Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Well, looking at the tree of possible outcomes, who wins in each of them?

There's an email from aeg (cassarini? I'm on my cell) to rossi around June saying the test was half way through, how was it going, if good they'd get a treche ? payment.

So it was kinda sorta like a gpt.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I've always wished there was a grace-period feature like this for email.

Gmail has a feature you can turn on that displays an "undo" link for several seconds above an email that has just been sent. I have used that feature many, many times, sometimes more than once for the same email. (It still doesn't prevent errors from slipping through.)

Quote from PIH

I don't need imagination.

I use reality on a planet we inhabitants like to call Earth.

"steam" doesn't leak from a net vacuum system

and "steam" cannot condense without either P, V or T changing in the "right" direction.

Pick one.

Pete

Display More

I'll use a little of my own.

Imagine a small misplaced tab or piece of tape near a pipe joint that "scoops" up steam and lets it through a small hole. In fact, the more I think of it, the more likely it seems this was it. It wouldn't matter if your piping system was constantly under a slight vacuum. The steam would still "leak."

Quote from IH Fanboy

By itself, no. But with the community (well at least the more observant part of it) now beginning to come to terms with the flow configuration, all you have left is pressure. And we know there were multiple pressure sensors.

The data and configuration point to a working e-Cat. THH's FUD (which is based from Smith's FUD) is all fading quickly.

Could somone capable of making a technical argument please explain IHFB's point here? I laid out the logic (Smith's most powerful point) and IHFB has responded:

• THH's FUD is all fading quickly
• Another possibility is the e-cat works

I can't prove from this test the e-cat does NOT work, and have never claimed that proof. All we can see is that the apparent high COP numbers could happily be got from a non-working system. Rossi's tests are always so uncontrolled and manipulated that they are equivalent to no tests.

But you have to be IHFB to see Rossi + no valid tests as indicating working e-cats!

Quote from IH Fanboy

I'll use a little of my own.

Imagine a small misplaced tab or piece of tape near a pipe joint that "scoops" up steam and lets it through a small hole. In fact, the more I think of it, the more likely it seems this was it. It wouldn't matter if your piping system was constantly under a slight vacuum. The steam would still "leak."

I gave you an example of how you could test this in the comfort of your own home (well kitchen really),

in about 5 minutes at zero cost (well OK a little bit of electricity and water if you are metered).

Most of that 5 minutes would be spent waiting for the kettle to boil, so you could, in fact,

be productive with something else while waiting.

I agree with you that "imagination" can be used to get a leak OUT of a system under slight vacuum.

But in my kitchen, I like to use evidence and PV=T.

(I am excluding the number of moles and the ideal gas constant here as you no doubt well know)

Quote from Alan Smith

You left out the word 'if'. You have no idea what software was used.

And there's the rub. Personally, I don't think Rossi should be given any credit for test results so badly validated and spoliated that such things cannot be checked.

The Rossi fan club can persist because there are many who will interpret every deliberately inconclusive result as showing that Rossi has what he claims. Can't see why he bothers with the experiments. He should just do his stuff on JONP and tell fans that spirits have assured him his devices work...

That way he would not have to retrofit wrongly calculated heat exchangers into his stories.

Quote from Alan Smith

You left out the word 'if'. You have no idea what software was used.

Read again, If was the first word in the post.

It is a typical IF THEN statement.

My view is that technology is never transferred until it works without the inventor alone with the device and in the hands of the one it is to be transferred to.

.. and good experiments require replication, calibration, and controls.

Quote from IHSupporter

If Penon actually did as he said in the test plan (use T type thermocouple) but Fabiani used K thermocouple software ID -

then a T thermocouple at 99C (giving 4.232mV) would show up looking like a K thermocouple at 103C (4.220 MV).

I had no problem with the grammar. Logically I read "BUT" as "BUT IF" or "AND IF" :

IF penon AND IF fabiani THEN ....

IF THEN statements are very standard. They are often used in logic theory and in programing. For example: for Integer J...... IF J>2 but J<4 then J=3.

Quote from Shane D.

TTH,

Sorry I can't help you on the technical side, but on the human factors front, from my perspective, the debate seems over. Nice try though! Rossi supporters have come to a conclusion in favor of Rossi, and that the 1MW worked in Doral as advertised. Thanks largely to one man...Enginner48 that is. Before he came back, I think the others were about ready to throw in the towel.

IMO it took a little shoe-horning of the available information, trusting what Rossisays about the upstairs heat-exchanger, filling in Penon's rather sparse system diagram with a few wiggly, and some straight, lines, adding a pipe here, a few pipes there going up the wall...pieced it all together and voila. Started with the premise Rossi was right, and by golly, after a lot of soul searching, and hard nosed engineering, it turned out he was! Amazing how that works.

Anyways, now that the verdict is in, according to some, it is just a matter of how much the conniving IH should settle for. Oh, and Rossi lying about JMP, and dismantling some of the system components...well, IH made him do it. Rossi was valiantly trying to advance LENR and save mankind, while IH was doing the opposite...suppressing LENR, so Rossi did what he had to do.

Case closed.

Display More

Shane,

I know your post was somewhat in jest (at least I think it was), but let me clear up some misconceptions that seem to linger among the IH camp.

I can only speak for myself, but I suspect others like the two Alans, LENR Calender, and probably others might have a similar view (they can take me to task later if not).

Rossi "supporters": We are not Rossi supporters. We are supporters of the truth, wherever it might lead. If IH puts out a perfunctory expert opinion, we will expose it for what it is. If it is revealed that JMP was a giant ruse, we will expose that for what it is, and not make excuses for Rossi.

"have come to a conclusion": We have largely not come to a conclusion and acknowledge that there are significant unanswered questions, such the existence, or not, of the heat exchanger. When I write something like: "You forgot the last possibility: the e-Cat works as claimed," THH misinterprets this as me having made a firm conclusion. But if you read my plain language, it says that he forgot the last possibility. THH knows that if he acknowledges E48's analysis of the system, he must accept the possibility of the e-Cat working as claimed. This causes him much consternation, I can only assume.

"shoe-horning": E48's analysis matches the photographic evidence that we have. Why don't you point out any supposed flaws in his analysis? It is all right there and matches nicely. There is likely still some missing information--we can't know everything at this point as that is impossible. But from what we can see in the pictures, E48 has constructed a cogent explanation for the data. Does that mean that we have concluded this is absolutely a flawless analysis? No, it means nothing of the sort. E48 also holds out that we have not yet made a firm determination about the heat exchanger. But I'll tell you what, at the rate IH is being exposed as of late, it wouldn't surprise me if evidence of the heat exchanger arose in the not-to-distant future.

"verdict is in": The verdict is only in for the IH supporters, who have concluded long ago that there was no excess heat. The rest of us remain open to the evidence, and will let the evidence guide us one way or the other.

When people don't want something to be real, they will conjure up all sorts of ad hoc hypothesis

I'll leave to the sagacity of readers to judge which side of the debate uses the most of those mental modelizations

Ode to heat transfer coefficients

Many data books and web references will give (without justification or much definition of what this means) approximate heat transfer coefficients.

From the link:

• Low speed air over surface 10W/m^2K
• Moderate speed air over surface 100W/m^2K
• Moderate speed transverse air over cylinder 200W/m^2K

Wong used the last one for his seat of the pants approximate estimate. More on that later.

Let us first see how these coefficients work. Note that they calculate the total power dissipated assuming a linear proportionality with temperature difference between surface and ambient air, and that (obviously) the power dissipated is proportional to the surface area.

As the speed of the air over the surface increases so the coefficient goes up (e.g. from 10 to 100 W/m^2K). That is because higher air speeds lead to more pulling of air away from its frictional sticking to the surface. The layer of moving air closest to the surface that sticks to the surface and insulates it becomes thinner as the air speed goes up. At higher speeds we get turbulence and things get even more complex, but the basic picture is higher speed implies larger heat transfer coefficient.

Because these coefficients change so much with speed they are practically not much use: what do low and moderate mean?

We can investigate this from a more precise calculator. For low-medium speeds (2.5 - 20 m/s) this reference gives an equation (for air over a surface)

h = 10.45 -v + 10sqrt(v) (v in m/s, h in W/m^2K)

This is compatible with the figure of 10 for low speeds, and also the figure of 100 for moderate speeds as long as moderate >> 20 m/s.

This is an approximate heuristic equation which will break down outside its domain - the analytic solution is complex.

We can also look at the excellent Siemens web calculator which does the whole thing for surfaces and also cylinders in air flow.

This references:

Holman, J.P., Heat Transfer, 7th ed., McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, 1990. p 281 - 303 (for cylinders in air flow)

The 10th edition of this book is amazingly available as a free to download PDF. This is authoritative, and accessible, and comprehensive, notable for its many useful dimensioned graphs in addition to equations. For the problem of fluid flow over isothermal cylinders (Rossi's heat exchanger) you need Chapter 6-3 pp 293-301

The Wong assumptions

Heat exchanger made of 22 X 10m long cylinders each 0.15m diameter. Cylinder 100C. Air temperature 30C.

Airflow two fans each 25,000m^3/hour.

I don't dispute these (though the air temperature is a little low for Florida Summer).

Let us do a quick sanity check of the Siemens calculator, which gives results an order of magnitude lower than Wong (and than the 200W/m^2K oft repeated reference for moderate air flow) for this specific problem.

pp 300-301 of Holman above (you should definitely download it and read) has Example 6-7, a 5cm diameter 150C isothermal cylinder in 35C air moving at 50m/s. The temperatures don't much change things, they change the characteristics of air (density, viscosity, etc) but only very slightly and for a +/- 10% calculation can be ignored, as they are in the reference figure Wong quotes, and in Wong's calculation. Note that for total power the temperature difference matters - and is used to calculate the total power from the heat transfer coefficient. But here we are trying to sanity check the coefficient itself that must be used, so temperature difference also does not matter.

From Example 6-7 the heat transfer coefficient is 172W/m^2K and we can also, to check, see that this is indeed the average value over the whole cylinder surface from the equation used by Holman for the total power.

Total power dissipation = (171.7)π(0.05)(150 − 35)

We can see from this that moderate airflow as used in the datasheet reference value of 200W/m^2C is therefore slightly higher than 50m/s (for a 5cm cylinder). Wong's bad error comes from the fact that his fans with total airflow 50,000 m^3/hour cannot deliver this, or anything like.

To see why this is true: 50,000m^3/hour = 14 m^3/s.

The claimed heat exchanger is a box 10m X 6.5m X 1m containing 22 cylinders each 15cm diameter and 10m long. Distributing the cylinders equi-spaced in the box gives a layout of 7 X 3 cylinders with one extra. The airflow must go between these cylinders so we have the air squeezed through a vertical gap (three cylinders vertically) of 0.55m. It gives us an upper estimate if we assume all cylinders have the flow they would have if unimpeded.

The total cross-sectional air-gap through which the blown air must pass inside the heat exchanger box is therefore 10m X 0.55m, and so the wind velocity over the cylinders is 14/(10*0.55) = 2.5m/s.

The reason Wong's calculated estimate is so very wrong is simply that 2.5m/s is 20 times smaller than 50m/s. The moderate airflow reference figure is grossly wrong in this case. From the Siemens calculator:

0.15m dia rod, 2.5m/s airflow => h = 14 W/m^2K

Note that the heat transfer coefficient is also sensitive to the rod diameter. At larger diameters it is smaller - another factor not taken into account by the one-size-fits-all approximate figure, and therefore not by Wong in his approximation.

For the 50m/s case we get:

205W/m^2K for 0.02m

172 W/m^2K for 0.05m (sanity check - this is indeed the same as the example from Holman)

150W/m^2K for 0.10m

140W/m^2K for 0.14m

0.15m is just outside the range of the web calculator at this speed.

To get 200W/m^2K from Rossi's claimed setup we need a velocity of >> 50m/s.

So the reference figure is entirely reasonable, for a speed of 50m/s and a diameter of 2cm.

Crunching the real number for 2.5m/s and 0.15m we get:

power = 22*10*0.15*pi*14*T W where T is the temperature difference between air and rods in C.

Let us suppose the air does not heat up as it goes through the heat exchanger, to get an overestimate of the possible dissipated power. Actually, for the claimed 1MW dissipation the air would heat up to 100C (itself impossible) but this estimate will work out reasonably good for the actual heat dissipation.

We have a temperature difference of 100C-30C (from Wong's assumption about ambient temperature that any Florida resident will tell you goes wrong in July and August).

So Power dissipated = 1.45kW/C or 101kW total.

PS - if you redo this with the 10X higher from transcript figure for fan flowrate (not given by Wong, and pretty obviously wrong since these fans would use too much power - you'd see it on the FPL records - and be big beasts) you get 25m/s airflow, and a heat transfer coefficient of 79W/m^2K or 575kW total. At this flowrate a 4 sq m window (with both air inlet and outlet as Rossi says) will have 2 sq m for the outlet and therefore an air speed of 70m/s or 156 mph. Poor tree! But we can confidently expect the figures used in Wong's signed report to be more accurate.

Could someone not banned possibly cross-post this to ECW?

Further web reading

An excellent reference which includes spreadsheets and the equations that drive them is

http://www.brighthubengineerin…at-transfer-coefficients/

A good shrink-wrapped authoritative industry reference (paid) can be found here. They will give you a 30 day free trial if you try. Anyone want to do a proper analysis of the Rossi vanishing heat exchanger? There are also many many commercial and free sets of software that do thermal modelling and if correctly driven will provide an accurate answer. For me, the Siemens web calculator is good enough.

I want this post to be reasonably accessible, and use only free material, so have not used the paid stuff. And thermal modelling software would be too complex for most people to follow.

Quote from IH Fanboy

E48's analysis matches the photographic evidence that we have. Why don't you point out any supposed flaws in his analysis? It is all right there and matches nicely.

Sorry, but E48 writes so much nonsense, how can you take him seriously?

Quote

Engineer48 [on ecw]

Hi Wpj,

Need to see a picture of the flow meter so to understand where it was installed in the system to make more comments there.

But with the main red pump doing upto 17 GPM (92,600 L/Day), with an upto 19 ft head, would suggest there is more enough flow to keep all the pipes full and to suck in the 1 atmo superheated steam from the ECat.

Do note this pumps happily runs with boiling water flowing through it. Tough little pump.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/…426b12b8b786dc205b6d4.png

Display More

No, the pump will not run with boiling water (or even "pump steam"). If he would know how to read a data-sheet (see linked datasheet), he would know that.

He made up many other ridiculous assumptions (like the Grundfos pump feeding into an vented condensate header - how would that work without frequently overfilling?), that it is a waste of time to follow what he invents.

And the core question, how and where was the 1MW heat from the e-cat dissipated, isn't convincingly explained at all.

At least, he admits that he is talking just with a gut feel.

Quote

Engineer48 [on ecw]

Hi Wpj,

I'm not a steam engineer, so only answering with a gut feel, but yes I expect that pump has enough guts to do that job. It has a 19 ft head, so not as much as your pump but then the vertical fluid movement in the ECat system is not a lot.

As of yet we have no info on how the secondary heat exchanger was connected to the primary unit inside the JM Black Box but I suspect those 4 vertical black and insulated pipes have a story to tell.