The wonderful physics of heat exchangers

  • First, it was not hot inside.

    You say a packed movie theatre would get hot inside, we say Doral should have been hot inside. Seems fair enough?



    Second, with 100 to 200 kW it would not have been merely "hot" -- it would have been intolerably hot, so that no one could stay inside for long. It wasn't, as I said.


    Pure lexical semantics... One man's "hot" is another man's "intolerably hot"

  • Pure lexical semantics... One man's "hot" is another man's "intolerably hot"

    Nonsense. It would be far over body temperature. If you stayed for any length of time, you would lose consciousness and die. People trapped in fires, ovens or overheated engine rooms die. This is not semantics; it is fact. Calling it "semantics" is absurd. That is like saying that someone shot with a rifle is not really hurt, that's only semantics.


    It is also a fact that Rossi's warehouse was at normal temperature, or even cool. So there is not the slightest chance of heat release of 200 kW, or even 60 kW. From this and other facts we know there was no excess heat at all.

  • 'Hot' is a singular mass noun that covers a wide range of possibilities, including 'uncomfortably hot'.


    And the lexical semantic equivalent is saying: someone that has been shot with a rifle has been shot.


    It is also a fact that Rossi's warehouse was at normal temperature, or even cool. So there is not the slightest chance of heat release of 200 kW, or even 60 kW.


    ...An point that is implicit to every nearly post I have made in this thread.

  • I'll try to attract some attention for your calculations on ECW.


    In the meantime I'm working through your spreadsheet. I don't understand the mass velocity, G. Dimensionally, it seems to have units of a mass flux [Kg/m^2*s] rather than a mass velocity. And can you explain how this comes into the formula for deltaP and the rationale for that?


    mass velocity = mass flow /cross-sectional area = volume flow * density (rho) /cross-sectional area. (kg/(sm^2)


    Pressure to force air over a stack of rods is related to mass velocity by the equation shown (it is proportional to the number of rods 2*N*M). The Reynolds number enters via the dimensionless number f.


    For a quick sanity check do dimensional analysis Mass,Length,Time on deltaP:

    G^2/rho = M^2T^-2L^-4 / ML^-3 = ML^-1T^-2

    This is correct for pressure.


    You can check this on any reference on drag from rod bundle heat exchangers.

  • We are probably never going to know the truth about the heat exchanger, how it worked technically, how it was constructed, what dimensions it had and whether it existed at all. The problem with the debate here is simply that this is not to be surpassed by irrelevance, whether it has given this heat exchanger or not, say purely nothing about the functionality of the E-Cat plant in Doral, because everything that happened there is in retrospect a part of a maneuver by Rossi et.al. to win a litigation and to get the E-Cat IP back under its own control.


    For Rossi, it was only important to carry out this 400-day test and to have any data that are accepted Darden et.al. in any way, whether or not they are true. That is exactly what Rossi has done, IH accepted the 3 interim reports of Penon, invoiced J.M. Products services for power generation, issued monthly invoices and took money and even brought own investors to the test facility, a higher acceptance in a (supposed) functionality can not be derived.


    The assertion of IH that the plant has never worked and is a fraud would be quite legitimate, but only if they had not worked with Doral as a marketing tool and source of income, but would have completely rejected the test right from the start, because they claim today they already knew before 2016 that all is a big fraud and nothing works!


    The discussion here is therefore futile, because Doral says purely nothing at all about the functionality of the E-Cat, but only something about how better not deal with contract partners.

  • THHuxleynew


    For sure!


    Look.... People who visited Doral said it wasn't hot inside. I say if there was 1MW generated, it would have been hot inside, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but reading your posts you also say it would have been hot inside... By ~10C above outdoor temp... and even that's *with* this supposed mezzanine heat exchanger maxed out.


    Quite frankly, all this talk about aircon and room temperatures is a somewhat pointless distraction from the fact that this alleged mezzanine heat exchanger has some highly unlikely design parameters.

  • PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Statement of Undisputed Material Facts


    51. Rossi himself on most days spent over 16 hours per day for over the course of the 350+

    day test in an extremely hot and uncomfortable working environment, performing the GPT. See Ex. 1

    ¶ 22-23.

  • We are probably never going to know the truth about the heat exchanger, how it worked technically, how it was constructed, what dimensions it had and whether it existed at all.

    Don't be silly. We know it never existed. It did not show up on photos. There was no sign of it after Rossi supposedly removed it. If you seriously think the heat exchanger might have existed you are deluded by Rossi.

  • Not quite correct. One of the IH guys said (from memory it was West) ' sometimes it was very hot inside' in one of the depositions.


    This information is of zero evidential value, as you know. There is no serious argument that Rossi's device could be generating the power the Penon Report claims it was generating, on factory temperature grounds alone. The power actually used (20kW) is enough to make the JMP and Rossi containers very much hotter than the factory. In any case, in Florida Summer, as Rossi has pointed out, even unheated factories get hot just from solar heating and the high ambient temperature.


    To estimate roof solar heating we have 2.5W/m^2K, 1000m^2, and a roof of say 30C above ambient => 75kW. These are very guestimated figures, but it gives some idea.

  • The assertion of IH that the plant has never worked and is a fraud would be quite legitimate, but only if they had not worked with Doral as a marketing tool and source of income, but would have completely rejected the test right from the start, because they claim today they already knew before 2016 that all is a big fraud and nothing works!

    This is indeed IH's greatest hypocrisy. They took advantage of the 1MW plant to advertise themself, collect funds and become acquainted in the LENR field, where Rossi has always been more famous than them. They got positive results in their first tests, they personally built the reactors present at Doral, released interviews where they praised Rossi and his work, accepted and paid for the first three reports of Penon .... and only when it was convenient they have said they were victims of a scam. Or they are hypocrites or stupid (or both).

  • As is all the other evidence from IH then.


    Alan,

    I am truly curious as to your position and have no ill intentions in this inquiry. I both appreciate and admire your work on furthering LENR and the equipment your organization provides. You are clearly a very intelligent researcher and have the capacity to understand true science, math and a logical framework.


    However, it is quite clear that you have a view that heavily leans towards supporting Rossi. Which is fine and I have no problem with that as long as one is open and honest about it. Some who "only seek truth" but do nothing of the sort, is what irks me so much. I am not saying that you fall into this category.


    As I read posts relating to IH vs Rossi, you definitely side with Rossi. Mostly by indirect statements such as the above. I have never seen one supportive comment of IH from you and several disparaging ones, often with innuendo, but the meaning is still quite clear. Rossi is good ..... IH is bad.


    So therefore I bluntly ask you.... why do you think Rossi is telling the truth, that he has a working technology and is to be believed and trusted? While IH made (in my opinion) mistakes that wound up costing them much money, the depositions seem to clearly show that their intentions were honest and forthwith. The depositions also clearly showed that Rossi lied, intentionally deceived and was not to be trusted.

    (Some offer that it was a bad contract and he needed to get out of it, thus the ends justifying the means. It is clear that HE wrote the contract and even then, had over a year to decide to null the contract if he wanted!)


    The actual data and fact from deposition and the Penon report, show the Doral event was a joke. Surely you see that from your scientific experience and learning. Not only the non-scientific evidence such as fake customer, fake engineer, dismantling evidence, etc. but the report itself, the heat exchanger, etc. simply do not support a positive conclusion.


    So again my question quite simple.... why do you believe Rossi and support him? This is not a loaded question, but sincere. I have posted why I do not believe him. Why do you?


    Sincerely and thank you,

    Bob

  • AR (who I have never met and spoken briefly to just once) and I happen to have many mutual friends, people I have known since before they knew Rossi. Those people he is supposed to have traduced and betrayed. Funnily enough, they are still his friends, and I am still theirs. I think that is enough explanation for now.


    As for IH, I have little to say about them beyond the fact that they are venture capitalists, with all that descriptions entails, good and bad. Not really my kind of people.

  • @THHuxelynew


    Hi THH. I am struggling to understand the calculations in your Excel worksheet. I understand that it would take some work but would it be possible for you to update your worksheet with more extensive comments on it showing where some of the constants are from and how the equations work?


    I also wonder if you could identify a textbook problem involving a heat exchanger with baffles and show that your worksheet handles it adequately and produces the known solution. This is a technique you have used in the past would be a check on the worksheet calculations.