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

  • Axil - so Rossi is now claiming that he was dumping even more heat into the building space from his 3kW air-conditioner. I think I'll have that modeled as well and see how long a bowl of goldfish would survive in the computer module at 500kW output for the 1MW system - I'd give them an hour at best from a cold start.

  • Axil - so Rossi is now claiming that he was dumping even more heat into the building space from his 3kW air-conditioner. I think I'll have that modeled as well and see how long a bowl of goldfish would survive in the computer module at 500kW output for the 1MW system - I'd give them an hour at best from a cold start.



    Will IH use this line of evidence in the trial?

  • Rends - I think that a simulation run to find out how long a bowl of goldfish could live in Rossi's air conditioned computer module with a fully functional 1MW system set at half power would be a very useful exercise. Based on the runs I've seen at 250kW, 500kW and 800kW, the fishbowl will be boiling in a matter of hours from a cold start (so to speak).

  • Rends - I think that a simulation run to find out how long a bowl of goldfish could live in Rossi's air conditioned computer module with a fully functional 1MW system set at half power would be a very useful exercise. Based on the runs I've seen at 250kW, 500kW and 800kW, the fishbowl will be boiling in a matter of hours from a cold start (so to speak).




    It might be that the "gold fish" gambit is among the SPIN subjects used in the IH SPIN plan. Rothwell uses it persistently despite all references to the contrary. Has the IH SPIN advisor created this gambit, or was it locally grown?


    Oystein Lande
    May 16, 2016 at 4:59 PM
    Dear mr. Rossi,


    You say you had 3KW HVAC coolest for the computer container.


    1. This is not the same as e-cat container?


    2. How much HVAC cooling did you supply to inside E-cat container to keep it at working conditions…?


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Andrea Rossi
    May 16, 2016 at 6:10 PM
    Oystein Lande:
    1- No, we had two containers, one with the control systems, one with the E-Cats
    2- In the E-Cat container there was no air conditioned, because inside that container the temperature was the same you have in any industrial thermic central.
    The temperature was warm obviously, but not too much, because all the hot parts were well insulated, also to conserve the energy. Reactors, steam pipes and water pipes were very well insulated.
    There was also a ventilation system that conveyed the warm air toward the windows of the ceiling. Normally we were not inside the E-Cat container, where we had to go only in case of reparations or maintainance; here the temperature was around 40°C.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • @Thomas Clarke I would really appreciate your stand on this 'Rossi boiling in his container' -issue.
    I'm not interested on computer container but container having 4x250kW ecats inside providing process heat through the wall by means of supply and return (60 C) pipes. You can give your assessment supposing pressurized 160C water or 100.1C wet or hotter dry steam or anything between.
    I'm not interesting (wet steam) calorimetry error part but how hot in your mind container would run?

  • If the e-cat container where non insulated you could have tens of KW Loss through the walls by radiation and convection to the surroundings at 40+ degrC inside and 20 degrC outside.


    and where the container doors open during operation?


    i have asked Rossi about this.

  • OK, Rossi explained a litle more. e-cat container had doors open, so no "Rossi Boiling" risk ;)


    And the 10KW analogy he explains Below must be for Italian appartments, not scandinavian insulated homes ;)



    "
    Oystein Lande
    May 17, 2016 at 2:59 AM
    Dear mr Rossi,


    I am a litle surprised that you needed no HVAC system in the e-cat container producing 1MW heat. If you only lost 1% of this inside the container, it still meant 10KW heating,…


    1. I Expect the container itself where not insulated? and therefore transferring effectively the lost heat to the outside surroundings.


    2. Did you have closed doors of the e-cat container during running?
    "


    "
    Andrea Rossi
    May 17, 2016 at 7:32 AM
    Oystein Lande:
    1. the container itself was not insulated, because this would have been useless, since all the hot bodies inside the container were thermally insulated
    2. The doors were open during the operation and there was a ventilation system that sent the warm air through the exhaust windows of the roof of the factory
    Besides: you correctly write that if the 1% of the heat produced was lost through the insulation, 10 thermal kW were emitted.
    As you well know, just to give an example that explains which amount of energy we are talking of and as any household knows, 10 kW of power are barely enough to maintain during a mild winter a temperature of 25 °C in a two rooms apartment with close windows.
    A 2 rooms apartment has a volume of about 200 cubic meters.
    We were in a factory with windows in the roof always open; by the way, as you know, warm air goes naturally toward the top being lighter than air colder than it; the volume of the factory is 6 000 cubic meters which means about 30 times the volume of a two rooms apartment.
    Now: if 10 kW of power are able to hold a 2 rooms apartment of 200 cubic meters at 22°C with closed windows, how much are able the same to heat a factory of 6 000 cubic meters with open windows on the roof and a ventilation system to exhaust it ? Obviously the temperature was warmer inside the reactors container, in fact I told you that there were about 40 °C, but, due to the fact that the doors of the container were open and that also inside the container there was a ventilation system, the internal temperature of the reactors container never is gone above the 40 °C.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    "

  • Thanks to Omega Z for reminding me of this.
    The Dots affixed to the HT2 reactor, where ε was determined to be between 0.76 and 0.8 . In this version, the device is painted black, and presumed to be a greybody. (Might want to double check the ε for total radiant power on that one. But seems not unreasonable in this case).


    I'll need to think on this example a bit more, but the contrast from an ε of 0.95 for the Dots compared to the reactor body of ε 0.76 to 0.8 seems to favor something similar for the Lugano device.

  • Oystla... regarding estimates of heat loss:


    For a 20ft shipping container (2.4x2.4x6m), internal temperature 40C, sat in a large room of air temp 25C (a nice Florida afternoon), with the container door closed, you could expect to radiate and convect 1120W through the walls, 410W through the ceiling, and 195W through the floor (which is lifted up 0.3m)


    This gives a steady state (i.e. the internal temperature peaks at 40C) total heat loss of 1780W.


    You would need to completely cover each 250kW module (3.5x1.4x0.5m) in 50mm of standard house insulation (polyisocyanurate, k=0.023) to limit the heat loss to this level.


    But... Rossi says he left the door open (invalidating my convection calcs), and also that the ecat modules actually leaked a total of 10,000W. The depth of PIR insulation required to limit the heat loss to this level would be 10mm


    Rossi is correct to say that this would not require any special heat removal strategy, industrial buildings (especially in Florida) are not well insulated, and to loose this amount of heat through the walls/ceiling of the building would be trivial.


    Rossi's goldfish would be fine any way you look at it.


    The production side of the 'factory' would be a different story though. The waste heat has to go somewhere, likely up a flue stack on top of the 'secret machine'... Assuming a typical 12m/s mechanical draught, and a flue temp of 125C, the chimney would have to have a diameter of 500mm, to adequately exhaust 1MW of heat. This 'chimney' could be any height necessary, without causing an issue.



    @ShaneD. The reason Rossi/the ERV don't care about water return temperature, is that it takes a relatively small amount of energy to heat water to 100C, but a lot of energy to turn it into steam.


    If the returned water was at 4C, the ERV would be underestimating the COP by 17%.


    If the returned water was at 60C, the ERV would be underestimating the COP by 7%.


    If the returned water was at 80C, the ERV would be underestimating the COP by 3.5%.


    ...This assumes 100% dry steam, which in a system like this requires a steam temperature of approximately 120C.

  • Dewey


    Quote

    The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop ...
    Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant.


    ... in a circulating and closed system ...


    But he's such a generous guy, isn't he? ;)

  • If Your goal is to make steam, you actually prefer a closed loop system with de-ionized water. This to avoid percipitation of impurities and scaling that may clog up your system.


    ref any power generation systems with water, steamturbines and condensers.

  • @oystla


    That's not the point, I just asked myself


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

    And then, after that realization, you should read Rossi's/Mats statement again.


    Quote

    Rossi insisted that the energy corresponding to heating the inflowing cooled water (at about 60˚C) to boiling temperature would not be taken into account for calculating the thermal power produced by the MW plant.