I wait eagerly for poor little ramdombit0's explanation how the air was removed from the reactor chamber after the fuel had been inserted.
Or maybe, the air in Lugano contains no oxygen.
Iron would absorb air and carbon as a getter.
To discus the 'science' behind the dispute between Rossi and Industrial Heat
-
-
Quote from Tom Paulsen: “I wait eagerly for poor little ramdombit0's explanation how the air was removed from the reactor chamber after the fuel had been inserted.
Or maybe, the air in Lugano contains no oxygen. :)”
Iron would absorb air and…
Not true Axil. Iron would only absorb to a point in theory...there would still absoultely be detectable oxygen.
-
Mods please remove this post if it is too OT. I noticed that Barty closed the appropriate thread due to excess heat.
But I wanted to say this....Thomas Clark has been called everything but an alien from Star Trek. I don't know where you are from, but we Yanks have a term called '6 degrees of Bacon'. According to the diagram that I saw on some blog*, and attacks or insinuation other sites, he just could be the devil.
Since almost everything he posts is rational, well thought out and backed up by either checking his math or references, he just must be a plant or a heretic. I am afraid that one day I will check this site and find out he has abandoned this place, since he knows as a heretic he will be burned.
Regardless, what is wrong with hearing a different AND informed opinion?Fog indeed.
-
Iron would absorb air and carbon as a getter
Iron and carbon?
Maybe and a vacuum pump for sure. But neither iron/carbon nor a vacuum pump were used in the Lugano test.
Aside from the air in the reactor chamber, the reactor was made of alumina, which is mainly composed of AL2O3!!!.
P.S.
If someone thinks, that no oxygen was present in the Lugano reactor, that person must have an extremely different view of reality.
-
-
Rigel,
Tom Clarke has been treated here with respect, although I will admit to thinking he may be an alien! If you have seen his pictures, he wears very thick glasses. Dead give away.
I am 20-40 by the way, so resident of Planet Rossi. Seriously though, maybe you missed it, but even Tom gave up on the victim status here some 2 months ago. Right Tom?
-
@Tom Paulsen
"From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, Fe and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of C and O. It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed. In addition to these elements there are small quantities of several other elements, but these can probably be considered as impurities." -
Iron and carbon?
Maybe and a vacuum pump for sure. But neither iron/carbon nor a vacuum pump were used in the Lugano test.
The reactor was made of alumina, which is mainly composed of AL2O3.
Read the fuel composition some more.
-
Read the fuel composition some more.
Yes, I saw that (Appendix 3, Figure 3), Fe, C and O! But no quantification, so I thought that it maybe was a contamination.
One more confirmation that oxygen had been in the reactor chamber. The reactor has not been evacuated before the test run and the reactor itself was also made of a material (Al2O3) which contains oxygen.
The allegation, that no oxygen was in the reactor chamber, is therefore definitely disproved.
-
For once I must agree with Randombit0. Why argue on oxygen if we are discussing the Lugano test? If the excess heat were true it could not be explained by an exothermic reactIon, not for 32 days. Energy is way off in the Ragone plot even if oxygen comes from the environment.
The problem with Lugano is that there is no (proof of) excess heat.
On the other hand if we are discussing runaway reactions as Alan Smith described, then yes this is pertinent, though information is lacking.
-
Thermal runaway in mullite is fairly common. Probably there is a similar mechanism in alumina, but harder to initiate.
Burning alumina is a strange thing to think up. It's already burnt.
-
Quote
Thermal runaway in mullite is fairly common.
MFMP use Mullite I believe, no runaways so far.
-
Since @JedRothwell seems to express some claims in vortex during weekend (about Rossi would be frying inside 1MW container etc.) , I would like to invite effort making example calculations. That simulation we can do also without ERV report. The main error he has is that he thinks 1MW is consumed inside container and in practice forgets pipes passing process heat out from container. Other very questionable claim is insulation capability on thermal insulators. Additionally he is referring to heat transfer efficiency and thinks that 70% efficiency would mean 30% heat into container, but if heat is transferred inside e-cat then it would affect only needed heat transfer surface dimensions, and no extra heat is lost into air because of poorer efficiency.
So instead of so rough guesswork, could someone with more hands on experience do sample calculations of the following assumptins (preferably first fix assumptions to more realistic):
1) Outgoing process heat 120C (pressurized water, no steam).
2) Returning process heat 90C? (water)
3) Pipe diameter 120mm?
4) Waste heat through thermal isolation 20kw? Yes I could guess this would be absolute max, so no Rossi frying.
5) Heat transferred to process 1MW as process heat. Consumed before water returns to container.
6) Heat transfer surface (metal/water interface) would be max 1m2/e-cat*4e-cats => 4m2 ?Open questions to be calculated:
7) What would be needed flow rate with these assumptions?
8\) Needed practical min. pipe diameter from container?
9) What would be needed temp difference between heat source and water with this flow rate to enable transferring this heating power?For simplicity in this example we are concentrating only on container part and thus just assume that customer process is endothermic meaning transferred energy is mostly used for some kind of phase change of process product. An remaining heat is lead out through roof vents and conducted through walls.
Anyone up to task?
-
Oystein Lande
May 15, 2016 at 3:17 AM
Dear mr. Rossi,what size of HVAC system did you use to keep the working conditions cool inside the 1MW container?
I assume a few percent of the 1MW was lost as heat inside the container, which you would need to remove.
========================Andrea Rossi
May 15, 2016 at 10:15 PM
Oystein Lande:
Inside the computer container we had a 3 kW air conditioner. Keeping the doors closed we could work well ( the computer container is m. 9 x 2.5 x 2.5 ).
Of course some heat was lost inside the factory, but the ceiling of the factory had many air exhausts and the warm air, being lighter, goes toward the ceiling and the factory has a good height.
Warm Regards,
A.R. -
Proof by repetitive assertion does not convince me
Also don't convince me Mr.Clarke. You are repeating yourself. And your answer was scientifically wrong.
You are now trying to provoke me (who cares ! Men are so idiots !) because YOU have no more arguments !
https://thenewfire.files.wordp…2016/05/lenr_ecat_fog.pdf
Now I understand more and more your connections with this plot. Your problem, not mine. -
@randombit0
Please supply some scientifically correct information which supports your assertions.I would be glad to see some fresh new data on this contentious issue of spectral radiometry vs total emissive power, and how they relate to the emissivity properties of alumina.
-
The problem with Lugano is that there is no (proof of) excess heat.
Dear Andrea...... another case of compulsive repetition ? We already seen that your analysis has no sound foundation.
-
@paradigmoia
I have provided quite a lot of arguments. Should I repeat them for you ? -
@randombit0
I have heard your arguments, to which I have replied and/or rebutted with multiple sources, to which you have not responded.
Repeating your empty arguments will be pointless. Please bolster your arguments with further proof.
Maybe I have missed something you posted earlier, in which case I apologize in advance of your repeating it to me. -
Oh wow....has anyone taken a look at randombits speech patterns and compared them to that of Rossi's on his blog? I believe we are in the presence of the scamming saviour himself!! Oh this is VERY interesting. I think I can safely say that anything randombit says is now surely garbage propaganda.
