Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

I'm always hesitant to line up behind Starving Steve, but in this case he isn't so far off the mark.

This is obvious but is worth saying: if this Rossi device and this technology is for real, it's the end of the solar and wind power industries. I would not make any significant investments in that sector until the Rossi device is proven to be a fraud.

(Of course it's also the end of the conventional nuclear power industry and probably the coal and natural gas industries too...maybe only oil will remain a significant competitor since it provides highly-concentrated fuel for transportation. Just my speculations.)

[Starving Steve]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Can you produce some refs to back this statement up?

Wikipedia says

"The solar flux averaged over just the sunlit half of the Earth's surface is about 680 W/m^2"


and

"Total Solar Irradiance upon Earth (TSI) was earlier measured by satellite to be roughly 1366 W/mē." I assume this is above the equator



Also 5.5 watts / hour is 5.5 J/s / hour. These units make no sense. It like saying your speed is 5.5 m/s /h - how fast would you be going?

Sorry, that was 5.5 watts per hour per square metre. I left the kids in school to calculate the number of square metres needed in a solar panel to generate one kwh.

I used the Wikepedia as a source. I searched for "langley, energy unit" in my Google search thingy.

The Sun's flux of solar energy is 11.6 watts per square metre per hour at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. The measurement is 2.0 calories per square metre per hour at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. At the surface of the Earth, the measurement is closer to 1.0 calories per square metre per hour, give or take, at 45 degrees N or S from the Equator. So that means 5.5 watts per sq. metre per hour of energy flux, give or take..... And that is the best case.

Now, let me check to see that the 11.6 watts / m^2 is per hour or per minute. Being a moron, I often make mistakes. I'll be back in a jiffy...........

Yes, the Wikipedia reads that 11.622 watt-hours / square metre is the strength of the Sun's energy flux at the orbit of Earth at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. So it would appear that I am correct, unless the Wikipedia is in error.

The mistake that the solar engineers have made is to think that solar panels are like plants--- and have all of the time in the world to capture solar energy. But solar-electric doesn't quite work that way. Plants are very good at just standing around and doing nothing except for making food to eat; i.e, plants are very good at capturing solar energy with their branches and leaves.

Solar greenhouses are not like solar-electric either. Greenhouses are very good at trapping energy and making heat, but this is not so with solar panels. Stalin had wheat grow in the arctic inside greenhouses during WWII, for example, but to generate electricity from the Sun's radiation in the arctic (or at lower latitudes on Earth) is a whole different story. You need power, not a reserve of energy, but an actual flow of energy delivered on a wire, commonly known as electric power.

[c1ue]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

I think it's a little more than "Rossi talks a good talk and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt." It's more like "I have examined the test apparatus and the measuring devices and have done the math, and there is no way that a chemical reaction can explain this much heat being generated from this small a volume of material. In our judgment this must be a nuclear reaction."

Actually, it is exactly that.

There has been a great deal of very close examination of the devices and test apparatus, both from the video footage and in person.

In every case, the positive reactions were ones without actual numbers or data, while the negative ones had numbers and data.

For example:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/...ardi-and-levi/

The primary validity of the E-Cat trio’s dramatic energy claim is highly contingent on and derived from the heat output which they calculate indirectly from a claimed full or near-full vaporization of 100-degree water to steam. Complete vaporization of 100-degree water into steam requires the complete absence of suspended water droplets in steam.

The water droplets suspended in the steam may be measured on a volumetric, or possibly, on a mass basis. The difference is crucial, because a measurement by mass has a linear effect on the output enthalpy, and a measurement by volume has more of an exponential effect.

Volumetrically, a mere five percent of water in steam reduces the vaporization enthalpy to a trivial level. Even one percent of water in the steam will make a major reduction in the Rossi-Focardi-Levi claims.

My full report will include a detailed assessment of their methodology, and, as much as they will provide, their data.

The steam and/or water that comes immediately out of the E-Cat is hidden from sight because the outlet from the E-Cat goes directly to a three-meter black rubber hose, which then feeds into a drain in the plumbing system.

On my request Tuesday, Rossi removed the hose from the drain. Before doing so, he carefully lifted the last meter of the hose above the height of the drain, allowed any water in it to flow down the drain for a few seconds, and then removed the hose from the drain, keeping the open end pointed up. I could see some white steam slowly exiting from the hose. He said he had to put it back in the drain quickly, after a few seconds, otherwise it could be dangerous.

Thus far, the scientific details provided by the E-Cat trio have been highly deficient and have not enabled the public to make an objective evaluation. The Essen-Kullander report, while written with confident-sounding language, has significant weakness in its presentation of data and calculations and is highly constrained by the methodology dictated and instrumentation provided by the E-Cat trio.

I discussed the crucial difference in steam enthalpy calculations by mass versus by volume with Levi on Wednesday afternoon. Based on his initial response, I could not be sure if he had previously understood the potential impact.

By the end of our conversation, after I showed him my calculations which displayed one to two orders of magnitude less enthalpy if the measurements had been made volumetrically, he assured me that the measurements had been measured by mass.

I requested and strongly encouraged him to be absolutely sure, and if necessary, get back to me in a week with a correction to his Jan. 21 report. I also asked him if he would be willing to provide me with a copy of Galantini’s steam humidity report from the Jan. 14 experiment by next Wednesday. Levi agreed to my request.

The point in what Mr. Krivit is writing above is very cogent: the assumption of generated energy is highly dependent on a series of variables which have not been nailed down, even disregarding the mechanics of the Rossi device.

There are numerous other inconsistencies such as Mr. Rossi personally holding a pipe in which supposed 100 degree steam was condensed into water.

Try that at home with a kettle and a rubber pipe.

EDIT: looking through further work by Krivit, even ignoring the angry ad hominem responses to the very balanced article above, I came across this interview by Mr. Krivit of one of the 'big names' noted above:

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/...ven-kullander/

Steven B. Krivit: When you looked at Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer, did you have the opportunity to see the output directly from the outlet on the E-Cat or was the hose always attached to the outlet?

Sven Kullander: There is a valve on the top that was open and we checked that the steam came out.

Krivit: Was the hose connected to the outlet at the same time you checked the steam?

Kullander: Yes.

Krivit: Do you know if the steam dryness was measured by volume or by mass?

Kullander: I think it was measured by volume but I’m not sure.

Krivit: What makes you think it was measured by volume?

Kullander: Because I don’t see any mass involved, there is just volume quantities. It was a measuring gauge that was inserted inside. I could not see how that could be a mass measurement.

Krivit: If you don’t mind, can I ask who paid for your travel expenses?

Kullander: Rossi.

Hmmm!

[bungee]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Yes, the Wikipedia reads that 11.622 watt-hours / square metre is the strength of the Sun's energy flux at the orbit of Earth at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. So it would appear that I am correct, unless the Wikipedia is in error.

From this wikipedia page which I assume is the one you are using

The langley (Ly) is a unit of energy distribution over area. It is used to measure solar radiation (or insolation). The unit was named after Samuel Pierpont Langley (1834-1906) in 1947
and

In SI units, one langley is 41840.00 J/mē (or joules per square metre).
In more common units, one Langley is 11.622 watt-hours per square metre.


No where on this page does it say what the solar flux is. It says that The Langly is a unit that can be used to measure energy distribution over area such as solar radiation. This is just the same as saying the troy oz is a unit to measure weight and can be used to measure gold. You can't infer the the solar flux from this page.

If you're using a different wikipedia page or if what I've written is not clear let me know and I will try to explain itr better.

I'm with NASA and this wikipedia page

"Total Solar Irradiance upon Earth (TSI) was earlier measured by satellite to be roughly 1366 W/mē."

[dcarrigg]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Also 5.5 watts / hour is 5.5 J/s / hour. These units make no sense. It like saying your speed is 5.5 m/s /h - how fast would you be going?

Yes, bungee, watts/hour might be a useful measure for describing change in power over time. This is similar to how acceleration measures change in velocity over time. One could take the integral for a given distance to approximate how fast you were going.

That being said, such a unit would be of no use whatsoever in the case of a solar plant, unless one was to speak of the lead time for 'ramping up' from night to high noon or some other such matter that was concerned with the change in power over time.

The measure commonly used for output would be a multiple of watt-hours (energy). The system would be sold with a capacity (power) measured in a multiple of watts (kilowatts/megawatts etc). Change in power output over time would be measured in a multiple of watts per hour.

In summation:

1 watthour = 3,600 joules = energy
[equivalent to distance in the car example]
1 watt = 1 joule/second = power
[equivalent to velocity in the car example]
1 watt/hour = 1/3600 joules/second^2 = change in power over time
[equivalent to acceleration in the car example]

Most people are concerned chiefly with a multiple of watthours [just like distance, you want to know how far the car will get you, not necessarily how fast it will get you there]. Someone with a piece of industrial machinery with a heavy draw would be concerned with watts - that is power - since they need to 'get up enough speed' to get the thing running. Only a power-plant or grid would be concerned with watts/hour (how fast can we get the diesel generators online to feed the grid to accomodate peak load etc?)

[Starving Steve]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Yes, bungee, watts/hour might be a useful measure for describing change in power over time. This is similar to how acceleration measures change in velocity over time. One could take the integral for a given distance to approximate how fast you were going.

That being said, such a unit would be of no use whatsoever in the case of a solar plant, unless one was to speak of the lead time for 'ramping up' from night to high noon or some other such matter that was concerned with the change in power over time.

The measure commonly used for output would be a multiple of watt-hours (energy). The system would be sold with a capacity (power) measured in a multiple of watts (kilowatts/megawatts etc). Change in power output over time would be measured in a multiple of watts per hour.

In summation:

1 watthour = 3,600 joules = energy
[equivalent to distance in the car example]
1 watt = 1 joule/second = power
[equivalent to velocity in the car example]
1 watt/hour = 1/3600 joules/second^2 = change in power over time
[equivalent to acceleration in the car example]

Most people are concerned chiefly with a multiple of watthours [just like distance, you want to know how far the car will get you, not necessarily how fast it will get you there]. Someone with a piece of industrial machinery with a heavy draw would be concerned with watts - that is power - since they need to 'get up enough speed' to get the thing running. Only a power-plant or grid would be concerned with watts/hour (how fast can we get the diesel generators online to feed the grid to accomodate peak load etc?)

Last time I checked, I need kilowatt-hours to turn my electric meter in East Sooke, British Columbia. Each kwh costs me about 8-cents of a beaver buck, a low rate because I am such an energy efficient person. My house is dark while I starve, but that is our new way of living to-day under eco-fraud tyranny in B.C.

A solar panel if the sun was shining in B.C--- and on the rare day it does--- could generate a maximum of 5.5 watt-hours per square metre, if the panel was 100% efficient. So that would mean that I need 182 square metres of solar panels to deliver one kwh of electricity and turn my electric metre backward. ( I would love that! )

Being a moron, I would think that 182 square metres would be something like 10 metres x 18 metres. I despise the metric system because it doesn't relate to the human-body of an old male like me. I have feet, so if my feet are about 12 inches long, that would sound to me like a walk of roughly 32.7 feet x 58.9 feet. Being a moron, I would think I would need to cover an area of 1926 square feet with solar panels that are 100% efficient to generate enough power to turn my electric meter by one kilowatt hour backward--- the way I would like it to go. Since my house is 1280 square feet in area, it would sound to me like I would have to cover my entire roof with solar panels and cover about the area of my septic field with solar panels as well.

This turning of my electric meter backward would only take place when my house is empty and the sun is shining in the middle of the day, in summer or late spring. But hey, maybe a beautiful log cabin covered completely by paper solar panels and a septic field covered completely by solar panels would be lovely? Maybe Rocky-the-Squirrel and Bullwinkle-the-Moose would be proud to look at this eye-sore?..... If not traditional Canadian, this would be very Ecotopian, i.e, very fitting for Ecotopia--- that new sub-nation of pot-heads and eco-frauds on the West Coast of North America.

My water heater would have to be off, my fridge would have to be off, all of my appliances would have to be off, no cedar-tree or pine-tree needles would be on my solar panels, and no birds would poop on my solar panels, and no deer would stand on top of my solar panels, nor poop on them.... Then, for a few hours in mid-day, on a rare clear and dry day in summer, I could turn my electric meter backward--- assuming my solar panels would be 100% efficient. I could actually save a few cents on my electric bill. Instead of maybe $80 per month, my bill would be $79.75 per month.... Maybe that one moose-quarter would force British Columbia Hydro to go bankrupt from lost revenue.

[Jam]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

The Sun's flux of solar energy is 11.6 watts per square metre per hour at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. The measurement is 2.0 calories per square metre per hour at the top of the Earth's atmosphere.

Wrong. Let's see just how wrong. Per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation, at the top of Earth's atmosphere, the average solar radiation is
1,366 W/m^2 (watts per square meter)
= 3600*1366 J/h/m^2 (joules per hour per square meter) = 4,917,600 J/h/m^2
Now, 4.2 J = 1 cal (approximately). So,
4,917,600 J/h/m^2 = 1,170,857 cal/h/m^2
i.e. more than one million calories per square meter per hour.
Steve, you are off by six orders of magnitude, dude. It's like confusing $1,000,000 with $2 in your pocket.
This is in addition to the units confusions pointed out by bungee and dcarrigg.

[ASH]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

A solar panel if the sun was shinning in B.C, and on the rare day it does, could generate a maximum of 5.5 watt-hours per square metre, if the panel was 100% efficient. So that would mean that I need 182 square metres of solar panels to deliver one kwh of electricity and turn my electric metre backward. ( I would love that! )

I think those guys are trying to tell you that your starting figure for surface solar irradiance is wrong.

East Sooke is at about 48-deg 22-min North latitude.

There's a nifty calculator here, at the bottom of the page that is linked, that will give you the maximum energy (in kWh / m² per day) as a function of the day of the year, latitude, and the angle of the surface (e.g. flat on the ground, or tilted to face the sun). It looks like you're at between 1 - 10 kWh / m² per day, for a panel flat on the ground, depending upon what day of the year it is, and more like 3 - 10 kWh / m² per day if you tilted the panel at 48 degrees to face south. Of course, that's for no clouds, and an impossible-to-achieve-with-silicon conversion efficiency of 100% (the Shockley-Queisser limit being about 29% for a single-junction silicon solar cell).

[Jam]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Instead of maybe $80 per month, my bill would be $79.75 per month.... Maybe that one-quarter would force British Columbia Hydro to go bankrupt from lost revenue.

Given that you were off by a factor of ~500,000 in your solar radiation estimate, that $0.25 savings per month you estimate here translates to $125,000 per month. I'd say it is a sizable chunk of cash. Even if you allow for 2% overall efficiency of your solar panels (considerable underestimate), it gives you $2500 income per month. Not too shabby, I think.
Please, teacher, stop confusing the kids.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

As a PSA, I wrote this little bit. It would be useful for people to know the following before engaging in a debate about energy using units:

1) Energy and Work are the same unit (J) - energy is just required for work to occur. Think of it like spending money. I need 1 Joule of energy to do 1 Joule of work (a sit-up for instance) just as I need one dollar to buy one dollar of goods (a candy bar).

2) Energy is like money and Work is like purchasing. You can say you have $1 or you spent $1 just like you can say you have 1J of energy or you did 1J of work.

3) Work is Force times Distance. It's not good enough to put a lot of effort in if the damn thing doesn't move. Energy is this effort stored.

4) A Watthour is nothing more than 3,600 Joules. Watthours and Joules are both units that can describe energy or work. A Watt is not comparable with a Joule. This is because a watt is a measure of power and not of energy. How does this work you ask?

5) It works because Power is Energy or Work over time. If Work is Force times Distance then Power is Force * Distance/Time. This means that Power is Force times Velocity. To be powerful is not just moving a thing, but doing so quickly. 1 Watt is therefore equivalent to 1 Joule/second.

6) Energy is Force * Distance
Power is Force * Velocity
Power ramp-up is Force * Acceleration
power ramp-up is concerned with the change in power output or consumption over time. It can be expressed in joules/second^2 or watts per hour. This is a measurement that is rarely used by those outside the utilities industry.

7) As you can see above, if you divide out force you have the familiar concepts of:
Distance
Velocity (speed)
Acceleration
You can think of this like a car. You wouldn't talk about how far you drove in miles per hour, would you? You would't talk about a 0-60 run in yards. It would be nonsense. The same is true with energy. You sound nuts when you don't get the difference between distance, speed and acceleration.

8) To summarize a bit:
1 watthour = 3,600 joules = energy
[equivalent to distance in the car example]
1 watt = 1 joule/second = power
[equivalent to velocity in the car example]
1 watt/hour = 1/3600 joules/s^2 = change in power
over time
[equivalent to acceleration in the car example]

9) If you read this far, you win. I'll entertain discussing this stuff with you. If you gave up, that's fine, I'll still talk in general terms. Just don't quote nonsense units at everyone. To bring the concept a little bit further, one can actually use calculus to relate these things. This can be done if you integrate and derive values in much the same way as one can with distance, velocity and acceleration.
The derivative of energy is power
The derivative of power is power ramp-up etc.
It works the same way. You may never use this, but it's key to realize that the units are related in the same way as the familiar ones of distance, velocity and acceleration.

10) If nothing else, leave the units out if you're confused. But I do think that the model of:

Distance is like Energy (Watthours)
Speed is like Power (Watts)
Acceleration is like Power Ramp-up (Watts/hour)

is a good way to prevent yourself from arguing vehemently about something along the lines of "The car will make it to Canada on a tank of gas because it can go 0 to 60 in 4 seconds."

[ASH]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Wait! Where's 2)?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Wait! Where's 2)?

I wanted there to be 10 so badly. 10 has authority - like Moses descending from Mt. Sinai. Now I just have 9. Nobody will believe 9.

...on second thought, it's nothing a little revisionist history can't fix.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

Given that you were off by a factor of ~500,000 in your solar radiation estimate, that $0.25 savings per month you estimate here translates to $125,000 per month. I'd say it is a sizable chunk of cash. Even if you allow for 2% overall efficiency of your solar panels (considerable underestimate), it gives you $2500 income per month. Not too shabby, I think.
Please, teacher, stop confusing the kids.

The online encyclopedia, the Wikipedia, reads that 11.622 watt-hours per square metre is the Langley unit of energy. The Earth has approximately 2 langleys per square metre of solar radiation outside the Earth's atmosphere in space, along the orbit of the Earth.

We measured the solar constant in St. Paul, Minn. in summer, and it was either side of 1 langley on clear and dry days, near solar noon. So, if I was wrong and the solar radiation on the surface of the Earth perpendicular to the Sun's radiation flux is 1 langley per square metre at 45 degrees North latitude, then the solar flux is 11.622 watt-hours per square metre. That is the figure in the Wikipedia, and being a moron, all that I know is what I read.

So, I take my kilowatt-hour of electricity and divide it by 11.622 watt-hours of radiation per square metre, and I end-up with 86 square metres of solar panels required per kwh. So, being anti-metric, I use square feet. I need 10m X 8.6m = 32.8 feet X
28.1 feet = 921 square feet of solar panels, all of which need to be 100% efficient. That solar panel unit would cover 72% of my roof, and the system would have to turn as the sun moves in the sky in order to keep the solar panels perpendicular to the Sun's radiation.

Therefore, my kwh system of solar panels would save me 8cents per hour or about 50cents per day, at most. And remember, due to the thickness of the Earth's atmosphere, most of the day--- like before 10AM and after 2PM (solar time)--- the Sun's radiation flux is negligible. About an hour before sunset and for about an hour after sunrise, you are actually losing more heat from the Sun than you are gaining.

OK, let's say two moose-quarters off of my electric bill, at most, and only for a sunny day in high-summer, with no pine needles or cedar branches falling onto my solar panels and with birds that don't poop on my panels. And then we have the small problem that your solar panels are not 100% efficient in converting sunlight into electricity, more like maximum 32% efficient. So that would cut into my profits. Also, the odd 300 foot-tall tree would block my sunlight a bit. The panels have to move with the sun in order to stay perpendicular to the sun.... But let's not get into those realities now.

Bottom-line is that solar panels are not going to pay for my cost of living, nor even put a dent into it, even in high-summer on clear days in East Sooke, BC..... Even if the birds are constipated, Starving Steve would starve.

[lektrode]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

As a PSA, I wrote this little bit. It would be useful for people to know the following before engaging in a debate about energy using units:
....
9) If you read this far, you win. I'll entertain discussing this stuff with you. If you gave up, that's fine, I'll still talk in general terms. ...
is a good way to prevent yourself from arguing vehemently about something along the lines of "The car will make it to Canada on a tank of gas because it can go 0 to 60 in 4 seconds."

thanks dc, as usual, you bring perspective to the discussion, while mr steve brings...
well... he does keep things entertaining, even as the jousts tween santafe & mr c1ue heat up

in any case, my 2 x 130w PV panels put out upwards of 230watts/hour at 13.0vdc, esp on the kinda cloudy days we get so frequently out this way = the 'edge of cloud effect' and have watched em krank out better than 18amps, when theres just a bit of rain blowing off the mountains, to cool off the glass a bit, they really perk up

[ASH]

Re: Rossi "cold fusion" device function confirmed by two Swedish scientists

The Earth has approximately 2 langleys per MINUTE of solar radiation outside the Earth's atmosphere in space, along the orbit of the Earth.

So, the solar constant (before atmospheric losses, etc.) is about 1.96 Langleys per minute... not per square meter. (From the link, scroll down to the entry from the McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia.)