See the E-cat run in self-sustained mode

Ny Teknik ^ | Sept 14 2011 | Mats Lewan

[Red Badger]

Don't feed the seagulls................

[cuban leaf]

—The electric power was then cut off and the E-cat continued to operate for 35 minutes without external energy input.—

Although I’m actually very interested and cautiously excited about the e-Cat stuff, if I may play devil’s advocate for a sec - A Leaf will do that.

[Wonder Warthog]

"...that much extra mass is not required to provide hidden power for such a short test, which implies there is some functional reason for the new design. The article doesn’t comment on that. Anyone else have a guess?"

To get the output up to 20KW per unit (1MW/52).

Having 20KW individual units makes the individual E-Cats "much" more interesting, as that's about the size needed to drive a home power system.

[Wonder Warthog]

"What a joke of a test."

There is a PDF at the NYTeknik site (link in story) that gives more details. Remember....this is a NEWS STORY, and even someone as technically astute as Mats Lewan has to leave some details out.

[thackney]

Thank you for that: http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3264365.ece/BINARY/Report+E-cat+test+September+7+%28pdf%29 In their measurements, they measured only the inputs to the system and made no reporting of the system outputs. Why in the world would any one consider that a test of a power generation system, regardless of the source of power?

They even state that in their results:

The energy calculation of this test has proven to be difficult. We had limited time to plan and perform the test, and analyzing the data we realize that we would have needed more data for a fair calculation.

I did a better job of system measurements for my high school science fair project (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion)

They measure the output water temperature, note it is a lesser volume than input but don't measure that flow rate, volume or the steam generated?

[Wonder Warthog]

"They measure the output water temperature, note it is a lesser volume than input but don't measure that flow rate, volume or the steam generated?"

Look a wee bit closer. They DID measure the output liquid water flow. And they know the total amount of water through the system from the initial weight of water, weight of water added, and water left in E-Cat at end of run.

I haven't run through any calcs yet (no time), but I'm sure someone on Vortex-L (probably Alan Fletcher) will do so.

I think the key point here is the steam temp (130C), which is well above the saturated steam point.

[thackney]

They have the total volume of the output water at the end, but the temperature varied at different points during the operation for T3. With the varying output, it isn't a measurement to just guess an average power output.

They stated themselves the data measurement was insufficient. In their results they have to use qualifying phrases like “power developed after boiling should have been approximately 3.8 kW”

They raised the temperature inside the device with a power input to the system prior to turning it off. At that point, they have stored energy.

They may really have something. It is so darn frustrating to see them leave out obvious stuff that wouldn't cost but a couple hundred dollars to monitor and record.

[Liberty1970]

True. I also realized after I posted that the additional size would not include equipment to convert heat to electricity, since (if I understand it right) it is only heat, not electricity, that needs to be maintained to keep the reaction going in self-sustaining mode.

[dangerdoc]

I don’t understand why he would need to keep adding heat to a nuclear heat machine.

In an unrelated note, Eestor is now two years late in releasing their prototype unit, about 5 years late from their initial promises. Europositron is about a decade late and being prosecuted for fraud.

Jed Rothwell was stating that there were working LENR water heaters back in the mid 90’s and that they would be available for retail soon.

This demonstration is not reassuring.

[aNYCguy]

I'm interested in how you and some other fans of Rossi and fringe science are going to respond when he doesn't revolutionize energy production in October, or even produce a single watt more economically than current methods. Can we talk about this? What's your exit plan? I see three obvious options for you when this doesn't materialize:

1. That you were just arguing on Rossi's behalf for fun, and since you never said the words "Rossi's machine will work" you weren't actually wrong about anything.

2. That Rossi is being suppressed by a conspiracy, and therefore you aren't wrong despite the fact that his machine appears not to work.

3. That you were wrong about Rossi, but a real cold fusion breakthrough is right around the corner so next time will be different.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I'm interested in how you and some other fans of Rossi and fringe science are going to respond when he doesn't revolutionize energy production in October, or even produce a single watt more economically than current methods.

"Ass-ume". Remember that?? I'm not a "fan" of Rossi or "fringe science". My position throughout has been “look at the data”, not speculation, not innuendo, and not knee-jerk “it’s a scam” responses. I have always maintained that it was POSSIBLE that it could be a scam, but based on the available data, it appears to be real.

The attendees at the demonstrations were neither partial nor incompetent. And I have the professional qualifications to judge the methods, the data, and the people.

Has it been validated to the point of scientific certainty...no. I await further developments on that. There “is” one datum that will convince me in Rossi's favor, and that is verification of the delivery of E-cats to the University of Upsala and the University of Bologna. If that happens, it cannot be a scam.

If it “is” a scam, it will turn out the be the Michaelanglo’s “David” of scams, and will probably go down in history as precisely that.

"Can we talk about this? What's your exit plan? I see three obvious options for you when this doesn't materialize:

"1. That you were just arguing on Rossi's behalf for fun, and since you never said the words "Rossi's machine will work" you weren't actually wrong about anything."

At no time have I "argued on Rossi's behalf". If I've argued for anything, it is the data.

"2. That Rossi is being suppressed by a conspiracy, and therefore you aren't wrong despite the fact that his machine appears not to work."

Whether Rossi has been "suppressed by a conspiracy", I neither know nor care. But "cold fusion" as a subject for research certainly HAS been "suppressed by a conspiracy" using the exact same tactics that the AGW promoters have used to suppress opposition. This is widely documented.

"3. That you were wrong about Rossi, but a real cold fusion breakthrough is right around the corner so next time will be different."

Wrong yet again. Do I believe the overall "cold fusion" phenomenon is real?? "You betcha". But not having a good crystal ball, I have no more way than you of knowing what will happen or be forthcoming from other CF/LENR/LANR researchers.

Now. Let me ask YOU. What will YOU and the rest of the seagulls do if Rossi's tech turns out to be real?? I expect "crickets".

[reed13]

“- The temperature inside the E-cat, which we assume is the steam temperature, reached over 130 degrees, while the pressure was probably about one atmosphere.

- The steam was invisible at the outlet indicating high steam quality.”

These two things mean nothing. Steam can be invisible without being high quality. You measure steam quality by the amount of water that has yet to be put into a gaseous form at “about one atmosphere”.

assuming the stated 135*C (=275*F) and 1 atmosphere = 14.696 lb/in^2 absolute, then steam tables indicate about 29.5 degrees of superheat at 275*F. Constant superheated steam at one atmosphere isn’t reached until around 320*F. that’s what is needed for steam turbines in order to limit long term damage to the blades/fins.

It’s been so long since I’ve used my tables, I’m having trouble calculating the vapor content at those numbers...the tools are there why don’t people use them...

[Kevmo]

if I may play devil’s advocate for a sec - A Leaf will do that.
***You mean an electric car, right?

That’s a classic apples & oranges comparison. When the Wright brothers were flying around in circles at Huffman Prairie, the press refused to publicize it because, after all, dirigibles had been doing that for years. The issue is the underlying technology and what its impact will mean. You don’t see a lot of dirigibles these days.

[Kevmo]

chirp chirp cricket

or is it “SQUAWK” for a seagull.

I like what Jed Rothwell said on Vortex, that he gets irritated by all these sideliners who are simply betting on failure. Failure is always a possibility, but these vulture-seagulls seem to get a perverse pleasure from it.

[Kevmo]

Rossi did a test a while back where there was no phase change, so the calculations were far simpler. I don’t know why he even bothers to generate steam. Just keep the water liquid, measure the temperature. This flamboyant side that Rossi exhibits is his biggest character defect and could cost him dearly.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Rossi did a test a while back where there was no phase change, so the calculations were far simpler. I don’t know why he even bothers to generate steam."

I think mostly because one of the markets he is targeting first is building heating. As I understand it from comments on another thread here, saturated steam (rather than superheated) is the best agent for that purpose. Superheated is desirable is you're planning to generate electricity.

[Kevmo]

I’m interested in how you and some other fans of Rossi and fringe science are going to respond when he doesn’t revolutionize energy production in October, or even produce a single watt more economically than current methods. Can we talk about this? What’s your exit plan?
***My plan all along has been to find a place to put my money where my mouth is, again. I’d love to have seagulls put their money where their mouth is. I have money in my pocket as a result of this approach. And all of this was before Rossi came on the scene.

The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al

How I Made Money from Cold Fusion
Saturday, January 23, 2010 12:28:49 PM · by Kevmo · 28 replies · 1,013+ views
Exclusive Article for Free Republic | 1/23/10 | Kevmo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2435697/posts

[aNYCguy]

I'll put you down for a combination of all three, then, with special emphasis on one. But I see that you're already attempting to wiggle out of a characterization as arguing "on Rossi's behalf." Of course, arguing that the data validates Rossi is exactly the definition of arguing on Rossi's behalf.

So that's what I'll see in October, then. But there are a couple incidental points you brought up that I'd like to address:

If it “is” a scam, it will turn out the be the Michaelanglo’s “David” of scams, and will probably go down in history as precisely that.

Not really. Rossi's scam hasn't been as successful yet as several other recent free energy scams including Blacklight Power and Steorn, which have operated for years on foolish investment dollars.

Now. Let me ask YOU. What will YOU and the rest of the seagulls do if Rossi's tech turns out to be real?? I expect "crickets".

Naw. I'll publically beg your forgiveness and declare that you're better at distinguishing fact from fiction if Rossi actually produces energy from nickel at an energy density of 517,000:1 that of oil. While I'm at it, let me just say that I'll also beg your forgiveness if scientists discover cave-dwelling unicorns made of pure light.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Of course, arguing that the data validates Rossi is exactly the definition of arguing on Rossi's behalf."

At this point, the available data "does" validate Rossi. What am I "supposed" to say...that it doesn't??? As an ethical scientist, I can't say anything else. Pointing this out is hardly "arguing on Rossi's behalf".

By the same token, and by that same ethical requirement, I also point out the shortcomings of the inaccurate critiques of his data, as well as the shortcomings of Rossi's data (lack of independent review). As Martin Luther said "Ich kann nichts anders".

If the data changes, my position will change with it.