Posts by oystla

Thomas,

I see you again bring up the Focardi paper, and again show a lack of understanding heat energy transfer.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

You state above

"Let us go back to Focardi et al:
How do they know there was excess power generation? They don't. They have an isoperibolic calorimeter. Specifically they have a sample in an inner cylindrical vessel, with a vacuum gap to an outer cylindrical vessel. They measure temperature of the sample when it is heated under control and active conditions. They calibrate the system so that sample temperature can be equated with power dissipated in the sample.Systems like this are good ways to do calorimetry. But as always they need care. The accuracy of the results depends critically on the thermal resistance from inner vessel (with sample and heater) to outer vessel (kept at low temperature by water cooling) remaining constant between calibration runs and sample runs."

The "thermal resistance" you discuss above is absolutly irrelevant.

Again I will try to explain for (the third time ?)

If you have a box, pipe or whatever container and measure the outer wall temperature, the heat flow is governed by the temperature difference between outer wall temperature and surroundings by conduction, convection and radiation.

The energy transfer from a box of any shape and to the surroundings does NOT depend on what occurs inside the box or how many chambers and walls there are inside.

It depends on the exterior surface geometry, outside wall parameters and surface temperature only. So your repetetive criticism of possible internal complications are of NO Value.

Again: It does not matter how the internals look like, number of walls, chambers, heaters etc.

An even outer wall temperature will therefore have a certain heat flow to the surroundings by conduction,convection and radiation. Therefore a calibration curve will work.

And therefore it does not matter If the heat arrives to outer wall from the electrical heater or from the inner core as LENR heat.

The evidence of this is the formulas for convection, conduction, radiation. It's the border conditions that matter in the formulas.

Thomas,

Wrt your "One that stands out is:

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10450-012-9445-8

Abnormally high heats, exceeding 2000 kJ/mol (20 eV) per molecule of O2, are generated by interaction of the oxygen with the hydrogen absorbed on palladium, gold and nickel particles at 25 °C to 220 .....,,,
This was noting an measuring an anomaly - without speculating as to reason. Note that such anomalous chemical energies could easily be seen by LENR advocates as nuclear excess heat, because they are several times higher than the expected chemical enthalpy available.
"

And my criticism of your comment would be

1. The main point of The Focardi et.al. Paper is that it documents excess heat lasting for a LONG period AFTER hydrogen absorption period, not only during the hydrogen excotermic absorption period.

2. The 20 Ev excess heat pr molecule as stated above are in general orders of magnitude lower than What LENR "advocates" have been investigating and documented.

Thomas,

You really think the European Physical Journal is an "obscure Journal" ?

Because it is European and not US based may be ?

Anyhow, all major European physical societies is supporting it, so I think you misjudge.

http://www.epj.org/scientific-advisory-committee

Thomas, if you are not satisfied the EPJ AP impact factor you could try another one you know

Actually most journals have IF Below 1. The more specialized the lower the factor.

A journal like NATURE, has very high impact factor, but caused by being a very general journal.

Take away Message: number of citations is not in itself a sign of quality.

Numerous criticisms have been made of the use of an impact factor.

For one thing, the impact factor might not be consistently reproduced in an independent audit. There is a more general debate on the validity of the impact factor as a measure of journal importance and the effect of policies that editors may adopt to boost their impact factor (perhaps to the detriment of readers and writers). Other criticism focuses on the effect of the impact factor on behavior of scholars, editors and other stakeholders. Another reason that can invalidate this technique is that there is a general tendency on the part of a citing individual to be influenced by the already indicated IF. Others have criticized the impact factor more generally on the institutional background of the neoliberal academia, claiming that what is needed is not just its replacement with more sophisticated metrics but a democratic discussion on the social value of research assessment and the growing precariousness of scientific careers.

It's been stated that impact factors and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors which may invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline.The percentage of total citations occurring in the first two years after publication also varies highly among disciplines from 1–3% in the mathematical and physical sciences to 5–8% in the biological sciences.Thus impact factors cannot be used to compare journals across disciplines.

Here is another CR39 paper with strong evidence of LENR tracks, i.e. Nuclear tracks far above background levels.

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/OrianiRAreproducib.pdf

- 43 different control Runs showed a mean track densities varying from 6 to 16 tracks / cm2. The highest recorded number was 24.

- in 25 actual experiments 15 experiments had average more than 100 tracks/cm2. One had track number so great that counting was impractical.
- typically tracks where also found in groups with much higher density than the average indicated above.

Clusters "can not be generated by a sequential decay of ordinary radionuclides dissolved in the electrolyte. Such a source of charged particles could not remain stationary in the convection currents caused by the bubbling during electrolysis long enough to produce a radial distribution of elliptical etch pits whose axes intersect at one common point. Such clusters furnish additional evidence that a nuclear reaction of unknown nature can develop during electrolysis."

99% alumina has a melting point of 2016 degC.

Your point 3 you seem to agree with NASA;

"So what’s the hitch? It’s creating the right oscillation. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said. “Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency"

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

Well Mary,

"OK oystla. 1998. Where is replication? Where are improvements? Where is a practical application? Or don't you expect that in 18 years+?"

Replication?

What about NASA Ni-H LENR research?
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/864/

Improvements? Practical applications?

Going from lab to claimed commercial systems with a not-yet-understood-mysterious-nuclear-energy-source in only 18 years is almost non believable. But still...

If we concentrate on pure Ni-H systems, we could point to
Godes: http://brillouinenergy.com
Piantelli: http://www.nichenergy.com/index.html

And of courses must not forget
http://ecat.com/about

Perhaps they all live an illusion. We'll see

Tyy, why not try this one:

Authors: professor Focardi, Gabbani, Montalbano, Piantelli and Veronesi.
Paper Title: "Large excess heat production in Ni-H systems"
Published in the Peer reviewed Italian physics Journal "Nuovo Cimento" in 1998.

I have not found any criticism (Peer reviewed or not) of this paper. The authors also made a paper in 1994, which was critizied by physcists at CERN. CERN was not able to trigger any excess heat, they saw only excess heat during loading of hydrogen.

I've read their paper and it's clear they did not try any trigger mechanism to "turn on" the Ni-H LENR, as specifyed by the later Focardi paper mentioned here.
So they concluded no excess heat other than during Hydrogen absorption in lattice.

One of the remaining mysteries is what excactly is the trigger mechanism. It's more than pure heat. In the 1998 Focardi et. al paper some trigger mechanisms is mentioned.

And the Reasons why I think this paper is strong evidence of anomalous heat in Ni-H systems are:

1. Power input and excess output in the 10's of watts, not milliwatt regions, i.e. Easier to measure outside error margins
2. Simplicity of their system. No complicated calculations or complicated calibrations required. The calibrations show what temperatures to Expect for certain input heat power, regardless If heat comes from electrical or possible LENR
3. Two parallell cells to increase confidence of results.
4. Thermometer registrering total heat, regardless of it's origin (heater or LENR)
5. Small variations in room temperature would not affect the results, because of the high power regions.
6. The long test period of excess heat (280 - 320 days), securing accuracy and confidence of results. Indicates longevity of the LENR reactions, as also later Ni-H cells have shown.
7. Excess heat of 70 watts at less than 100 watts input. Easy to read from calibration curve - far beyond any possible calibration errors.
8. For cell B a new calibration curve when Nickel is in "excited state" shows clearly higher temperature even for the temperature sensor placed the furthest away from the core.

There are also similarities with F&P wet cells with Palladium cathodes, that is worth noting:
- need to load the core material with hydrogen ( Faster than F&P, may be same time span as with CO-deposition of Pd Wet cells)
- The difference between cell A and B also indicate that this is a surface phenomenon, same as indicated for F&P wet cells with Palladium.

And how can we scale this up and get more energy? Well, why not try more surface area, i.e. Nickel Powder.....ooops someone is allready onto that one

And with 900 000 KJ of excess energy you could heat 2,7 m3 of water from 10 degC to 90 degC....some serious amounts of excess energy.

Paper reference :
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

Thomas,

Wrt your "Rossi has so far deliberately (or perhaps unconsciously) chosen methods that make accurate determination of COP impossible. You think, if he has any control over matters (and i'm sure he does) that is likley to chnage now? I don't.But, he may not have much control over electricity meters, so we will see. "

Rossi may well have full control of what happens inside his container (I Expect he has) and may be as much magician as he possibly can inside.

But outside the container on the customer side of the tie-in, he has Absolutely no control.

Me as customer would Of Course measure what I recieve from Rossi and what I deliver to Rossi, and do a Full COP calculation.

And If I don't get the heat we agreed upon or at a miserably low regularity, he may complete his precious test, but he's gone when the test is over, together with his "container joke".

What you do is calling the referee and Customer completely incompetent. I think they are not.

But you are entitled to your opinion of course

Branzell,

I found the comment on the ECW site here (in the watch thread)

http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…n-kw-is-very-competitive/

Refinding it on the Rossi blog is like trying to find a "needle in a haystack", since it can be in any of the blog post logs...

Thomas wrt your:

"In any case however certified the gauges are, if the thermocouples are placed incorrectly Rossi will get an incorrect COP. And there is no guarantee (or likelihood) that the referee will go round checking thermocouple placement."

According to Rossi the referee chose the placement of the referee's field instruments, which feeds the referee's computer.

And to calculate COP you will have to know data of heating medium that feeds to and leaves the Rossi plant and the el. Power fed to the Rossi plant.

But let's not overcomplicate this;

All what's needed is:
- a measurement of the heating medium (steam) leaving the Rossi plant / container. From earlier pictures this is a single pipe to be connected to the Customers system
- a measurement of the heating medium feed (returning to) the Rossi plant

Pressure, temperature and mass flowrate of these two water streams will be enough to calculate the energy delivered by the Rossi plant.

The next you need is the el. total power fed to the Rossi plant, and then you have enough to calculate COP pretty accurately.

Thomas,

here is a comment from Rossi, that answers much of our debate:

"
Andrea Rossi
April 3rd, 2015 at 7:44 PM
Desmondet:
The measurement system of the 1 MW E-Cat is made by:

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the water steam in different positions

56 thermocouples to measure the temperature of the liquid water that flows toward the reactors in different positions

1 PCE 830 to measure the consumption of electric power, which has been installed between the container of the reactors and the electric power source of the Customer’s Factory, plus

the Wattmeter of the Customer’s factory installed by the electric energy provider

56 pressure gauges to measure the pressure of the steam in different positions

All the data are taken by the certified registration system made by the referee, who has placed the certified gauges to calculate the COP, and collected in his computer. All the referee’s gauges are certified and sealed.
Besides all this, there is the master Gauge, which is the manufacturing plant of the Customer, which needs 1 MWh/h of thermal energy carried by steam: if they receive this energy they pay for the plant, provided we give the granted COP, otherwise they do not pay. They measure with their instrumentation the amount and quality of the steam, but most of everything, they check the amount and the quality of their production and compare their costs using the E-Cat VS their costs with the traditional heaters. Their plant is the universal gauge and is, under a commercial point of view, the only one that really counts. So far the Customer is satisfied. Nevertheless, I have to add that it is soon to assume final considerations and we are aware of the fact that within the end of the year the results could be positive, but also negative.

best regards
A.R.
"

And

"
Andrea Rossi
May 2nd, 2015 at 6:38 PM
The 1MW E-Cat does not have the power to supply 1 MWh/h of energy without the Rossi Effect. The total power of the resistances is about 250 kW, therefore by Joule effect we can give max 250 kWh/h of energy. This is why we have to study well the duration of the charges and, until we have not a precise idea, we have fixed in 6 months the fuellife. This time we have the possibility to try 1 year; obviously as soon as we notice a decrease of efficiency we change the charge.Since we have 400 days at our disposal to operate 350 days, in this test and R&D agreed upon with the Customer, we have room for this experiment.Warm Regards,A.R.
"

Of course it may be all a fu*$€>**g! Lie ? but it is unlikely [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] are that stupid ?

Thomas,

Ridicule? Not sure what you refer to, but my apologies If you feel offended.

My point is the following:

The most probable scenario in my opinion is that Rossi has presented a business plan with goal of a commercialized product ready for market this year, If a final test was successful.

That means that the test plant must go thorugh as close to actual market conditions as possible, and that the test contract would reflect this.

" Would supplying 500kW average be a success?"

No it would not. 1 MW is the agreed dutypoint. But of course, If the customer have some partial shutdown, this would cause the Rossi plant to turn down delivery. But according to Rossi, the agreed power delivery is 1MW, at some minimum regularity. Normal Industry goal would be more than 90% regularity.

" Is the 1MW heating the plant output, in which case it will indeed be supplied, the only question is how much electricity is used to do this?"

The Rossi plant is installed at customer site, and the customer will of course want to know and measure how much el. Power the Rossi test plant is consuming, If not Rossi is bying power directly from the power Utility Company, which is less likely.

"You seem to be confusing fact and speculation."

My asessment is only based on what Rossi have stated on his blog. But of course he could be lying ( but somehow I think [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] would note it)

But both pressure,temperature,flowrates and el.power consumption are really easy measurements and it would be really unprofessional not to implement, especially in a case of claimed LENR ;-), and i final stage of commercialization. At that point all measurements must be a proven point, of course.

Also, you would need these measurements to control the plant, feed and turndown requirments.

Regularity a "Meaningless requirement"? Really? You would not Expect a contract contains a spesific requirement for regularity of the plant?

The point here was that Rossi would not state the contractual number on his blog. Is it 85%? 90%? Higher?

A contract is meaningless if just handled by Rossi.

"Why?"

Because Rossi have stated he gets payment for heat. The Customer must of have control of what he's paying for.

Since the contract is between Rossi and the customer? You just can't know.

And to repeat what Rossi said: "the customer will CONTINUE to buy heat if contract is fulfilled. But I Expect Rossi have an exit opportunity in the contract, If his Company is not satisfied with the economics...

Thomas,

Rossi have said numerous times that one of the contractual agreeements have been to deliver 1 MW heating medium to customer.

to ensure that this contractual agreement is fullfilled there is no way around than measure temperature, pressure and flowrate and do a calculation. In addition he has indicated there are an undisclosed regularity requirement.

The easiest would be to set up an automatic logging system.

a contract would be meaningless If everything is just handled by Rossi and the customer just where to trust his figures.

And Rossi has indicated that the Customer will continue buy the heat If the contract is fullfilled.

Mats002;

I think it is unthinkable that Professionals like [lexicon]Industrial Heat[/lexicon] would put serious money into Rossi's Company, without there being a 1MW plant, a customer and a qualification test period, which Rossi now have been reporting about the last year+.

so yes, there must be container, with Rossi inside doing some real work. But will it be a final success ?

Thomas,

If we believe there is a plant and a customer, there must be a contract. If there is a contract it would contain something to be delivered and bought from both sides.

The delivery from customer will be a site for the container, electrical connections, electrical power and more utilities, since the container is placed at the customer site.

The contract must contain quantities, like specifying how much el power Rossi will be using, and are using, i.e. Measurement of delivery from customer to Rossi.

Further the contract must state how much heat power is to be delivered to customer, and specify the minimum average regularity + more. To know that the contract is fullfilled both the customer and Rossi would be measuring the temperature, pressure and flowrate of the heating medium (and el. Consumption)

Actually, Rossi stated in his blog that these measurements to and from Rossi's plant is performed by a third party, Obviously to avoid disagreement wrt If the contract is fullfilled.

So you see, the customer would have all data to calculate actual daily COP from day one. And therefore also [lexicon]IH[/lexicon].

That is, If we believe Rossi have a plant, and not sitting in a sunny condo somewhere, with his blog

Thomas, Wrt your:
"Your confidence about industrial scale LENR is unfounded, but in any case what does this have to do with Rossi?"

I did not say I am confident about industrial scale LENR, i said I am "totally confident that Rossi believes LENR is real and achievable at Industrial scale. "

Based on his behaviour he is a believer, Meaning he has either real LENR or living an illusion.

"It is unlikely that [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] has anyone technical looking over Rossi's shoulder. He is CTO. Darden has said he provides funding at arms length. VCs invest in people and do not normally do technological research themselves!"

It's really easy. The customer knows how much electricity Rossi is using. And the customer knows the flowrate and temperature of the recieved water/ heating medium.

From that most (chemical) engineers can calculate COP. Therefore the customer and [lexicon]IH[/lexicon] knows as much about achieved COP as Rossi does.

VC have technical experts that will / can follow up and evaluate the investments done.

More on pretreatment of the core material...

In one Focardi et.al. Paper with high excess heat they described some pretreatment of the Ni rods they used:"In order to compare samples having the same surface but different bulks, the metal rods used in the experiments described here (stainless steel for cell A and nickel for cell B) were coated with a thick ( 0.1 mm) nickel layer by the usual nickel-plating bath [7] containing the following components: Nickel Ammonium Sulphate, Citric Acid, Ammo- nium Hydroxide, Sodium Disulfite (purity RPE-ACS). After introduction in the cells, the rods were annealed under vacuum (p 10 mbar) at temperatures up to about 900 K in order to clean their surfaces [8, 9]. Successive thermal cycles were also performed in a hydrogen atmosphere below 1 bar. "

And

"The sample loading in a natural hydrogen atmosphere was performed in successive steps. In each step, we started with an initial gas pressure in the range 400–800 mbar and thereafter a little amount of hydrogen was introduced into the cell through a suitable valve (p 400–600 mbar). When the pressure decreased down to its starting value, new hydrogen was added (see fig. 3). After several loading cycles, the sample was ready and it was possible to trigger the exothermic process. Such an operation can be performed by lowering the input power, waiting for the sample temperature to decrease down to about 300 K, then suddenly restoring the previous power level. After this operation an increased equilibrium temperature, as shown in fig. 4, is obtained: the cell is producing an excess heat. Another way to trigger the process is to provoke a pressure step-like variation, as shown in fig. 5. After the triggering procedure, the production of excess heat is maintained for months.

"

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FocardiSlargeexces.pdf

Correct pretreatment may result in may be necessary beta-hydride lattice phase.

Probably correct pretreatment that is the answer

padam73 wrote in another thread: " in one of their article, Focardi and Piantelli describe a method of sample preparation that includes "several loading cycles [to make] the sample ready to trigger the exothermic process". I'm pretty confident this approach makes the necessary transformations in the Ni crystal required for alpha to beta phase transition, especially if the nickel is void of impurities after proper annealing as they did"