From this I make the conclusion that scale up should be done by having many cathodes (rods) in the same electrolyte. That would make a higher power in the same volume.
But each cathode needs his own power supply! It's current/surface that counts.
But this is not the clue! To enhance the COP You have to find the optimal working point!
Which (voltage,current/surface,Temperature, pressure) leads to an optimal COP.
And don't forget to buy at least a gamma scout!
Wyttenbach: I suggest you distinguish, as I do, between endothermic reaction and phase change?
Never ask a chemist that he has to run a reaction just with fluids. Very often powders are used, which much be dissolved = melted.
On the other side a huge part of the reactions are fluid-fluid and end up with a solid, which frees the crystallization energy. That's chemistry not step by step physics. The energy of all steps must be properly calculated in.
From a pure physical logic You are right. But don't expect that only people with at least a bachelor in physics read such post's or that physicians decide how to run chemical reactions. The melting/ dissolving is a part of the reaction.
Thus don't talk about fields You are not educated in.
Very hot plants!
It appears the eCat does not run for anyone unless Rossi himself is at the controls.
The attitude looks more like a watch-dog...
Please note that I am not trying to stir up any contextual debate, but am honestly curious as to your view of Rossi and BLP.
BLP has reported reliably measured COP's up to 10. Their/"the same process" is also used by many Russian teams, with the same success - to be unable to deliver a 'self running' production system.
BLP: Is a tough engineering issue, with a much to far reaching goal: To produce electricity without thermal conversion!
"In fact, from June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015, the effective flowed water in the unit was, according to your daily valuation report for that period, 36,000 Kg/d on each and every day, without deviation. See Exhibit B. How is that plausible?"
This period (June 30, 2015 through July 27, 2015) is included in the above mentioned period (Feb. 2015 - Nov. 2015). Thus it's not wise to look for a matching subset, just for the reason to construct an argument.
I guess, in a few weeks, the enigma is blown up and we will know more about the fantastic Doral test or .. what ever story.
(PS: July is hot in Florida, may be he delivered more environment heat...)
Carnot efficiency = 373 - 313/313 ~ 20%. Thus even with an optimally efficient endothermic process leading to embodied chemical energy the required waste heat is still 800kW.
So the "endothermic reaction" excuse is just blog silliness.
So the "endothermic reaction" excuse is just blog silliness.
As this is possible to some large extent.. much larger than carnot allows..
These "red" words fall back on You.
Don't fight with wrong arguments. May be You know the old proverb. Fighting for peace is like f.. for virginity!
Exhibit 5 also has legal status.
JED You should read Exhibit 5 again:
Citation: the conserved mass flow rate of the system from February to November 2015 was on
average 33,558 kg/day.
33.558 not 36... They did (E. 5) nowhere mention 10%. I propose You use, up from know, the correct value of 33.56m3 for steam delivered, together with the correct wording "average".
(4) as you've pointed out, this does not change things.
You are right: It does not alter the weird Rossi story.
But Your statement was wrong and inadequate. We should make only correct assumptions and not commit the same fouls as the other side does!
In your post above you quote a letter from one of Rossi's minions
You say is clear and fair. ( (dark-) Planet? Universe?? - Rossi and JED say two different things ==> JED is joking.
But, the Exhibit 18 has legal status. That's what parties claim. JED's statement is just FUD or a joke. You can shoose.
I found an interesting blog response on corrosion and pumps. Maybe this will help anyone who is still looking at the pumps.
That's just cavitation. Well known since more than 100 years...
@ THH: Chemistry and Carnot are two different disziplines.But anyway, if You can find a process to harvest the energy of a delta T of 70C and store it chemically then You are a rich man.But the other way round. It takes a lot of energy to liquidate a massive body.., or to break up raw material (phase change). But where are the transportations?I would reevaluate your post...
I don't understand this.
Chemistry is somewhat more complicate. A reaction is in princip not only Enthalpy driven. The most important parameter is called reaction kinetics, which results from steric conformance of the reaction center.
Thus even a reaction with a negative enhalphy can happen if the product is kinetically much more stable than the counterpart...
What I was pointing to, was that in a chemical reaction, You can have two input products, which are solids and after a reaction remain fluid.
So You must sum up the melting energies of both. If the melting point are somewhat higher than ambient, then You have an efficient heat dump!
Thus Your (Carnot) conclusion was obviously wrong.
But of course I didn't see somebody, who claimed the shipping of some truckloads a day.
I am thinking of ways to scale up the electron density. Am I correct in thinking that the larger area of the anode (the metal container) the more electrons will go towards the cathode (the tip of the rod)?
First, I would buy a gamma spectrometer as Tungsten transmutes to some strange isotops.
Second, electron density has two dimensions: Current and Area, but unluckily they are related over resistance.
What count's is the Kathode surface, which should have just the optimal contact (optimal current/area size) with the electrolyt.
This calls for a large series of experiments to find the optimal point.
For the calorimetry: I would not used an ampere/voltmeter: Just reload the batteries an measure the inputed watts!
Maybe you could do that, but that never happened. The power production and total energy was the same every day to within a few percent. In fact, even when eyewitnesses saw that several of the modules were turned off for the day, the data showed the same 1 MW of power, and the same net energy. Apparently, the reactors left on magically increased their power to make up for the loss.
No comment!
Carnot efficiency = 373 - 313/313 ~ 20%. Thus even with an optimally efficient endothermic process leading to embodied chemical energy the required waste heat is still 800kW.
So the "endothermic reaction" excuse is just blog silliness.
@ THH: Chemistry and Carnot are two different disziplines.
But anyway, if You can find a process to harvest the energy of a delta T of 70C and store it chemically then You are a rich man.
But the other way round. It takes a lot of energy to liquidate a massive body.., or to break up raw material (phase change). But where are the transportations?
I would reevaluate your post...
Equipment large enough to cool down 1 MW with air cooling is cheaper than water cooling I think.
Thus finalize Your logic and present us the water-bill!
Even a very energy efficient endothermic process needs cooling (80C --> 20C) after production. Anything better than 30% (300kWh) waste would be fantastic!
There are enough witness around to ask for any transportation to the Doral warehouse. The only problem is the adjacent room, (same size) which could have been used...
Some of that sweat may have been from fear and adrenaline.
The car was starting to try to fishtail in the rollers, with two technicians sitting on the trunk and we never did get it to full throttle.
It was shut down before someone got killed.
@pm: I like that!
What people usually forget, is the Doral total size of the "appartment was about 600m2 and possibly it was 8 meters high which gives about 5000m3. The recomended heating dimension for an unisolated room is 150Watts/m2. but the building was somewhat isolated and Florida is never below 0 for a longer period. Thus the maximum heating required would have been around 100kW. (Winter.. time!!!)
Thus with 100kWh in summer, all doors must have been open... except they dumped the heat...what is the only working solution for the customer area. (which took about 400m2)
D-D fusion generally goes one of two branches: D+D -> T + proton, or D+D -> 3He + neutron. The very rare branch is D+D -> 4He + gamma.
So neutron count is around 0.5/event. (kinetic hot fusion of free/loosely coupled particles)
Wyttenbach's comment has nothing to do with what Hermes wrote. The distinction between hot and cold fusion is incident energy.
That's the problem in sono-fusion. The incident energy is very high. But it is not a single D flying onto a target, which is well known from literature. In sono-fusion a ultra thin, one dimensional, strongly correlated stream of Deuterium moves onto a target.
The same problem occurs also with the Holmlid experiment. The incident energy is very high, even higher than in ITER...
I seems that in a strongly correlated environment energy can be mediated.
May be we should define a LENR reaction as following: Nuclear reaction in a mediating (strongly corelated) environment (=NRME).
==> and forget about the incident energy.
Remarkably, this was missed by many of the early skeptics, who simply assumed that if it was nuclear, it was fusion and if it was fusion, it was d-d fusion and, of course that was an f-level impossibility and would have produced copious neutrons and then, if somehow the branching ratio was warped drastically to make helium, where are the gammas?
How many neutrons do You personally expect from D-D fusion? 1/event, 0.001/event or even less?
(Or bettter look up the figure...)
If we get helium and we don't get neutrons and tritium then there must be another mechanism woirking which explains why. Please don't call it hot fusion.
Please: Just read the old post's of Peter Ekstrom!
D-D is the main path of hot-fusion. D-T is a very rare subbranch.
All people working in dying conventional fusion physics don't like to hear this..sorry!
A large Mack Truck produces 605 HP.
Only the very best bi-turbo loaders truck-engines run at the optimal point reach 50% efficiency. In average they run at or below 25%. So we talk of 1-2MW waste heat for one truck.
May be You once try to explain how all these large limousines with 400HP+ get rid of such large amounts (1MW) of heat ...
