Mat Lewan Meets Rossi in Sweden, Rossi Bidding on Factory For QuarkX Production

Quote from LENR Calender

@Tom Paulsen

Rossi stated that they ignored the energy, not the actual temperature values

Again you are jumping to conclusions.

Edit to add: if they hadn't ignored that extra energy, COP would have been higher. Which is why it is conservative. I don't see how there is any argument against that.

Display More

As long as Rossi by himself will confirm my "conclusions", like it happened before, I can't see any problems with that.

P.S.
Maybe you have been deceived by the term "... to be conservative".
If they hadn't ignored the energy above the boiling point (the energy which was needed to produce the real quality of steam) then the COP would have been LOWER.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

No that is not correct. There is no reason for the COP to be 3-4 unless the input temperature is on average 60C and the output temp on average 100C or higher.

Are you suggesting that the input temperature was not measured?

Quote from Tom Paulsen

If they hadn't ignored the energy above the boiling point (the energy which was needed to produce the real quality of steam) then the COP would have been LOWER.

Are you suggesting that "ignored" means they didn't measure the temperatures? If this is such an obvious failure in the ERV report, why won't IH just release the report and let the chips fall where they may?

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Quote from LENR Calender: “<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1569-Tom-Paulsen/">@Tom Paulsen</a>

.If they hadn't ignored the energy above the boiling point (the energy which was needed to produce the real quality of steam) then the COP would have been LOWER.

Again you are misunderstanding what is meant by "ignoring" the energy.

In reality you need to:

- bring water from 60 to 99 (1)
- vaporize water (2)
- bring water from 101 to e.g. 110. (3)

The energy to produce each of (1) (2) and (3) is positive.

So real COP= ( E(1)+ E(2) +E(3))/ Input energy

ERV COP= E(2)/ input energy

Since E(1) and E(3) are positive, then ERV COP< real COP.

Therefore ERV COP is conservative.

QED

EDIT to add: all you need to do is prove that water is being fully vaporized to show to E(2) is legitimate. Depending on the data in the report this will be more or less clear.

But the conservative aspect shown above is very clear.

IH Fanboy

I never said that they do not have temperatures measured.

Of course, I noticed that you always mix your comments with insinuations.

Quote from LENR Calender

all you need to do is prove that water is being fully vaporized

Good Luck!

Quote from JedRothwell

Hank Mills wrote: &quot;Even if at some point only a radiator and fan were present, this doesn't mean that at other times the heat wasn't use to produce hot water to make metal sponges.&quot;

The radiator and fan are much too small to remove 1 MW of waste…

This was not proven to me. All it proved was that your previous statement on the intelligence of the ERV was probably correct.
Rhetorically speaking now. The Leonardo calorimetry show has been going on for years. How could IH miss the need to keep a close eye on every single parameter?

We LENR advocates have been asking for funds for years. After this (and the bad press that surely is coming) I hope the field will not be set back for funding.

Note:* This was SIC. The quote system broke for me, I was responding to Jed R saying that it proved his point about the customer area.

Quote

Are you suggesting that the input temperature was not measured?

No, I'm suggesting very little for sure, since we know very little. For you to reach your conclusion you need to assume rather more than me!

Quote

In reality you need to:

- bring water from 60 to 99 (1)
- vaporize water (2)
- bring water from 101 to e.g. 110. (3)

The energy to produce each of (1) (2) and (3) is positive.

You are assuming here:
(1) The input averages 60C (no evidence so far, and likely none in the future from Rossi since he says he does not count this). So powewr required here between 0 and 70kW.
(2) The problem is that vaporisation is not one thing. You have degrees of dryness. Working out which degree applies here will be difficult and likely impossible. Power required between 0 and 1MW.
(3)Again, the power required for this is unknown, and could be 0.

So I agree with most of what you have said (not the 60C), but it does not get us very farI

PS - I forgot the biggee

Quote

Since E(1) and E(3) are positive, then ERV COP< real COP.

Therefore ERV COP is conservative.

You assume the ERV report correctly calculates the dryness of the steam. We shall see, but I'm going for historical continuity here and saying the ERV report will be problematic. Whether an obvious problem or a more subtle one I have no opinion.

"If I where Rossi"

If I where to develop a boiler producing steam, I would interested to avoid a boiler which produced partly steam and hot water, i.e which coughed and sputtered two phase steam and water.

If I wanted to make modularized Compact boilers of say 250 KW, I needed to engineer the internals intelligently to secure pure steam from each module.

To secure pure steam I would be interested to engineer a Solution of internals which results in Gradually heating, Boiling and final superheating to secure evaporate any remaining droplet in steam phase before it left the module.

Solution: A 250 KW module where heating where done in stages: heating section(s), boiler section(s) and a following superheating section(s). This may be engineered in a number of ways.

And If Rossi has it, this is likely part of the Solution.

I do not understand why the temperature of the return water was as low as 60 degree C when Rossi delivered dry (if not superheated) steam to the customer. If the customer did not use all heat delivered, the temperature of the return water should be close to 100 degrees. It is a waste of energy to reduce the temperature further. The whole thing is very mysterious.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

No, I'm suggesting very little for sure, since we know very little.

Fair enough, and I can agree with that.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

For you to reach your conclusion you need to assume rather more than me!

Well, we have what we have, and I would venture to guess that all of us are conjecturing to some degree.

We at least have this little revelation from Mats:

Mats: "The water heated by the MW plant was circulating in a closed loop, and since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer, 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. The ERV accepted. (This was conservative, decreasing the calculated thermal power. The main part of the calculated thermal power, however, derives from the water being evaporated when boiling)."

And so, does Dewey or Jed dispute the "about 60˚C" temperature of the inflowing cooled water?

Can't seem to get much out of either one of them since joining the forum. That isn't much of a warm welcome now is it? And here I thought that I'd received such an inviting reception from the IH Fanboys. After all, I'm one of 'em.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “In reality you need to:

- bring water from 60 to 99 (1)
- vaporize water (2)
- bring water from 101 to e.g. 110. (3)

The energy to produce each of (1) (2) and (3) is positive.
”
You are assuming here:
(1) The input averages 60C (no…

Display More

Thomas,

I get your point on assumptions I made, and I agree that we will have to see the data on the report to make any conclusion.

However, the purpose of my post was to explain to Tom Paulsen why ignoring the energy below and above boiling point is indeed conservative. I think you will agree with me on that part, given how obvious that is.

Quote from Tom Paulsen

Quote from LENR Calender: “all you need to do is prove that water is being fully vaporized”

Good Luck! <img src="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/wcf/images/smilies/smile.png" alt=":)" />

I guess my post totally flew over your head? Are you still claiming that diccounting the energy necessary to heat water above boiling point is not conservative?

I agree that showing the water is being vaporized might not be easy. Or it might be very straightforward if the experiment was designed properly.

IF Rossi has a working e-cate, and didn't mind not counting the energy it takes to heat water below and above boiling point, then I'm sure he wouldn't mind superheating the water to say 120 degrees C just to be certain he has dry steam.

It's not like an extra 10-20 degrees above boiling point uses that much energy compared to the energy needed to vaporise the water.

So once we see the data it should be pretty clear. If it turns out that Rossi didnt even try to superheat the water, then it will be suspicious. But Rossi did claim he did on his blog. So things should be clear once the report is out.

@LENR Calendar

A calculation based on the assumption that all water had been evaporated to dry steam would give a higher COP, as if real measured values were taken into account and the water was in reality only a kind of wet steam.

I hope that you may comprehend this.

But the real question is:

Why should someone ignore his measured values and do calculations based on assumptions?

No real scientist or professional test engineer would ever do something like that.

In a proper test all relevant parameters are measured and continuously recorded.
On this basis of the real measured values, the calculations are made.

If you'd like to be conservative, then you can subtract a margin from the real and correct calculated results.

But that someone is ignoring his measurements to substitute these with assumptions and then tries to sell this as "conservative", I had never heard this before.

Doing this is absolutely unprofessional and every professional test engineer would be fired for those practices.

And it is very stupid, because most people can recognize the intentions.

Only someone, who is manipulating the test results, regards this as clever or practical.

Quote from sifferkoll

Quote from stephenrenzz: “I don't think I would say Rossi is &amp;quot;healthy&amp;quot;. This is a photo of him off Lewan's site...he looks like a different man from 12 months ago.”

What are you implying? Rossi is probably a lot healthier than you.
<a href="http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rossiPic.png" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"></a>…

Are you kidding me??? Look at a photo of him months earlier!! His hair has instantly gone grey, his skin looks extremely unhealthy and his eye cavities as well as cheeks and neck have sunken in. I am quite sure I am leagues healthier than Rossi. I am guessing I am at least 15 years younger than Rossi (I am not sure of his age) ,I don't even have a grey hair on my head yet and spend many hours a week in the gym training. Someone who is BEYOND overly proud of his cycling and fitness aspirations should have no trouble understanding this. I feel like you enjoy arguing purely for the sake of argument....quite evident in your lack of substance...but still curious all the same. I the the wrong blog has the name "EGO" in it.....

@Tom Paulsen

I guess I somewhat see your point but I have to disagree.

First, you make the assumption that Penon ignored his measurements.

Suppose the measurement is 60C input, 120C output at 1 atm. You could calculate the entire energy to heat the water and remove 20%, or you could just take into account vaporisation which accounts for 90% of the total and then remove another 10%.

How is the second option less valid than the other? What values were ignored and what assumptions were made?

Quote from IHFB

since the return temperature was varying, due to different load in the process of the customer,

Quote from IHFB

And so, does Dewey or Jed dispute the "about 60˚C" temperature of the inflowing cooled water?

Dewey and Jed will speak for themselves. I'll take Rossi at his word "varying". Therefore not known to be "about 60C". You will notice Rossi has hedged his speech on this one and there is usually good reason for that.