonsense FUD increases. Fact is that last weekend Jed was hammering Thomas Cluck with gas stove FUD and when heat management questioned, @Thomas Clarke remains totally absent from this exact discussion, since he would not want to put his name on such nonsense claims, and weavey starts FUD sling to cover up (from random readers) what was actual topic.
So patethic, weavey so patethic, you already lost all your credibility here and you have not yet figured out that, because of all this, as soon as actual litigation session starts IH will discard you as old glove that has been used to pick dog poop in park...

For journalists and Jury checking backgrounds: Read my Lips: This thread proves that Rossi would have not fried in any of the 2 containers, Pipe diameters are plausible to transfer MW heat, containers + Endothermic process like sponge processing would be possible in given facilities. 3kW HVAC was cooling the container, not heating it, since condenser unit was naturally outside of container. This thread also proves mr @Dewey Weaver spreading total nonsense all over the places.

Quote

when heat management questioned, @Thomas Clarke remains totally absent from this exact discussion,

Quote

Ok,

I take to heart Alan's comments here. I was not aware of ad homs I had made but in any case:
(1) Sifferkoll seems to be writing me up all over the web as some sort of monster
(2) Mats has publicly stated (again) that he thinks I am unbalanced

I have only one id I use for web stuff and the reputation of that matters to me somewhat.
I will withdraw from this debate. Perhaps somone could let me know when my silence has been long enough for Sifferkoll and Mats to desist?

(I should get on with other stuff anyway)

Display More

@Thomas Clarke explanation accepted. I had missed your withdrawal - eventhough would have been interested would you be willing to state that what Jed or mr Wever is writing about boiling Rossi is total nonsense.

Argon - we also get a good read into your brain. So pleased to see that you know so much about Rossi and his operation. You've shared some useful additional information about your capabilities and understanding of things. How does a 3kW AC window unit work when it is 88C on the inside and 90C on the outside of the control container on its way to failure? You also know that there was no thermic anything going happening on the "customer" side sans the JM Products radiator. While we're at it - Rossi shared that ceiling vents removed the heat from the building - there was only one and the fan was broken. Spend some time on that nugget and please get back with me.

I miss Thomas and think that his email address has been located. I'm going to see if I can send him the "ERV" a little early so that he can get a head start on the P.R. folks, be of good cheer and consider a return.

Deawey good points and admittedly interesting if true. Remember that not all what is said is what it looks like (you should know
Why don't you post some pics revealing Rossis setup better if it was just radiators inside box.

At least pics of ceiling vents where blades are stand still would not be any secret that needs to wait until court hearing? They could even restore my interest on your postings. Even though I completely understand your position and how it must hurt, so far you have had here nothing but hot air and insults, we are not too interested on that department.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

I took the leaked "facts" as a starting point:
- 101°C (wet) steam flow
- 36m^3 per day
- 20 kw (at least) permanent electrical input
And my assumption is 99°C water return.

Display More

Tom P, What you say is plausible in some senses... With 20kW electrical power applied, after raising the water temp by 2C you have 16518 J/s 'left over' for generating steam. If the mass flow rate of the water is 0.416kg/s (same as saying 36m^3/day), then the output will be 1.8% dry 'steam'... Which is better known as 'hot water with a few small dispersed bubbles in it'. The system would have to be unpressurised, and there could be no load in the 'production area', just a looped pipe returning the water though the wall..

It's very difficult to produce steam this wet when you boil water, but with a setup like the ecat, you could imagine pumping more water into the reaction chamber than was boiling off, essentially flooding the output pipe with hot water.

This is going to have some bad effects of the ERV's sensors positioned inside the output pipe. It would be detected instantly by whatever method is being used to measure dryness. It would also would play havoc with any pitot-static tubes (the 1700x difference in density would give very odd dynamic pressure readings). Also, the pipe velocity would be much reduced from an expected value of about 25m/s.

So to sum up; it's plausible mathematically, but in practise, would be very easy to detect.

Note that Dewey (in his typical FUD obfuscated style) is not saying directly that the output pipes 'steam' temperature was measured to be 101C (100.1C?). He is saying that 'something' (condensed steam run off perhaps?) was measured to be 101C, even when the e-cat was supposedly down for maintenance, and hence the results must be faked.

I thought there was a back-up array, consisting of the old 50x 20kW e-cats also in the shipping container, along with the 4x 250kW e-cats. One could imagine these could take over on off days, if they were indeed actually present in the container.

@Dewey - just curious, since you seem to know a lot and report and claim from an IH's insiders perspective (in my opinion). I guess you must have "a go" from them to do so - can you pls comment or confirm?
(I am referring to the official statement from Industrial Heat, released on March 10 ..."That’s why any claims made about technologies in our portfolio should only be relied upon if affirmed by Industrial Heat and backed by reputable third parties who have verified our results in repeated experiments."...).
Thx