It even held steady state on temps and pressures when it was turned off. I'm telling you - the world has never seen anything thing so great and wonderful.
Without providing any kind of objective evidence for this assertion, it rings rather hollow. Let me guess: you are using Rossi's blog, with timestamped entries, and matching those up with data used to generate the ERV report?
IH Fanboy wrote: - "Ascoli65, does your model account for the T2 increase during "SSM" mode from about 17:52 to 18:04 ?"
Ascoli 65 wrote: "No, it can't. There are substantial differences between the measured and computed values of T2."
IH Fanboy: I appreciate your candor, and I think this is the primary weakness of your model.
Ascoli 65 wrote: "so the T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point. Probably around 18:00, the water level approaches and submerges the TC tip and the T2(mis) increases again, stabilizing around the boiling point."
If the relief valve was set at 2 bar (abs), as I assumed in the numerical model, the saturation temperature was about 120 °C.
The TC(mis) curve is quite complex during the "SSM" and intriguingly increases at times. Your T2w curve during the "SSM" steadily decreases, as one would expect in a "hot core" heat dispersion model.
Now, I guess I can sort of follow your conjecture that the tip of the TC might be getting submerged or not submerged at certain times based on your assumption of 2 bar pressure, and that somehow would show the increases in temperature during the "SSM." But that does seem like grasping to me--so many assumptions on top of assumptions. Do we have any indication from Matts, the report, the data, what the relief valve was actually set at? It seems like this would have been an important piece of information to capture.
whose temperature depends also from that one of the external casing (C)
This phrase is confusing to me. Can you rephrase?
, so the T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point. Probably around 18:00, the water level approaches and submerges the TC tip and the T2(mis) increases again, stabilizing around the boiling point.
I do not see where T2(mis) decreases slightly below the boiling point during the "SSM" mode. The lowest point to me appears to be well above 110 C. Can you clarify?
Ascoli65, does your model account for the T2 increase during "SSM" mode from about 17:52 to 18:04 ?
See graph on page 8 of report:
https://animpossibleinvention.…st-of-e-cat-october-6.pdf
The only way Frank was able to get any interesting or anomalous readings was by inputting power. The cells never showed evidence of self-recharge without intervention.
I'd take issue with that, although the effects observed are magnitudes lower than what was claimed by Steorn. The second (non-Ocube) unit sent to Frank has shown confusing behavior.
They are demonstrating the orbo packs using an odd little custom motor that most likely would run for a year on the size pack they have hooked up to it, and the other pack is being demonstrated by shorting it with a relay at 6hz. Neither test shows absolutely anything at all...
Agreed. The live stream shows nothing of substance--nothing can be verified or refuted that way. I'm pretty sure Steorn knows that.
I feel they must just be buying time or flat out fraud. Both units that went to Frank at E-Scat World were a complete bust...
Well, not a complete bust, but certainly far below what was being claimed. It does bolster the honesty/rep of the ECW community though, given that their intention is to cut through the fluff and just prove whether it works or not. Unfortunately, no final resolution yet.
I think this one goes well beyond what would normally be allowed in a VC situation involving tens of millions of investors dollars. The fact that they actually started selling products and had to halt is very serious from a VC perspective as well....moving forward through production to sales is serious.
I've thought they would fold several times in the past, and whataya know, they persist. At this point, the investors either know something we don't know, or they are extremely patient (or stupid) people.
It blows my mind that he has not been arrested for fraud at this point over the 20+ millions he has stolen from investors. Amazing.
Because that is not how angel/VC investing works. While I agree that everything Steorn-related seems ephemeral, my spidey-sense tells me that it isn't over yet.
Touche. Had a bit of brain fart there. But yes, 8 liters of solid steel, with an air-gap sleeve. I guess anything is possible.
Just an example compatibile with 30MJ stored at a emperature in the range of 1000 deg, and 20×20×20 cm fits well in the 30×30×30 cm of the object described by Lewan as a "heat exchanger". But it is just a starting point for a plausibile model. Ascoli's numbers are more deeply thought since he fits both transients and steady state.
I don't see 8 dm^3 of metal in that fat cat. 8 dm^3 is equivalent of 8000 cm^3. It is equivalent of having four 2-liter bottles of solid steel. All put neatly within an air-gap sleeve. Just not seeing it.
Steel density 7.8 kg/l
Steel specific heat 0.47 kJ/kg °C
Water density 1 kg/l
Water specific heat 4.2 kJ/kg °C
With you.
Heat capacity of 1 liter = 1 dm^3 of water : 4.2 kJ/°C
Heat capacity of same volume of steel: 0.47×7.8 = 3.7 kJ/°C
Not that far.
Yes, those two values are pretty close, and representative of 1 liter of water.
8 dm^3 of steel are roughly 60kg (out of the 98kg). With an insulated sleeve 60kg of steel heat up say to 1000°C=1300K with 30MJ.
Then there are infinite combinations of surface , emissivity, thermal conductivities from core to sleeve and exchanger that can delay this 30 MJ heat release to match the 3 hours self-sustaining.
Wait a second. You base 8 dm^3 of steel from what?
But as I said in playground these old tests and sayings are not interesting because of so big other reasons in play.
No doubt, bigger developments in play now. Thanks for your analysis. The Oct. 6, 2011 test always intrigued me though, and still does to this day. In many ways, this is the test that kicked off the Rossi mania. I think that is why it still gets attention.
A small air gap, maybe 1 mm, between the iron poker and the water, (maybe a sleeve of metal, held in place by a very thin pins or small insulators) would allow the poker to remain hot for quite a while while submerged. (The heat being radiated to the sleeve from the iron ).
Can you show (using formulas or math) how the 1 mm air gap would affect the time constant of heat transfer from the 30cm x 30cm x 30cm wafer to the water? Would be interesting to run some numbers and see how long this could keep the water boiling. Could it maintain the boiling for the 3+ hours?
Edit: Weight of solid steel wafer at 30cm^3 = 0.52 pounds. So, even with an air-gap sleeve, it would fall far short of being able to boil even a liter of water from stored heat alone.
Here is a handy tool: http://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight
Would there be any reason to include such an air-gap sleeve aside from outright trickery? In other words, if one believes this conjecture about an air-gap sleeve, then you would also have to believe that Rossi's demonstration was fraudulent (as opposed to a mistake in measurement or delusion).
Display MoreIH Fanboy wrote:
- "I'd like to ask an honest question and hope to get an honest
reply. There are a number of assumptions that must be made for your
model to fit, as you readily admit. Did you curve-fit the assumptions to
the T2 curve? Or did you build the model, look at your calculated T2
curve, and essentially say, "by golly they match." ?"
Ascoli65 wrote:
The first way, of course!
I thank you for your honest answer. If you are familiar with currency trading, you might be aware of the neural networks that attempt to curve-fit historical trading data in attempts to discover patterns in trading, so that they can possibly predict future trading behavior among a particular currency pair. The success rate is dismal. Curve-fitting in almost all cases, doesn't work. I have my reservations about your model because of the assumptions and the method used to build it.
I also think Jed makes an insightful point:
JedRothwell wrote:
I believe I based that assertion on the specific heat of iron, which is
one-tenth that of water. Even if the inside of the Rossi device were
heated to incandescence, it could not hold much heat compared to the
water surrounding it. When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron,
heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little
water boils away. The metal instantly cools.
Can you comment as to Jed's insight?
The importance about arguing on what Thomas Clarke have written here and many other forums, is because he was using his scientific argumentation to convince readers. One example is this suddenly re-popped up 'super heated core with loose coupling', to prove that all Rossis tests were fraudulent. Vaporization of amount of water needs around 4 times the mass, or temp, in hot core no matter is it metal or porous material like stone. Loose coupling or porousness only changes Time constant the heat is released, but does not change stored energy/kg (considering not playing with pressures).
But since Thomas seemingly has bailed out from here, I will respect him and not continue on that topic. He is not able to defend himself in this forum anymore.
Let me state that I appreciated the presence of T.C. on this forum, and while I disagreed with nearly everything he stated, he was always quite polite. That said, after I took a close look at his loose-coupling hypothesis and challenged him on it, he ultimately backed off and disclaimed it entirely. I give him credit for doing that. It is not easy to back off from a position. As for the Oct. 6, 2011 test, we are left with Ascoli65's numeric model. But I have some serious questions about how he developed this model, which doesn't square with real-world common-sense experiences, as highlighted by Jed's observations. That conversation continues here: Rossi: “Steam Was Superheated” in 1MW Plant Test
It is Ascoli's model (and a clever one) not mine, but it is easy to answer.
It is called reverse engineering. You define a model, set fixed and variable parameters. Graph results with a spreadsheet or math software e.g. matlab, and you tune or optimize the variables unril the graph fits the measurements. If all parameters are physically realizable and consistent with data: bingo, you get a water boiler design with the same performance as the fatcat.
Ah yes, meant for Ascoli. Would like him to reply as well.
The reverse-engineering approach (i.e., curve-fitting) is certainly one way to build a model in an attempt to explain a phenomena. It certainly isn't the only way.
I believe I based that assertion on the specific heat of iron, which is one-tenth that of water. Even if the inside of the Rossi device were heated to incandescence, it could not hold much heat compared to the water surrounding it. When a blacksmith takes a heavy piece of iron, heats it to incandescence, and then quenches it in water, very little water boils away. The metal instantly cools.
Well, your model seemed rooted in real-world experience that anyone can identify with, which is why it stuck with me after all these years.
Ascoli65 has built (I'm assuming Ascoli65 is male, forgive me Ascoli65 if not) his own numeric model and has alleged that you mis-applied Newton's law of cooling.
Ascoli65: Rothwell rightly cited the Newton's law of cooling, but he applied it to the wrong element: the cooling water, the only element of the fat-cat, of which the values of the measured temperature were disclosed. In reality, he should have applied this law to the inner "hot core" . . .
Mats Lewan's Test Report
I have questioned Ascoli65 as to the assumptions inherently necessary in his model:
Mats Lewan's Test Report
Do you still stand by your analysis?
Thanks for the additional explanations. I am impressed that someone took it upon himself to do this analysis.
The core temperature I suppose is computed given the input power, the assumed thermal capacities, thermal conductivities and convection. Lots of assumptions but if they are credible, the claims fall until the assumptions are ruled out by evidence.
I'd like to ask an honest question and hope to get an honest reply. There are a number of assumptions that must be made for your model to fit, as you readily admit. Did you curve-fit the assumptions to the T2 curve? Or did you build the model, look at your calculated T2 curve, and essentially say, "by golly they match." ?
Rothwell rightly cited the Newton's law of cooling, but he applied it to the wrong element: the cooling water, the only element of the fat-cat, of which the values of the measured temperature were disclosed. In reality, he should have applied this law to the inner "hot core", whose temperature, as shown above in the upper right diagram of the first jpeg, starts dropping immediately after the cutting off of the electric power, in accordance to the Newton's law.
This paragraph is confusing. You state that the only element of the fat-cat of which values of the measured temperature were disclosed was the water. But yet, you graph the temperature of the core? Am I missing something?
@ Thomas Clarke,
I see that the discussion on the technical aspects of the October 6 test is continuing on the "<i>Rossi-“Steam-Was-Superheated”-in-1MW-Plant-Test</i>" thread. I know that you have well understood the rationale of the "hot core model" and you…
Thank you for the additional analysis. But you did not address the temperature response when hydrogen was let out of the cell. Now, I am having trouble finding that bit of information, but I do remember quite clearly that those who witnessed the test were intrigued at how the temperature fell quickly when the hydrogen was removed.
http://www.nyteknik.se/energi/…ces-proof-of-heat-6419717
That is a link to the report, but unfortunately, the links within that report to the detailed version of the report and data appear to be broken.
Do you happen to know where that data might be, and do you remember the discussion regarding the temperature response based on the extraction of hydrogen from the cell? Does your model account for that?
a rather weak - "it is LENR because the rise and fall time constants of the core show this". I did address his argument in as far as it made sense to me, but I'm not sure I understood it. Ascoli is the expert here.
Well, it appears that this goes to the heart of the matter. Certain actions were taken (e.g., power cut off, hydrogen extracted from cell, etc.), which caused some interesting temperature behavior, which cannot be explained by a simple "hot core" hypothesis. The loose coupling (to the core) theory holds little water, so to speak, at least with me. So perhaps Ascoli can provide a convenient link to me where he explains all of the temperature behavior of the core in response to the certain actions that were taken, and the resulting temperature responses that were observed and recorded. I've sifted through many threads.
