It's obviously true that 200C steam carries more energy than 100C steam... But only about 5% more, hence steam volume would only be 5% less.
The increase in pressure compresses that steam much more than the ecat hence why a smaller pipe is permissable.
But the SPAWAR video itself seems consistent with there being no transients and just small shifts at the threshold temperature
Digitised noise - it's visible at all points in the video, not just the red/white boundary - although its less visible due to the more similar colours
@IHFB: And seeing as we're working in the real world, as opposed to waving our hands ferociously, you could probably have some fun with the results of this calculator, if so inclined.
http://www.engineersedge.com/f…lpipeflow_calculation.htm
Leave the roughness as is, and put a more realistic pipe fall gradient in (0.01). Its funny how fast water actually flows through a quarter-full gravity-fed pipe... It would have some interesting effects on the flow meters impeller...
A 1 MW pipe carrying 20 times that would either be 1' or 2', or it would explode.
And sorry Jed, but I call BS on this as well. Let's see your hoop stress calcs!
I guess this 1 MW boiler manufacturer has it all wrong then. DN50 outlet and all.
The steam is at a much higher pressure in your link than an ecat boiler unit could handle.
Funnily enough DN40 is about right for a 60kW steam pipe though.
And I looked that up in a textbook, easier than hunting for an in-situ pipe...
The reactor as specified in the patent does not work
Which patent, and which specified property can't be achieved?
But the flow rate was 3 or 4 times lower than claimed.
How is this known?
^ Heh.
Dewey Weaver, I remember you saying you were sick of the trial and the associated drama, and that you were looking forwards to the future.
So, to move the conversation on a bit - How do you see the future of LENR playing out?
Obviously there's some commercial sensitivities that mean you'll prefer to give a suitably vague answer, but care to gaze into your crystal ball for a bit?
...Do you think that LENR will gain public acceptance any time soon?
...Do you think LENR will emerge from the lab in the short/medium term?
...Do you reckon you've got the IP covered at the moment, or still trying the find that elusive missing piece?
Or any other crumbs thrown will be appreciated.
Cheers
Zeus
Exactly.
It's a pretty clever move in my opinion - Rossi didn't need to mention his supposed 'secret ingredient', because the system as described will still heat water up.
But try selling a water heater with Nickel powder and Lithium inside it, and there's a good chance you're infringing the patent...
So it's not really surprising that IH still wants to get it's hands on the patents - even though they are arguing that the ecat doesn't work.
Your question is not very insightful since it would be impossible to know things that are not there.
It doesn't work when I try it as it is written. Notice I was referring to Rossi's original patent US 20110005506 A1.
To my eyes that patent just claims that mixing pressurised hydrogen and nickel will result in an exothermal reaction. (ie. the creation of nickel hydride)
I'd be very surprised if you weren't able to recreate that...
In all seriousness though - kudos for actually getting your hands dirty.
I reckon your 10 Commandments of Planet Rossi could be quite amusing too...
Quote from Dewey WeaverOn the bright side, the 10 Commandments of Planet Rossi does sound like a fun idea. I wish I had time for that right now. Maybe a little later over in the Playground.
Well I for one am surprised that not you're not berating Peter again for posting more of your confidential communications. 
Let's stick to the fluid heater patent (which names the 'catalysts' as lithium and nickel) and not those prior...
What is not disclosed in that patent that will prevent it from working properly, i.e. What's stopping the water from being heated up?
Dunno. I just skimmed the claims.
I'm just trying to find out what possible information hasn't been disclosed, making the patent invalid.
You don't seem to understand patent law. If the inventor does not fully disclose how to make an invention work, then the patent is invalid.
If he sold patent rights but did not deliver a description that would not work for "those skilled in the art" following his patent disclosure that is not a good thing and likely a legal violation.
I keep reading this tired argument, and it makes little sense to me - I think it only gets repeated because it's the one piece of patent law that people know about... So if someone is trying to appear knowledgeable about that topic, said comment always reappears.
So Oldguy, perhaps you would like to explain what is not disclosed in Rossi's Water Heater patent? (#9115913) What is this supposed vital, yet missing, piece of information that will prevent the electric heater from heating the water ?
When and where is this AMA taking place? I have several questions.
Quote from maryyugoI change the requirements based on Jed's latest claim. If you could provide a decent paper meeting ANY of the criteria I specified over the years, you'd be a long way toward proving that LENR is real. Problem is, nobody seems to be able to that with clarity and precision.
Indeed. When I was checking afterwards I hadn't unfairly criticised you (I take your point about just repeating Jed's "wild" claims). I found the post below. I forgot to post it as I was enthralled by the latest barrage of stream-of-consciousness illogical ravings from planet-lomax.com.
I'd be happy to get into a detailed discussion of the 100W paper. Maybe someone can start a new string about it so we don't bore those who don't care about that claim. I suggest starting with Jed explaining exactly how the calorimeter used in that study works. All I see in the paper is a block of some sort with the cell inside and three thermistor pairs embedded in the plastic (?) wall. One member of each pair is close to the center of the cavity of the calorimeter and the other is just a short distance towards the outside from it. Are these supposed to be a crude measure of heat flux using the material of the calorimeter wall as a "gradient layer" or what? That's the first place I stalled in reading the paper. How the heck does the calorimeter measure the heat flux from the reaction?
yeah, I know, I am ignorant and never read anything or I'd know... now let's leave that aside and explain how the thing is supposed to measure heat excess.
Which all deserves some discussion. Might start a new thread.
^ Stir stir...
Several Italian researchers have published brilliant results with x-ray film
LENR papers? Do you have a link please?
I've asked for years for a single, refereed, published paper that show 100W of LENR power without power input, clearly measured with calibrations and blanks, and which is sustained far longer than stored heat or chemical reactions (including electrochemical reactions) could account for.
No you haven't. You just 'moved the goalposts' with the claim in bold. Classic pseudo-skeptic behaviour... Probably as a result of the 100W paper Jed has already given you a link to several times.
Please feel free to post a link correcting me if I am wrong.
Sounds about right
