Posts by Paradigmnoia

@Adrian Ashfield ,

I very strongly doubt a new clean source of energy will witnessed at the demo.

But I would never squander an opportunity to see Rossi in action, in person. Even if there was zero chance to examine the apparatus up close.

Going to a Rossi demo is far more exclusive than, say, hanging out with the Rolling Stones backstage. I think it would be great fun. I would keep my mouth shut, not pester the host, and keep my eyes and ears open. A amazing show is almost guaranteed. Why spoil it? The guests will no doubt be as interesting as the actual demo.

I think nobody should walk out of the demo.

Check it out, and learn everything that one can, for better or worse.

LDM,

Your plot estimates about 20 seconds to go from around 720 C to 760 C (?)

The Lugano report shows about 400 seconds to go from 1295 to 1400 C.

(The Lugano time period seems rather long).

Clarke estimated the Lugano temperatures to be 705 C rising to 775 C, rather than 1295 C to 1400 C. I thought those two re-calculated temperatures of Clarke should be slightly higher, but only by around 30 C, probably not enough to have a significant effect on the time period.

Here is my estimate for one of the three Lugano device coil wires. (It can be fine tuned). The heat flux per coil can be worked out/adjusted, per input wattage, near the bottom (where the little coloured flame is).

The long time period for the Lugano coil seems consistent with the weak temperature output of the coil at low wattages relative to its wire size (less than 1000 W, here, each coil providing 1/3 of the total input). Inputting 35 mW/mm² into the adjustable field makes for 297 W per coil in this example. (In comparison, my Durapot slabs are at the overheat range at around 120 mW/mm², using a much smaller diameter 24 AWG wire. I should figure out what 35 mW/mm² works out to for input W for the present slab and see what that heating rate looks like).

15 AWG Lugano Coil - one of three

It was my impression that IH purchased the "1MW" plant as a product, not a prototype. The 1 year test was to commence as immediately as possible in the US to demonstrate the effectiveness and readiness of the product. The $89 million was for proof of the viability of a product, demonstrated by 1 year of operation.

LDM ,

Thanks for doing that. Still on coffee #1, so will be in a position to evaluate your work in a short while...

I have downloaded all of the MFMP Ravi files a long time ago. (I think) I will check that link you provided and see if there are any I don't have there.

Alan G provided a link here to the recent data when I asked about the first Dogbone test .ravi data (which was lost when the Optris was damaged).

Eric Walker ,

I don't think so.

Here is an example:

http://e-catworld.com/2017/08/…oeoht/#comment-3481288002

There are two more posts with the same content in this article.

Speaking of bots, going over some posts at ECW, there are several posts in the same thread that are identical but from different usernames. Usually one or two sentences. What is even stranger is that they seem to be from real people with long posting histories that go beyond ECW, and with content other than the repeated ones, that is totally un-bot like. Looks like bots using hacked accounts, and apparently only once per comment.

Zeus46 ,

I am not concern trolling (I think).

That just seemed to me like 135 kW is large amount of power in a small area to cool off with a garden hose. The blue container was using huge condensers to (supposedly) cool off 470 kW.

Quote from Zeus46

1L per second, through what cross-section?

~115W/cm2 is the critical heat flux of still water, ie when convective currents (from bubbling) maximise heat transfer (Bubbles also act as an insulator when forming).

Cross- section? I don't know. 1L/s from a hose, and spreading out over a fairly large volume comparatively. Maybe sombebody worked this out before.

Bubbles, yes on a flat surface, but probably not so good when stuck between fins. Fins pointing up, probably not too troublesome if far enough apart. Fins pointing down problematic almost certainly.

I hope the thing had an over-pressure release valve somewhere.

1L/s is no big deal for a garden hose. Double that is pushing it, unless it was a nice 3/4 inch ID one.

I forget, but it seems to me that the hose was flowing water through a proper heat exchanger that was heated with steam somehow from the reactor device.

I sure as heck won't try to replicate that device anyways.

Zeus46 ,

The flow rate was 1 L/s.

So ~120.5 W/cm² would do it? That's about 10 X the heat load on my coil wire in the Durapot slab experiments at full (meltdown level) power.

I will let my subconscious work that out in my sleep tonight.

Quote

Maryyugo wrote:

"The report said ONE HUNDRED and thirty-five kiloWatts. Enough to fry the people in the room and blow up the device. Which is one reason it had to be wrong."

That does seem to be a rather extraordinary amount of heat to transfer to the water from such a device, and ultimately into a garden hose.

How much surface area should be needed to do that without simply boiling all the water in contact with whatever the heat exchanger was inside that thing? (The boiling preventing the effective exchange of heat, let alone blowing the thing up).

A countryman happen’d in a hard winter to spy a snake under a hedg, that was half frozen to death. The man was good natur’d, and took it up, and kept it in his bosom, till warmth brought it to life again; and so soon as ever it was in condition to do mischief, it bit the very man that sav’d the life on’t. Ah thou ungrateful wretch! says he, is that venomous ill nature of thine to be satisfi’d with nothing less than the ruine of thy preserver.

Moral:

There are some men like some snakes; ’tis natural to them to be doing mischief; and the greater the benefit on the one side, the more implacable is the malice on the other.

LDM ,

I am merely curious (always). By all means, don't spend tons of your time if you are not interested in it yourself, or if it is very onerous. I was hoping that it was relatively easy, since you have a functioning model. Years have gone by already, so there is no rush...

Below are some images of last night's curiosity test...

I wonder if using the mean temperature (plot 3, Indication of, on RH side of Image 2) for the whole E-Cat affects the shape of the temperature curves?

Eric Walker ,

I guess an interesting profile would be one that resembles the E-cat version ("very much unlike a resistor") as reported in Indication of...

An uninteresting profile, therefore, would resemble a typical resistor profile. The Slab is of course just a rather large resistor.

I have a suspicion that this is where the thermal mass - time constant thingy comes into play. I don't think (quite certain, really) that there is time to reach steady state output temperatures in the two minute power-on part of the cycle before shutting it off again, so we lose the long tail as the increase rate dimishes towards the peak temperature obtained. The shape of the temperature drop from whatever peak temperature is reached at the power-off point is likely the most interesting part. And whether the external temperature keeps climbing or not after the power is cut.

Keeping track of when exactly the power is cut relative to the temperature changes might be a bit tricky. I don't have an integrated logging system for all the simultaneous data measurements currently. The internal temperature should be a fairly good relative indicator of on-off times, and I will synch up a clock to the thermocouple logger time for manual on-off switching.

This is mostly for fun at the moment.

Edit: 2 minutes on, 7 off is much too long turned off (far less than 35% duty cycle) and way too boring to do manually. Setting back to 500 C, and will try 1 minute on, 2 minutes off. Using a Chess timer app for the on-off periods.

I am thinking that I will heat up the slab tonight to 500 C, and then cycle it on two minutes, off 7 minutes (I think that is similar to the Indication of... cycling periods) to see what it looks like. I'll have to do that manually, so it might be a real drag. I can set the voltage on a dial, and there is an output on-off switch on my control box so it should send roughly the same power output each pulse. Of course it won't precisely emulate the actual performance of the Indication cylinder... but might be informative.

Anyone want to place some Quatloo bets on what the internal and external temperature traces end up looking like?

Hmm... That must have been complicated to figure out the output power with the temperature moving around so much. I should review that part of the report again to see how they dealt with that.

Anyways, here's some pictures of data from last night. I shut it down before getting it as hot as originally intended so I could go to bed without leaving the slab baking away at high temperatures unattended. The linear extrapolation (last image) I suspect isn't quite right, but it is conservative. I think the internal T deviation will start going more logarithmic as the temperatures increase further, compared to the internal T (they will probably both go logarithmic, but at different rates). The "Stable" temperature data points were collected from the flat, steady state parts of the data for the first plot. Steps were at set at 5 V increases each time, but wire resistance change with temperature changes, SSVR temperature changes, etc, changed the set points after they were set sometimes, especially at the beginning. Lumpy data... real data.

@Mary Yugo ,

I don't disagree, but I am just avoiding absolute statements in regards to the one paper. Of course, the report is not really an island, but dragging in anecdotal information from outside the report defeats the purpose of determining what might be wrong that could be determined from information supplied from within the report. Of course, if deception was intended, leaving out that sort of counter-corroborating information would be important in crafting the paper in the first place.

LDM ,

The heating rate for the object, combined with the thermal mass, if properly characterized, should clearly show that the range of input power that is most appropriate to reach one steady state temperature to another. If the steady state temperatures on are grossly exaggerated, the heating rate will probably be very different from that which was reported.

Purely for example, imagine a dummy unit that takes a very long time to reach steady state, but the input power and temperatures are reported as though they were at steady state. This could result in grossly underestimating the possible output power possible when steady state is actually achieved.

In case of Lugano, the "700 W" jump in output power with the 100 W increase of input power will still require a certain period of time to heat an object of a certain mass, etc. to the new temperature. If the "real" increase was only 100 W output matching the 100 W input increase, the difference in the heating time period will be very obvious, and only one of the two versions will closely reflect a real situation with a real object.

I have looked over Indication of... and haven't found any "smoking gun" error. Although I suspect there is something fishy with it, I don't know what it is. There simply may not be enough data in the report to work out a major problem. Maybe there is no problem...

However, real things, events, measurements, etc. are often easily corroborated by cross-checking with related things, and it should all be self-consistent. The Lugano report, for example falls apart in this type of analysis, and the most likely explanation (that the IR measurements were done incorrectly) is very self-consistent. As far as Indication of..., perhaps the right set of cross-checks hasn't been found yet. The thermal time constant for heating the device might be a fruitful line of investigation.

Unfortunately the more technically complex analyses become increasingly opaque to the average reader, and typically become indurated with ad-hoc assumptions, since much of the data needed to really do the more complex tests of the system properly simply are not presented in the reports. Where are those original PCE-830 and Optris data files for Indication of..., and for that matter, Lugano? The Indication of... Report suggests that these data files were available. Somebody must have them.

Quote from Rigel

But the "blue light special" needs to goto bed now. We have to move on. The quarkX is transparent to me. It should be to others.

Transparent.... hmmm

Very much unlike a black body.

No wonder they had to switch to heating oil inside a non-transparent irrigation coupler and fix the experiment part of the paper.

Is the surface area of a plasma the combined surface area of its ionized particles?