Display MoreThomas, convection quadratic?
No, it follows the basic relationship
P = dQ = hA (T − T0)dt
But heat transfer by radiation is quadratic.
That is the basic relationship, but h is also proportional to T − T0.
But convection is not quadratic; the exponent is much less than 'two'... It can be considered as linear if you are lazy, and the increase in T − T0 is less than 50C.
And, being pedantic, radiation is also an exponential function as well...
(to) hody
transative verb NORTH AMERICAN
hodied, hodying
1. The repetitive disruption of a discussion by (re)introducing one's own pet topics. Often using sarcasm and/or insults.
2. The broadcasting of a boorish monologue focused on denigrating the work, character, and intelligence of others.
"don't hody me, man!"
hodyssey
noun SLANG, YORKS.
The relentless pursuit of hodying.
"that daft 'apeth went on a right hodyssey!"
QuotePierre's point about why we don't have "something that can be used for something" had to do with all those people who CLAIM we do. So either all these companies and individuals are deluded or fraudulent or we would have something that can be used for something. Because they claim they do. That's pretty obvious, no?
What if we wouldn't have something that can be used for something, so either all these companies and individuals do claim that they don't have something that can be used for something, or not. That's pretty obvious no?
I'd also point out that H is not a good experimentalist (he's basically a theory guy). Nor are Brillouin, because I've noticed:
(1) They use high power RF stimulation of their reactions
(2) They have noted that the reaction response, as measured by TC temperature, to the stimulus is fast
(3) I've not seen any analysis of them of the possible EMC issues, so common whenever high power RF is mixed with low-level instrumentation. It looks like a very plausible explanation for their results which any good experimenter would take great care to rule out, and cross-check that it is ruled out. (This is something I know about).
Quote...arguing from authority - I don't do that.
The paper does not say, but this is easy enough to check. I will send a question to the authors and ask.
Oystla, you should also ask them whether they have heard of shielded cable..? Or a twisted a pair... Or an LC filter...
Well I learnt it from the best Mary 
Any bawdy language used is actually a direct quotation from yourself.
As a Doctor, I'm sure that you realise that when a person 'lacks insight' into their 'struggles', this is rarely cause for a celebration.
I have no idea who Slad is but obviously he knows nothing about control systems and heat transfer. He does know how to generate pretty curves and equations though. Maybe he's an artist?
I am a retired medical doctor from Sandy-Eggo*. In the sixties I measured the thermal resistance of a wet-suit, using a simple formula. In the seventies I put a baby in a calorimeter. These two achievements make me (in my eyes) a "world class expert in calorimetry", and by extension, an expert in control and heat transfer too.
Oh wait... that was just a bad dream. I used to work as an engineer at a defence company, I now work in an unrelated niche field, probably best described (in part) as the 'optimisation of highly-efficient thermodynamic systems'. I drew that graph using AutoCAD. I'm glad you liked it. However, you should consult a dictionary regarding the definition of the word "curve".
No they are not. They are based on the simple and straightforward proposition that if the reactor makes 4x to 6x the amount of heat energy required to run it, that heat can easily be extracted from the output via a heat exchanger and returned in a carefully controlled way to the input. Any heat now supplied to the device by the electric heater can be supplied from the output of the device without any electrical heater. With heat to spare.
On page 4 of my report, I politely request that you produce a block diagram of your proposed system, in order that I can evaluate it. Still struggling with this?
*
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg62587.htmlFor fusion, the activation energies are incredibly high. There is no way that the difference between 10C and 100C could be significant compared to the 10s of KeV required... However, because no-one has a credible mechanism for overcoming this activation energy <the authour?> is free to fit his ideas to whatever features he wants
I think it's a strange practice to fit ideas about plasma physics / collision fusion models into talking about LENR. It's clearly a MDOF many-body problem, with plenty of opportunities for emergent properties to arise. An example of one of these properties, is the Debye temperature.
The Slad paper... The hypothesis that LENR reaction rates depend on diffusion and so have linear temp dependence is OK. It has a glaring defect - why don't they happen at room temperature (which after all is itself a high temperature). Slad and others saying this need to propose some arbitrary and not understood cutoff which just coincidentally happens to be between room temperature and the higher operating temperatures used.
Yep, the Debye temperature: It's right there at the bottom of page 2. https://www.scribd.com/doc/283…g-Two-Chiefs-World-System
Worse, look at the graph in Slad's paper. Diffusion can only give dependence proportional to temperature in Kelvin (and similarly many other mechanisms). there is instead a linear graph proportional (roughly) to temperature above room temperature.
Ummm.. Debye temperature?? And you appeared to agree before that the 'linear' bit is not a completely crazy idea.
You do need some way maybe to heat your stuff up to get it started, under the assumption of the hypothesised unconvincing but convenient cut-off to linear temperature dependence.
Nice way to build an entire argument around a red herring. I don't think the Debye temperature is an "unconvincing" thing to toss in there... It tells us the temperature at which peak phonon (lattice) pressure stops occuring only at the outside face of the metal lattice, and starts sweeping periodically throughout the entire crystal structure.
The idea of the Debye temperature being some kind of ignition point comes from two of Piantelli's patents. It should also be noted that in the Storms paper that I reference, he first sees a noticeable excess heat signal at about 30C above the Debye temperature of Pd. Interestingly, this is just slightly above room temperature.
The idea that the best way to control a linear with temperature exothermic reaction is variable input heat...
This is ludicrous. You have a very limited range of adjustment - if you have COP = N then you can accommodate at most 1/N variation in reaction rate due to random factors.
I agree up to a point. What you say is obviously correct, if you consider the reactor as a steady-state device. A COP of around 8-10 is probably a reasonable limit, for the reasons you suggest.
LENR is clearly (if it exists) variable and so to make it safe you need a control system that could stabilise temperature over a wide range of powers. That is an output side (cooling) system. It is easy to make such systems which are highly effective and temperature controlled. They can easily stabilise power variations of 10X in the reaction rate.
There are few benefits, and several problems, offered by the type of system you propose:
1. To allow stable and efficient heat transfer, the reactor must have some sort of thermal resistance between the fuel and the cooling water (The Leidenfrost effect is an extreme example of why this is). This buffer will also have a thermal capacitance.
2. High thermal capacitance is a good thing, with controlled heating, if you consider the heat flow in the time-domain, it becomes apparent that in some cases ** including those with an exponential fuel-power curve ** the COP can be increased beyond 8-10 by causing the fuel to oscillate between two temperatures*. Essentially you are letting the fuel heat itself up, before the rate of heat transfer rises enough to cool it. Tight control is needed. These ideas are discussed with Dave Roberson in more detail here: https://disqus.com/home/discus…enwin/#comment-2318439426
3. In your case, you are trying to control fuel temperature, but your control input is on the wrong side of the thermal capacitance. This is refered to in my comment about "reset-time" on page 5 of my report. The reality is you would have to dramatically slow down the response of your pump, in order to stop it fluctuating wildly between on and off states. It is also possible you could decrease the pumps responsiveness so much, it would be unable to control a fuel with a 'peaky' power curve. Or even any fuel at high COPs.
4. I agree that some form of negative feedback in the cooling system is of great benefit. Fortunately, we don't need your proposed metered cooling system for this to happen: Water already has this property. Basically it's heat transfer coefficient significantly increases proportionally to its rate of boiling (up to a critical temperature). This effect is driven by different bubble formation regimes appearing, the differences between which can no doubt be heard by a stethoscope...
5. With a metered cooling system, as you propose, where does the increased amount of 'returned' hot water go? It's a waste to pour it down the drain, and it can't easily be fed back into the cold water input. One solution is an additional heat exchanger, and drain it (although this still would present some problems), the other solution is a closed-loop primary cooling circuit, more akin to a nuclear power plant, which would require both an additional heat exchanger and an additional pump.
6. This isn't some large nuclear power plant. It's distributed power. Installations need to be as simple as possible, both to keep down manufacturing costs, and reduce maintenance hours.
7. Metered cooling treats the whole heat exchange surface as a single element, with controlled heating, separate bands can be heated independently, to smooth the power delivery or temperature, at all points along the path of water flow.
* As you say, this would perhaps involve finding a stable region of the operating envelope where fluctuations due to "random factors" are not a problem
The only person performing magic tricks is Thomas Clarke.
Whilst everyone was distracted by the python script he swapped the PI-160 IR cam data sheets, in his seminal LENR/CANR rebuttal of Lugano...
On page 4 of the Lugano Report, the experimenters used a high temperature (1500C) version of this camera, referenced as an factory option in Optris model catalogue.
But Thomas's model is based on the datasheet for the standard version (his reference [10]).
I wonder what the difference between these two cameras is? I imagine more than just a firmware update, else why not offer the increased flexibility over the whole range of cameras?
I wonder if the emissivity parameters in the Lugano Report only look strange to those that haven't seen the calibration settings on the high temp version's harder-to-find data sheet?
If someone paid good money for that level of trolling, they deserve a refund.
The article above has been updated, due to receiving several comments containing even more strange ranting and odd misconceptions...
HOW TO RESPOND TO Dr STORMS EXPERIMENT (in a single unedited post):
(1) Point out something missing from the report...
QuoteShane, would you like to analyse how significant are the claims of excess power proportional to temperature increase (and therefore applied electrical power)?
You won’t find it easy, because the writeup here does not directly relate excess power to applied power, even when the ratio is crucial and tells you how marginal are the results.
(2) Make up a number out of thin air. You are an expert after all...
QuoteHowever I’d guess the apparent excess power is around 2% of the input power.
(3) ATTACK! Reference the number you just made up...
QuoteThese results are scientifically bankrupt, because they do not even remotely demonstrate anything extraordinary. The author does not seem bothered. If he were, he would with utmost care examine the ways in which this slight error might be an artifact proportional to temperature or applied power.
(4) Throw in a quick argumentum ad populum, whilst besmirching the whole field...
QuoteAnyone outside the LENR field, with a 2% linear with temperature increase error in a calorimeter, would immediately check carefully for calibration errors. The exact proportionality is a give away.
(5) Toss in a quick red-herring...
QuoteNo chemical or other process would be expected to be sensitive to temperature difference between ambient and the reactor in this fashion
(6) GET PERSONAL! Castigate everybody involved for their foolishness...
QuoteYou have to ask: are these guys laughing at us? Or just incompetent.
However, they seem to provide good PR, enough to sway people like you?
Absolutley charming, Thomas.
Sometimes it's better to ask, than to make things up:
http://lenrexplained.com/2015/09/progress-report-6/#comments
:lenr:
I was trying move move you to another thread over here: I have a question about boiling alloys I had hoped you could help me with. I understand you motivations, however, so I shall repeat it here:
Please forgive my lack of metallurgy 301... But I was thinking about the boiling points of alloys: I understand the ideas of eutectic mixtures, but I've never seen an alloy phase diagram that goes much above the 100% liquid stage. What prevents an alloy from having two boiling points? Similar to distilling alcohol, for example.
Or... are there still two boiling points, but they both change?
Please forgive my lack of metallurgy 301... But I was thinking about the boiling points of alloys: I understand the ideas of eutectic mixtures, but I've never seen an alloy phase diagram that goes much above the 100% liquid stage. What prevents an alloy from having two boiling points? Similar to distilling alcohol, for example.
Or... are there still two boiling points, but they both change?
I suggest we keep ecatnews discussions, on ecatnews.
Longview - A reply to you here: A THERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LUGANO E-CAT
It does seem that Slad misses the likelihood that at least some of the metallic components (all the core is metallic, even hydrogen by some standards) have formed solutions ("intermetallics") with or within one another at such high temperature. Even if one or another of the metals is not melted, the other metals are very likely to dissolve easily to a depth of 2.5 micron. Why is that important? Every alloy is not only a solution, but almost universally the alloy will have properties differing from the constituents, the packing and shared electronics greatly influence strength, rigidity, melting point, electrical and thermal conductivity and even density. This is metallurgical chemistry 301, Inorganic Chem 301 etc. You cannot simply deduce much about the behavior of an alloy from its constituents. Alloys have many many divergent properties from their components. I should not even have to write this.
I would agree that the conductivities might be intermediate between the "ingredients". But, that the melting points remain, and that the components don't intercalate, well that is for deep modeling in metallurgy.
Admonishment accepted! I originally thought the rate of molecular substitution between the solid and liquid phase would be too slow to affect much, and I did not consider the temperatures involved would change the coefficient of diffusion so dramatically.
I stuck to looking at Lithium because of there's more available data. I considered sodium as a substitute for LiAl for the same reasons. I agree both phases would be a mixture of all three (or four) metals. Boiling point will be different, although I believe the thermal conductivities will be roughly similar to those stated in my model, (or at least good enough for the purposes of this work).
Slad
lots of completely off-topic things
I am happy to answer relevant questions, or take relevant comments, from sane individuals who have actually read what I wrote.
The report is just an attempt to understand the E-Cat in my own limited way: Whether it is truly an 'impossible invention', or fundamentally realistic according to engineering theory.
This report was published mainly to correct many misunderstandings of thermodynamics found on a 'skeptics' forum mentioned above. The soil mechanics bit was added because in his theory paper, Rossi suggests all the lithium vapourises, I disagree.
I am entertained by the E-Cat story, so please take this report in the spirit it's intended, and anyone who makes it past page4 may realise it's not a 100% serious work. Saying that, parts of it are, and I stand by all the calculations, conclusions and guesswork, and I hope it is useful in some small way to replicators.
