Merged Cold Fusion Claims
- Thread starter JoelKatz
- Start date
-
- Tags
- andrea rossi cold fusion
- Status
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Sorry - you're right - I'm out by a factor of ten (I mentally went from cm to mm at one point of calculating the internal volume of the hose). So, the 28m/sec for my rough calc aligns nicely with Yevgen.
About that dry steam - you can't observe it as such because it's invisible. The wet stuff was going briskly, but the kettle cuts off once the boil is reached.
On a slightly tangential note, when I was on destroyers, the boilers generate 1275psi 1000F steam to drive the turbines. Unfortunately it meant that when a pipe developed a leak it became hot very quickly. Being dry steam, it was extremely challenging to track down the source of the leak but the rule was never to use your hands to feel for the leak as the fine jet of steam would slice off the inquiring appendage...
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
BTW, a signed contract is not proof; That is exactly the thing a swindler wants.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
If no steam was coming out at the end of the hose, it would necessaraly means it has condensed, and that has been excluded by Rossi himself so far as I understood. Which is why the calculation from Rossi's Number is so useful.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
BTW, if you want some background on perpetual motion/free energy machines and their long history, I suggest; http://www.amazon.com/Perpetual-motion-obsession-Arthur-Ord-Hume/dp/0760709262
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I prefer the D. Simanek web site : accessible and readily available for free if you want to interrest somebody into a bit :
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Thank you!!! Bookmarking that.
In which case you're agreeing with the rest of us that Rossi's measurements, and therefore the entire basis for all his claims, are completely meaningless, since he's the one who is relying on the claim that the only thing coming out of his hose is dry steam. If that's not actually the case, then every single claim he's made about how much power is produced is complete nonsense.
Yeah, that's not how it works. There's this little thing called the "burden of proof" you may have heard of, which lies squarely on the person making the claim. As you now agree, Rossi's claim simply does stand up to scrutiny, since the measurements he bases them on are nonsense. There's no need for anyone else to do any work at this point, it's just one among millions of unsupported claims. The only person who needs to do any work is Rossi - it's his claim, so he needs to provide the evidence. All we're doing here is pointing out that nothing he's done so far actually constitutes any kind of useful evidence.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Wow, the fact that you resort to such rhetoric again and again, may cause one to question your ability to make rational arguments.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Um, that is for Rossi to answer, why do you resort to these bizzare rhetorical arguments.
Why do you think Rossi is not using a still water bath and other standard tools of calorimetry?
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 3,477
Looking at the video I did some back-of-envelope calculations.
Water use is 7Kg/Hr which is just under 2g/S. The water temperature increase is 77K. As the specific heat capacity of water is 4.2J/g, we have 2 * 4.2 * 77 = 650W needed to produce that volume of temperature increase.
As to the steam volume, that's difficult, but let's guess at 100ml/S, after all the pipe's quite narrow, and it was puffing out, rather than jetting out. If it is a 5mm internal radius pipe, that's a velocity out the end of the pipe of 1.2m/S, and it looked less than that to me.
From my high school chemistry, I remember that 1 mole of gas is 22l at STP, and H20 is 18g/mole. .1 / 22 * 18 = 80mg of water. We're not at STP, so 1 mole will take more volume, so I'll have erred on the high side.
As the heat of evaporation is 2.2KJ/g, another 190W to evaporate that water, allowing the remaining water to be wet steam.
So that's a total energy use of about 840W, which is less that 10% more than the calculated input of 780W (he's presuming the input voltage). Given the error bars on all the numbers I've used, it just looks like an elaborate kettle.
Water use is 7Kg/Hr which is just under 2g/S. The water temperature increase is 77K. As the specific heat capacity of water is 4.2J/g, we have 2 * 4.2 * 77 = 650W needed to produce that volume of temperature increase.
As to the steam volume, that's difficult, but let's guess at 100ml/S, after all the pipe's quite narrow, and it was puffing out, rather than jetting out. If it is a 5mm internal radius pipe, that's a velocity out the end of the pipe of 1.2m/S, and it looked less than that to me.
From my high school chemistry, I remember that 1 mole of gas is 22l at STP, and H20 is 18g/mole. .1 / 22 * 18 = 80mg of water. We're not at STP, so 1 mole will take more volume, so I'll have erred on the high side.
As the heat of evaporation is 2.2KJ/g, another 190W to evaporate that water, allowing the remaining water to be wet steam.
So that's a total energy use of about 840W, which is less that 10% more than the calculated input of 780W (he's presuming the input voltage). Given the error bars on all the numbers I've used, it just looks like an elaborate kettle.
I hope we won't be eating crow after the Defkalion press conference tomorrow - when all will be revealed, in particular the "commercial issues that are of interest not only to Defkalion’s future customers, but also to the political society of our country" i.e. Greece, where commercial and political society would be only too happy to receive some consolation at the present time.
Kid Eager
Wow that sounds scary. It is interesting that such amazingly powerful jet of steam would be invisible! How loud was it?
Aepervius
My post was unclear. I was referring to the outcome of an experiment with a home kettle attached to a 4 meter hose. My comment was meant to convey the thought that a 4 meter hose might dissipate a significant portion of the 1.5kW of heat and that the steam would condense in the hose. Thus it would be impossible to measure the input power by observing the output.
Rossi is certainly not (nor would any professor of physics) measuring steam quality at the end of the 4 meter hose. The steam quality must be measured at the output of the device.
Dancing David
Why don't you call out the much more egregious use of useless rhetoric on the part of people who think the e-cat is a fraud?
Still water bath calorimetry is not a standard technique! Google it! Read a book about calorimetry! What examples can you provide where a device containing resistive heaters designed to produce steam was ever immersed in a still water bath?
Now google "steam quality by capacitance measurement". Which technique is more widely used? The experts that measured the output power of the device are not only good at what they do, but by endorsing the result publicly they are at risk of career suicide.
If the Rossi device is a fraud the scientific community will hound all the professors associated with the measurements to date out of their jobs. In science your credibility is everything. It is what you spend your whole career building. No scientist would ever endorse the Rossi result without extensive observation. Today Rossi announced an agreement with U of Bologna to conduct research on the device. Five professors are involved. The legacy of cold fusion is the destruction of the careers of many scientists, including one of the premier electrochemists that ever lived and the co-discoverer of quantum electrodynamics (which is the foundation of the standard model!). If cold fusion can take down these titans of science do you think anyone is keen to endorse something like this on the say so of a man of dubious pedigree? The fact that anyone with credibility is willing to go there is amazing.
A bunch of rhetoric about n-rays will likely now be posted. Let's see if you comment on it.
Wow that sounds scary. It is interesting that such amazingly powerful jet of steam would be invisible! How loud was it?
Aepervius
My post was unclear. I was referring to the outcome of an experiment with a home kettle attached to a 4 meter hose. My comment was meant to convey the thought that a 4 meter hose might dissipate a significant portion of the 1.5kW of heat and that the steam would condense in the hose. Thus it would be impossible to measure the input power by observing the output.
Rossi is certainly not (nor would any professor of physics) measuring steam quality at the end of the 4 meter hose. The steam quality must be measured at the output of the device.
Dancing David
Why don't you call out the much more egregious use of useless rhetoric on the part of people who think the e-cat is a fraud?
Still water bath calorimetry is not a standard technique! Google it! Read a book about calorimetry! What examples can you provide where a device containing resistive heaters designed to produce steam was ever immersed in a still water bath?
Now google "steam quality by capacitance measurement". Which technique is more widely used? The experts that measured the output power of the device are not only good at what they do, but by endorsing the result publicly they are at risk of career suicide.
If the Rossi device is a fraud the scientific community will hound all the professors associated with the measurements to date out of their jobs. In science your credibility is everything. It is what you spend your whole career building. No scientist would ever endorse the Rossi result without extensive observation. Today Rossi announced an agreement with U of Bologna to conduct research on the device. Five professors are involved. The legacy of cold fusion is the destruction of the careers of many scientists, including one of the premier electrochemists that ever lived and the co-discoverer of quantum electrodynamics (which is the foundation of the standard model!). If cold fusion can take down these titans of science do you think anyone is keen to endorse something like this on the say so of a man of dubious pedigree? The fact that anyone with credibility is willing to go there is amazing.
A bunch of rhetoric about n-rays will likely now be posted. Let's see if you comment on it.
Link requested. Thanks.
All I can find is this extremely laconic announcement of such an important event, at
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=22#comments
Response to a query about the application of the device to underfloor central heating:
Dear Jon Soderberg:
Yes, all of this is possible.
I think that something like this will be made in the R&D work of the University of Bologna (by the way: yesterday the research contract with the University of Bologna has been signed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=360&cpage=22#comments
Response to a query about the application of the device to underfloor central heating:
Dear Jon Soderberg:
Yes, all of this is possible.
I think that something like this will be made in the R&D work of the University of Bologna (by the way: yesterday the research contract with the University of Bologna has been signed.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I have said I am will ing to say WOW if it works as stated.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
My choice Crawdaddy has been asked specific question by me, to which he responded with rhetoric, rather than answers.
That is why.
I ignore a lot of rhetoric on both sides, Crawdaddy has refused to answer specific questions.
Wow, you could be educational...
tell me exactly how Rossi used any standard procedure?
Is his measurement of steam pressure standard? Is his measurement of steam produced standard?
I would like to know.
They way that they measured the dryness of the steam was under question way earlier in the thread.
Really?
Show me how exactly they used standard procedures for such a thing. I would like to learn if they did.
Did they use the standard methodologies?
More argument from authority rather than data.
It is not the observation which concerns me, it is the data.
So how exactly did they measure the heat energy transferred to the steam? Did they follow the standard methodologies?
More appeal to authority.
Why are you going to post in the threads in R&P, Politics and Social Issues and Current Events.
try teaching me about how Rossi did things right, that would be appeciated by me.
I ignore a lot of rhetoric most of the time.
try asking Crawdaddy what specific research there is that supports cold fusion.
Last edited:
- Status