Posts by Jami

Quote

... possible he does have something ...

Oh not again, Shane. If your neighbour tells you he had been kidnapped by aliens for a month and you discover that the picture he showed you as proof was actually a photoshopped version of his wife in a green face pack - would you really think "Oh well, so that kidnapping story was probably bogus - but I'm prepared to believe that he was at least harassed a little by aliens for a weekend or so"?

Quote

...the 1MW may have some impressive engineering features,...

Like what? A steam pipe that is by a factor of three too small to allow the throughput he claims? Dozens of manually adjusted pumps that would require an additional, invisible one for assistance and control? An oversized flow meter? Dirty water in transparent tubes? Supposed heat that requires the absurdities all e-catworld regulars can muster combined (an impressive pile of utter nonsense - granted) to vanish? The only thing impressive about this 1 MW plant is that anybody ever believed it could have worked.

I think we can keep it simple because whatever there is on the customer side can't possibly create pressure below zero and since the pressure at Rossi's side was supposed to be 1 bar, that one bar is the maximum possible pressure difference between Rossi's end of the pipe and the customer's end. In reality the pressure on the customer's side must have been above zero, of course, (even if they stuffed the entire warehouse with nothing but vacuum pumps) but since even the theoretical maximum isn't high enough to account for the supposed throughput, it's a mute point to consider. Again: think of the e-cat in space. There is a vacuum outside and you can't get lower pressure than that. Punch a 40 mm whole in the wall and what flows out is your theoretical maximum. Add a length of pipe, a condenser, an upper condensation limit or whatever else you may think of and it gets LESS - not more.

Coming at this steam flow thing from the other end: the pressure difference across the 6 m DN40 pipe required for Rossi's claimed throughput would have to be about 3.5 bar. Since the receiving end can't be below zero, there would have been at least 3.5 bar in the boiler (which of course would mean no steam at 102 C but only at 140 C which means there was no steam which means if Rossi moved anything through that pipe at all, it was dirty water).

Brilliant find, Walker. Now all you need is a temperature doubler or tripler from radio shack, a couple of invisible, silent vans carrying lots of stuff to and from the plant unnoticed, the equipment dealing with the waste heat, a non-existent permit from the Florida authorities allowing all of that to go on in a warehouse for low hazard storage and the already mentioned magic pipe with the huuuge inner diameter and you have yourself a totally valid theory.

Nobody? Ok. Lets make this easier. Lets say there was no pipe of 6m length and lets assume that the e-cat was installed on ISIS and leaked its steam directly from the 1 bar outlet next to the reaction chamber into space through a perfectly round, perfectly straight pipe stub with 40 mm diameter and 60 mm length. How much steam can it possibly leak? The answer is about 1170 kg/h. So even if Murray drastically misjudged the pipe's length by two orders of magnitude and even if the pressure at the receiving end would have been zero (which is categorically impossible), the maximum possible flow rate would have been LESS than what Rossi claims he delivered to the customer. So maybe Rossi invented a pipe which has a much, much smaller outer diameter than inner diameter (patent pending). I'm sure e-catworld will come up with an explanation which is at least as likely as that in no time.

Quote

The day the first E-Cats or QuackXs (XD XD XD) get rolled out of factory and successfully installed at clients'

This is exactly what I tell all the doubters, nay-sayers and pathoskeps when they - against all evidence to the contrary - stubbornly and childishly insist that Elvis is dead. Just you wait for the day a pink spaceship gracefully touches down on your lawn, a ramp extends and The King himself steps out chanting "Love me tender". What will they come up with then? I can't wait to see their faces.

I've read that. But I doubt 1 atm pressure difference (the maximum pressure difference possible) on two ends of a 6 meter DN40 pipe is enough to account for the alleged 1398 kg/h. What would the density have been? Maybe .6 kg/m3 or so?

Speaking of condensers - how much steam can possibly flow through a DN40 pipe when the absolute pressure at one end is 1 atm and any value lower than that (lets say it was a really efficient condenser or even that pressure was 0 for the fun of it) at the other end?

So here is the mail Parkhomov sent to Stefano Marcellini explaining what he did and why. You'll have to admit that it doesn't exactly sound like "my software was crap" or "the graph was caused by a software artifact - that could be reproduced at will but sadly never made it into Microsoft's bug list for any version of Excel ever". Not even slightly.

Quote

Dear Stefano Marcellini, I admire your observation and I repent of the sin.The matter is that the laptop on which there was a record of temperature, worked steadily only when was disconnected from the power supply network and was powered from the accumulator [I assume he means battery]. Therefore sometimes it was necessary to interrupt record for recharge of the accumulator. It occurred at temperatures about 460, 1020, 1120, 1160 and 1200 oC. At this time temperature was recorded on the paper recorder and measured by pointer indicator. These devices showed the values of temperature close to the specified. That the plot looked beautiful and I didn’t cause the questions distracting from the main point, such peculiar interpolations were made. It, of course a great sin and I sincerely repent. However it doesn’t influence results of research in any way. I assure you that in results of measurement of power consumption and pressure of any shifts it wasn’t made.I send you the Excel file with the data obtained during experiment on which pauses in registration of temperature are designated by admissions of rows.Once again I admire your sharp observation and high professionalism. I hope that this incident won’t make the attitude towards me and my researches hostile. Alexander Parkhomov

Quote

ou don't appear to understand.

Nah, Alan. By now it is pretty clear that YOU don't understand. Whether on purpose or not - given the simple nature of the subject neither possibility is very flattering for you.

Ok. You're a dirt particle from Florida water. How did you get into the condenser?

Never mind Florida water. If this system worked as Rossi wants us to believe, everything downstream from the condenser to the reservoir has never seen Florida water at all. Florida water would have been in the reservoir, the piping from the reservoir through the pumps and to the reactors and in the reactors themselves on the day it was filled up - and maybe for an hour or two after that. From then onward, all impurities should be a crust or sludge in the boiler and the rest being pure water plus whatever it picked up between the condenser and the pump (plus refills, of course. There must have been some leakage/vaporization from the reservoir.)

Quote

The rust never leaves the 'wet phase' of the boiler.

My point exactly. So if it never leaves the wet part of the boiler - then all of the rust we see in these pipes has to come from the equipment downstream of and including the condenser (at a flow rate of more than 30 qm per day - which is quite a lot of rust) and it must concentrate at the boiler since it can't swim upstream. So if (big IF) there actually is steam involved somewhere along the way - how long would it take for the boiler to clog up and the equipment downstream of the condenser to dissolve given that there is enough rust in the water to see it with the naked eye on a blurry picture?

Oh man - I thought there was a new Exhibit 5 but you're quoting from the original. Are you saying it took you this long to read it?

Quote

based on experience

Based on experience - how does the rust make it through the steam pipe, through the heat exchanger, through the condenser and back into the loop? Or is the rust we're seeing all from the condenser, the reservoir and the piping and does concentrate as residue on the vaporizer? At that rate - how long would it take to completely clog the vaporizer (whatever size and shape it is - lets take the entire volume of a "reactor" as the upper limit) and how long would it take for anything downstream from the condenser to simply vanish as rust in the water (which it would have to to leave that kind of visible trace in the water at the rate it's supposedly flowing)? Isn't it infinitely more likely that what we see in those pipes is the rust from many weeks or months of operation gradually built up in the water and never removed because that water never turned to steam but was just pumped around?

Quote

So are you suggesting...

... that Rossi always, in all e-cat demos using water, just let the pumps run at whatever throughput they were running and pretended that his magic reaction somehow exactly matched the amount of energy required for that water to be turned into steam, yes. In the early demos this included the sudden 6-fold burst in power required just when the water reached boiling point. Later he simply ignored that starting up phase. But the principle always stayed the same. You had to believe that what came out at the other end was dry steam in order to believe that there ever was COP > 1 and all evidence I've ever seen contradicts that (dirty water in a supposedly closed loop with a dry steam phase in the middle included).

Quote

brown liquid

Could be anything. Rust, dirt, bacteria. If Rossi wouldn't just let it circulate with a mild 20 kW heating once per circle, it'd all clog up in whatever part is supposed to turn that filth into steam. Since it doesn't, these pictures actually prove (if anything) that the COP is in fact 1. No surprise there.

The whole "application" idea is utter nonsense. Say you invented a new type of battery which is thousands of times more effective than anything on the market today. What would you do with it? Develop a smartphone? Build your own electric car? Build a 100 MWh battery bank to buffer cheap electricity an resell it at peak hours? No. You would prove beyond any doubt that your invention works and then sell the IP to the highest bidder or license it out, enjoy the attention at the nobel prize award ceremony, pin the Science cover with your face on it to the wall above your brand new solid gold toilet and let others figure out how to best manufacture, control and apply it. Anybody who thinks that this is exactly what Rossi is trying to do hasn't payed attention in the last six years.

Quote

And yet, you are still here.

Watching it all unfold is interesting. At least that's what I'm telling myself. The real reason is probably just that I like to gloat. Not sure I'd be here if I would believe in Rossi. I'd probably sit on my doorstep waiting for delivery of the home-cat I would have (pre)ordered back in 2011, impatiently staring at my watch from time to time wondering whether they've got my address wrong.

Quote

Local heating schemes...

Usually these schemes focus on cogeneration. The idea being that if you burn lots of fossil fuel to generate electricity anyway, why accept waste heat when all around such a power plant even more fossil fuel is burned to heat buildings and water. Better to pipe that waste heat to consumers and make use of it. I know of not a single example for a local heating scheme where heat is generated on its own just to be distributed. Have you got one?