@Sig,
I can appreciate a back-handed compliment if delivered in a creative and velvet-gloved way, which you are quite adept at doing.
I think you, Para, and I all agree we are in the end game now. Not sure how long it will last, but I suspect years (unfortunately).
Display MoreYou must understand the context of Murray's statement. He is stating that the "piping" is DN40. Why is he stating that? It is because he is attacking the mass flow rate of the system, not of individual pipes.
"According to the data you have reported, the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
average 33,558 kg/day (1398 kg/h) and the temperature of the water and steam were on average 68.7º C and 102.8º C, respectively. The steam pressure was reported (for the entire period) to be 0 kPaG and the piping is DN40."
So if you think he was somehow referring to the piping from each BF to the main outlet, I think you'd be wrong. If that is what he meant, then there would have been no reason to include this attack in his letter.
The steam has to move through the entire circuit. Every time the pipe diameter changes, the pressure will change.
The steam has to move through the entire circuit. Every time the pipe diameter changes, the pressure will change.
DN40 is plenty big for each BF. Not so for the aggregate system. Murray was spreading the (mis)information that the piping was not sized properly for the system.
DN40 is plenty big for each BF. Not so for the aggregate system. Murray was spreading the (mis)information that the piping was not sized properly for the system.
Maybe I messed something up, but at 36000 L/day, divided by four (for each BF), and turned to steam at atmospheric pressure, makes for about 475 km/h steam moving out of each BF through a DN 40 pipe.
Maybe I messed something up, but at 36000 L/day, divided by four (for each BF), and turned to steam at atmospheric pressure, makes for about 475 km/h steam moving out of each BF through a DN 40 pipe.
Para, as I remember now there were actually multiple pipes coming from each BF into the main (4.5 inch) pipe, which could easily accommodate the steam flow. IH backed off of the steam flow limitation argument and I don't remember it being part of the briefing. I think the pictures of the BFs show the multiple pipes coming off of each BF. I'll see if I can dig up some of those pics.
BF steam outlet:
Para, as I remember now there were actually multiple pipes coming from each BF into the main (4.5 inch) pipe, which could easily accommodate the steam flow. IH backed off of the steam flow limitation argument and I don't remember it being part of the briefing. I think the pictures of the BFs show the multiple pipes coming off of each BF. I'll see if I can dig up some of those pics.
Looks to me like six for each BF.
Murray talks about "all of the pipes" coming off "the back of the reactor."
Murray dep, p. 164, 12-19
Looks to me like six for each BF.
Murray talks about "all of the pipes" coming off "the back of the reactor."
Murray dep, p. 164, 12-19
That's water.
That's water.
Sure. Lots of tubes and lots of pipes. It's not a great pic. Not sure your pics provide much more, however. No way to gauge the size of the pipes we're looking at, or whether there are others not shown.
One can peer through the gap, and compare to the earlier photos from the Smith report. Don't see any extra steam pipes.
@Para,
When put under oath, Murray states that he thinks the pipe coming out of the reactor is DN80, but claims he doesn't know because of the insulation.
Q.· · Product steam of the reactors. And it goes into what interior diameter pipe to go, once it exits the reactor?
A.· · I suspect it was a DN80, but I don't know because it was covered by insulation.
p. 164, lines 2-6
Display More@Para,
When put under oath, Murray states that he thinks the pipe coming out of the reactor is DN80, but claims he doesn't know because of the insulation.
Q.· · Product steam of the reactors. And it goes into what interior diameter pipe to go, once it exits the reactor?
A.· · I suspect it was a DN80, but I don't know because it was covered by insulation.
p. 164, lines 2-6
Smith measured the pipe stub at 4.5 inches ID (Smith supplemental report, page 6)
He calculated 145 mph for his steam through the pipe at that size, and I arrived at the same (233.9 kph)
Smith measured the pipe stub at 4.5 inches ID (Smith supplemental report, page 6)
He calculated 145 mph for his steam through the pipe at that size, and I arrived at the same (233.9 kph)
I can't find a steam pipe standard with a 4.5 in ID. Maybe it was the JIS-STPG Sch80 pipe with a 4.75 in ID. Murray might have looked at the Sch80 and assumed it was DN80.
Anyway, if it was the JIS-STPG Sch80 pipe, then the steam velocity would be about 136 m/h with a quite small pressure loss of 1.12 kPa using a 7 meter pipe (the length claimed by Murray). This seems within tolerances to me.
Edit: recommended velocities for superheated steam: 30 - 100 m/s (67.1 m/h - 224 m/h)
I can't find a steam pipe standard with a 4.5 in ID. Maybe it was the JIS-STPG Sch80 pipe with a 4.75 in ID. Murray might have looked at the Sch80 and assumed it was DN80.
Anyway, if it was the JIS-STPG Sch80 pipe, then the steam velocity would be about 136 m/h with a quite small pressure loss of 1.12 kPa using a 7 meter pipe (the length claimed by Murray). This seems within tolerances to me.
There can be no pressure loss. It starts at 0 Bar G. So it is pressure increases, rather than losses, that accrue with distance.
Otherwise the velocity decreases, which it can't, because there is a constant supply at 0 Bar G.
There can be no pressure loss. It starts at 0 Bar G. So it is pressure increases, rather than losses, that accrue with distance.
Otherwise the velocity decreases, which it can't, because there is a constant supply at 0 Bar G.
Tell that to the calculator:
You say that you "generously estimate the velocity of that current of steam as 1 m/s." How did you make this estimate? First of all, steam is invisible. You will notice at the base of the exit hose, you do not see the steam. It isn't until the steam collides with air that you see the billowing of condensate in the vicinity of the hose. You make many assumptions in your calculations, claiming that you are being conservative. I don't question that you were trying to be conservative. I question your initial assumption of the velocity of the steam at the exit point of the hose.
I estimated the velocity of the steam by measuring how fast the entrained water droplets are emerging from the mouth of the hose. If you pause the video when it is showing the steam hose held up against the black Tshirt, you can then advance or go backwards frame-by-frame by hitting the ">" or "<" keys. You can locate gouts of whitish water droplets and trail them (a good technique to locate a suitable gout of steam is to step backwards in time because the gouts become more and more visible as they fly away from the mouth of the hose). Doing this, and realizing that the mouth of the hose is 25 mm iwide and that this Youtube video is running at 30 frames per second you can estimate velocity.
My initial estimate of about 1/3 m/s was made at around 11:32 in the video. But it occurs to me that I could have been underestimating the steam velocity by tracking the steam too far away from the mouth of the hose where it is being affected by having to mix with the room air. I have therefore made a series of new measurements when the hose is in closeup (between 11:40 and 11:42 in the video) and where I can track the steam when it is still within 10-15 cm of the mouth of the hose). I have taken 5 such measurements and averaged them to get and estimated velocity of 1.5 m/s. I encourage you to make such measurements too
Updating my previous calculations gives an apparent 1.08 m^3/hr of steam coming out of the hose whereas Rossi's figures would demand 11.9 m^3/hr ... out by a factor of 10.
Please give all of this your consideration. Then take a look at the video below that was pointed out to me by Forty-Two. In this video you see a measured 5.7 Kg/hr of steam emerging from a hose with what looks like a slightly larger internal diameter than Rossi's. Rossi is claiming that steam is emerging from the hose in his video at an even faster rate (7 kg/hr). Please compare these videos. What do you think?
Thanks for the warning. Note that since I'm interspersing my comments inside of the others, what you are perceiving as a lack of substance is actually a lack of ORIGINAL:substance from the person I'm responding to.
Y'all seem to have trouble identifying what an insult is because your insults have been unanswered for so long that you started to think certain stuff didn't stink.
KevMo - everything that could be said has been said here. We all paid attention. You did not.
There ARE facts still posted here, when one of us feels particularly at a loose end and thinks something is worth repeating. You do not answer them.
The point you have also not answered, from me, is that your posts are contentless. You insult others (hence my insult, in reply, nicely highlighted). You claim to have found faults in others argument. Since this is the internet you are right, there is quite a bit of vacuous or faulty argument. But there is also (unusually) quite a bit of sound argument. Which you avoid and do not answer.
For example: the key public evidence that Rossi's device could not have worked comes from the thing Rossi never thought about. WHERE DID THE HEAT GO?
If you have 1MW you need to put it somewhere. Rossi always claimed this went to the "customer" and given the external dimensions of the "customer" box and its sealed nature many here pointed out that was not possible. There was some absurd speculation on ECW about an endothermic reaction that would absorb 1MW 24/7. Now, after discovery, we know that said customer was Rossi himself at most doing a few low power small scale experiments.
In answer to this, Rossi invented the heat exchanger. Why invented? Because he unwisely specified precisely how it was constructed. There seems no evidence it was so constructed, and plenty that no heat exchanger existed. But that is arguable, Rossi has removed (or claims to have removed) all evidence.
What is NOT arguable is that such a heat exchanger could not work without ginormous fans that would be noticed because they take more power than the whole e-cat system. That comes from crucnhing the well known and solid heat exchnager equations which I did (though the IH experts did not do). It was all discussed here (with spreadsheets) ages ago.
Doing that properly is a bit of work at High school Physics level. You could instead note that Rossi's "expert" was manifestly wrong in his calculations. He uses an urban myth "constant" that no good textbook will contain because the relevant value varies enormously with wind speed. And it is a give-away that his reference to this constant (not written properly as his other references) is an italian website and in fact incorrect. It does not have that constant. I looked it up. Again, all posted here and discussed at the time. This website was Italian only. Now, why would a non-Italian expert reference an Italian website that does not actually contain the constant he claims, and which is central to his conclusions?
EDIT - PS - why do truck radiators (easily able to dissipate 1MW) have a lattice of small diameter tubing? Because heat exchangers are much more efficient like that. Rossi's homebrew heat exchanger, if it ever existed, was made out of large section (200mm? I forget now) tubing. As such it requires much more power, and higher air speed. No-one real makes heat exchangers out of large-diameter tubing for that reason. Rossi, however, is not real.
TTH - typo para 5 - endothermic not exothermic
Display MoreI estimated the velocity of the steam by measuring how fast the entrained water droplets are emerging from the mouth of the hose. If you pause the video when it is showing the steam hose held up against the black Tshirt, you can then advance or go backwards frame-by-frame by hitting the ">" or "<" keys. You can locate gouts of whitish water droplets and trail them (a good technique to locate a suitable gout of steam is to step backwards in time because the gouts become more and more visible as they fly away from the mouth of the hose). Doing this, and realizing that the mouth of the hose is 25 mm iwide and that this Youtube video is running at 30 frames per second you can estimate velocity.
My initial estimate of about 1/3 m/s was made at around 11:32 in the video. But it occurs to me that I could have been underestimating the steam velocity by tracking the steam too far away from the mouth of the hose where it is being affected by having to mix with the room air. I have therefore made a series of new measurements when the hose is in closeup (between 11:40 and 11:42 in the video) and where I can track the steam when it is still within 10-15 cm of the mouth of the hose). I have taken 5 such measurements and averaged them to get and estimated velocity of 1.5 m/s. I encourage you to make such measurements too
Updating my previous calculations gives an apparent 1.08 m^3/hr of steam coming out of the hose whereas Rossi's figures would demand 11.9 m^3/hr ... out by a factor of 10.
Please give all of this your consideration. Then take a look at the video below that was pointed out to me by Forty-Two. In this video you see a measured 5.7 Kg/hr of steam emerging from a hose with what looks like a slightly larger internal diameter than Rossi's. Rossi is claiming that steam is emerging from the hose in his video at an even faster rate (7 kg/hr). Please compare these videos. What do you think?
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Thanks for providing your explanation. Here is what I think: it all seems fairly inconclusive to me. Lots of assumptions and estimations. It is possible that with such a long hose, the steam is largely condensing within it before reaching the terminal end. It would have been nice to know the pump model and flow rate. This would have provided at least a sanity check on the claimed flow rate.
No firm conclusions can be made from this video. There was no independent checking of parameters. No third party measurements. Etc. Too many unknowns.
All of that said, I applaud your efforts and like I said nearly two years ago when you first posted your comments, I think you make out a pretty good case that something is amiss with this particular setup.
What is NOT arguable is that such a heat exchanger could not work without ginormous fans that would be noticed because they take more power than the whole e-cat system. That comes from crucnhing the well known and solid heat exchnager equations which I did (though the IH experts did not do). It was all discussed here (with spreadsheets) ages ago.
Au contraire! Finned radiators as Rossi was known to use would have put a serious damper on your calculations!
