Cold Fusion Inventor Comes To Boston

It's far from clear that this was the amount of water that evaporated...

Link

Of course it was noted before... It's fairly straightforward to put a condenser on the hose and attach a flowmeter to it, and you'll know how much exactly water came as steam. This has not been done. Look, there are just too many holes in the set-up, it makes no sense to take any of those numbers seriously.


Edit to add another link:
link

Some pretty convincing analysis of January tests, and how Rossi's claims can't be true based on what scraps of data were available.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's far from clear that this was the amount of water that evaporated...

Link

Of course it was noted before... It's fairly straightforward to put a condenser on the hose and attach a flowmeter to it, and you'll know how much exactly water came as steam. This has not been done. Look, there are just too many holes in the set-up, it makes no sense to take any of those numbers seriously.

Given your worry about 'suffocation' and your flowmeter comment, I'm really doubting you've paid any attention to the setup of the 470kW test at all.
How can you not know there were two huge condensers at the end of the steam pipe, taking input from the 50 reactors through a shared pipe. The water circuit was a closed circuit with flow meters to measure the water throughput. The only way for the water to get to the condenser is through the steam pipe. Only 5 litres of unvapourised water were collected from the steam pipe, out of a total of ~3300 litres. The steam pipe, measured at the outside, had a 75c + heat differential vs the condenser input water temperature. Self sustained.

Where is the ambiguity in the energy measurements there?

reply to post by yampa


You are right, there was a condenser and it is mentioned in Heffner's paper. Of course, Heffner noticed that the readings off the condenser are highly suspect (temperature). I did notice that I was linking to a reference to an earlier test where the steam was vented.

So fine, they actually condensed the water and didn't suffocate in this experiment. Then again, the actual amount of the water supposedly evaporated is still elusive.

Originally posted by boncho

Maybe he did it the same way as he did in the past?

Larger modules would be manufactured in Italy. Rossi sent 27 thermoelectric devices for evaluation to the Engineer Research and Development Center; 19 of these did not produce any electricity at all. The remaining units produced less than 1 watt each, instead of the expected 800–1000 watt.

From the above I can tell you:
a) don't know much about thermoelectric generators
b) are happy to selectively choose quotes to make people look bad
c) can't follow basic logic

To quickly address c) - how exactly would you evaporate 3300 litres of water with a device that didn't work?

To fill in the bits you missed from the US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Centre 2004 paper on thermoelectric devices:

In furtherance of his research, in early 2000, LTI had tests conducted at the University of New Hampshire (UNH), Durham, NH, using a small scale LTI TE Device. Over a period of 7 days, the UNH power plant staff recorded voltage and amperage readings every 1/2 hr. The TE Device produced approximately 100 volts and 1 ampere of current, providing 100 watts of power.

After this initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices.

In Italy, Dr. Rossi believed that LTI could manufacture more cost-effective TE generating devices with lower labor and assembly costs. Accordingly, Dr. Rossi engaged a subcontractor to fulfill the requirements of manufacturing and assembly.

Unfortunately, the Italian subcontractor was unable to provide second generation TE Devices with satisfactory power generation. Nineteen of 27 TE Devices shipped to CTC, Johnstown, PA, were incapable of generating electricity for a variety of reasons, from mechanical failure to poor workmanship. The remaining eight produced less than 1 watt of power each, significantly less than the expected 800–1000 watts each."

.pdf here www.dtic.mil...

So Rossi won a speculative R&D contract based on a successful test, but was unable to scale the design into a production device. That would be pretty much the norm for military R&D then.

boncho, why on earth would Rossi use a TG to boil water when he could just put a standard electrical resistor at ~100% efficiency in the boiler with no need for a heat differential?

I actually think this work is a pretty good sign. At least he has existing experience converting heat directly into electricity. It shows he wasn't randomly babbling when he claimed such a device could be possible in two years.

Idealised, but, if you could perfectly wrap the reactor cores from the 470kW test with a 20% efficient peltier device. That would buy you about 400,000 kW of electrical energy in six months? With about $50 in fuel?

reply to post by yampa


In a device of such simplicity, "mechanical failure" seems to be too much of cop out...
It's not a car engine. What you see in pics an videos in many cases looks quite crude (but supposedly works), so the other one -- "poor workmanship" is equally bogus.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by yampa

 

You are right, there was a condenser and it is mentioned in Heffner's paper. Of course, Heffner noticed that the readings off the condenser are highly suspect (temperature). I did notice that I was linking to a reference to an earlier test where the steam was vented.

So fine, they actually condensed the water and didn't suffocate in this experiment. Then again, the actual amount of the water supposedly evaporated is still elusive.

It's elusive in the sense that we have no idea if all the measurements and the customer were faked for the 470 kW test.

Heffner's paper has nothing to do with the large test. You seem very keen to keep referring back to the energy production of a smaller device with more ambiguities due to far lower output.

But there is nothing elusive about the measurements as given in the October 28th report if they are legitimate figures.
The amount of water that went into the boilers is known. This is a trivial measurement to make. There is no other way for the water to get out of the boilers and into the condenser, other than as stream. All the recondensed water is pumped back into the system (with a slight automated top up for loss). In the October 28th test, afaik, the thermocouple reading was taken from the large collective steam pipe running into the condensers. This is meters away from the reactor cores and the only heat energy arriving there is from 105c+ steam.

If you know how much water was vapourised, you have a pretty much unfakeable energy communication with an extremely well tested constant. 3300 litres of vapourised water does not leave much room for mewing about micro placement of thermometers.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by yampa

 

In a device of such simplicity, "mechanical failure" seems to be too much of cop out...
It's not a car engine. What you see in pics an videos in many cases looks quite crude (but supposedly works), so the other one -- "poor workmanship" is equally bogus.

Pictures of what?

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by yampa

 

In a device of such simplicity, "mechanical failure" seems to be too much of cop out...
It's not a car engine. What you see in pics an videos in many cases looks quite crude (but supposedly works), so the other one -- "poor workmanship" is equally bogus.

Pictures of what?

Of "e-cat". I think there were some in my previous links.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


They did (the buyer) determine that it works and did but it.

Originally posted by yampa
Where is the ambiguity in the energy measurements there?

You are ignoring the large generator that was connected and running....

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by yampa
Where is the ambiguity in the energy measurements there?

You are ignoring the large generator that was connected and running....

Why would I ignore it when I know that a large initial input is required to start the reaction? When I have seen that the condensers, water pumps, RF input (x50) and shutdown procedures all require power? This reactor requires external power (like most power plants), so you'd better up your level of criticism, or deal with it.

I realise that fantasy science is pretty much the norm here, But you are ignoring (over and over) the fact that those generators would have to be plugged into something that will boil the water, spoorge. What kind of boiler technology did they use? Have you done any checking to see if said generator could produce enough electricity to vapourise 3300 litres of water in 5 hours when connected to these heating devices?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

In a device of such simplicity, "mechanical failure" seems to be too much of cop out...
It's not a car engine. What you see in pics an videos in many cases looks quite crude (but supposedly works), so the other one -- "poor workmanship" is equally bogus.

Originally posted by yampa
Pictures of what?

Of "e-cat". I think there were some in my previous links.

This again proves that you are either incapable or unwilling to follow what is happening in reality. I am beginning to suspect you are trolling here.

That "mechanical failure" (as assessed by military engineers) refers to Rossi's thermoelectric generator project. It has absolutely nothing to do with nickel hydrogen heat engines.

That whole paper, including the title, is about peltier effect thermoelectric generators. And there is nothing simple about engineering a new material composition for a device like that. Multiply that difficulty many times if you are talking about putting it into production.

For the hard-of-thinking, I will spell it out in pictures:

Originally posted by yampa
to vapourise 3300 litres of water in 5 hours when connected to these heating devices?

Actually there is no proof at all 3300 litres of water was "vapourised" - proof of that would be a good starting point, don't you think?

Originally posted by yampa
That whole paper, including the title, is about peltier effect thermoelectric generators. And there is nothing simple about engineering a new material composition for a device like that. Multiply that difficulty many times if you are talking about putting it into production.

Thermoelectric generators, including Peltier, are absolutely common place and mass-produced. For God's sake, this is 19th century technology. Don't even try to make it look like it's high tech. You can buy it off-shelf.

For the hard-of-thinking, I will spell it out in pictures:

Well I hope you look hard at your own pictures.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by yampa
to vapourise 3300 litres of water in 5 hours when connected to these heating devices?

Actually there is no proof at all 3300 litres of water was "vapourised" - proof of that would be a good starting point, don't you think?

Then why have you mentioned the generator several times in every thread about this device? If your claim is 'all data is fake' (a perfectly valid stance) why not just say that? What does the generator have to do with it?

Some corroboration is offered by the setup of the 470kW plant. It had an elaborate system of hot pipes, running water with flow meters, hydrogen inputs etc. There was at least a bare minimum 'show' of a large steam device. Why else would you feel forced to keep mentioning the generator?

Originally posted by yampa
Pictures of what?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Of "e-cat". I think there were some in my previous links.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thermoelectric generators, including Peltier, are absolutely common place and mass-produced. For God's sake, this is 19th century technology. Don't even try to make it look like it's high tech. You can buy it off-shelf.

But not common enough for you to recognise when others are talking about them? Even when prompted to check your mistake?

Existing devices offer 5% heat to electrical power conversion. Rossi's proposal and apparently successful initial test at a university lab was for a 20% conversion. Engineering a new highly efficient material composition and putting it in a working package could take several years of R&D, easy.

If you don't think that represents cutting-edge technology, perhaps you should have a word with the Pentagon? The US taxpayer paid for that failure and many thousands of others.

Originally posted by yampa
Then why have you mentioned the generator several times in every thread about this device?

because it is a possible source of power - a fact that you keep denying as you just want to believe a convicted fraudster for some reason.

Why do you believe a convicted fraudster?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by yampa
Then why have you mentioned the generator several times in every thread about this device?

because it is a possible source of power - a fact that you keep denying as you just want to believe a convicted fraudster for some reason.

Why do you believe a convicted fraudster?

A 'possible source of power' for what? The generation of steam? I thought there was no steam? Please attempt some consistency. If there is steam, how was the heat put into the water?

And where have I said I believe Rossi? I believe in electromagnetic properties of nanoparticles, because there is mountains of evidence to support it. The potential for them being used to amplify power is plausible imo, if speculative and not yet proven. The other researchers gunning for this same mechanism is somewhat indicative - Steven Krivit's pal Brian Ahern being one.

I also think the 470kW test was a nice show. I believe it to be above simply faking the data in the October 28th report. And so do you, apparently, otherwise you wouldn't keep going on about the generator.

The Petroldragon case does not worry me as far as Rossi's reputation as an engineer is concerned. It didn't look like a trick to simply scam money out of people imo. Did he profit from it in the end?
Petroldragon looked like a debacle part caused by Rossi's over-ambition, part caused by Italian official's bureaucracy. But oil from garbage - that would be a cool idea if you could pull that off?

Like the 20% efficient peltier he was contracted by the US military to design in 2004 - a good idea if he'd been able to take it from prototype to production.

I haven't been able to find anything definite written about the gold thing. Just some terribly written Italian newspaper article and lots of hearsay. I saw some speculation that this was to do with extracting particulate gold out of waste steam? If that's the case, then this is another feather in Rossi's engineering hat, in my eyes. I really don't give a crap about Italian gold importation regulations.

Originally posted by yampa
The Petroldragon case does not worry me as far as Rossi's reputation as an engineer is concerned.

What reputation as a engineer? What makes you think he is an engineer?

Where exactly did he get his engineering degree from?

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by yampa
The Petroldragon case does not worry me as far as Rossi's reputation as an engineer is concerned.

What reputation as a engineer? What makes you think he is an engineer?

Where exactly did he get his engineering degree from?

His reputation in my eyes as a technically skilled individual. I've no idea if he has a degree or not, and it does not concern me either way.

I note you avoid all technical questions yourself, yet again. Would you really be able to tell if an engineering degree was worth the paper it was written on? I have yet to see you act in any way other than mindlessly pointing fingers like a zombie

Originally posted by yampa
I have yet to see you act in any way other than mindlessly pointing fingers like a zombie

Actually you are the one mindlessly pointing fingers, ignoring all the facts that show the e-cat does not work as claimed, you just blindly believe a fraudster!