Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water, decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

[Rich Murray-2]

Levi's interpretation of the two Rossi demos does not hold water,
decisive critique by Joshua Cude: Rich Murray 2011.02.08

Why didn't I see this, right in my face for three weeks?

I really wanted the dream to be true, after 22 years...

"3. If the flow rate measurement is accepted, and that could have been
made much more definitive, then less than 1 kW is being produced by
the reactor.
This could easily be explained by a hydrogen reaction; combustion
would require only a few tens of grams of hydrogen.
Considering that the measurement of the hydrogen consumption was
almost confounded by a piece of tape, hiding a 30-g change in 14 kg
would not have been difficult."

This makes  more reasonable my suggestions that hidden heat sources
may include H2 leaks leading to reaction with O2, Ni, Cu, Cr, Fe
(stainless steel), as well as leaks leading to diversion of electric
heating power from the resisters to heat the cooling water and any
unexpected conductive paths from deposits from electrochemical
corrosion, along with electrolysis of H2O into H2 and O2 -- a hidden
witch's brew of complex processes at 100s of degrees C and 80 bar
pressure for hours, days, weeks, months...

It may well be that Rossi and Focardi and others involved have simply
been mistaken.

Rich Murray

[H-Ni_Fusion] Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water

from joshua.cude <[hidden email]>
reply-to [hidden email]
to [hidden email]
date Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:15 AM
subject [H-Ni_Fusion] Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not
hold water
mailing list <H-Ni_Fusion.yahoogroups.com>
3:15 AM (6 hours ago)

Levi's interpretation of the Rossi demo does not hold water

* What is observed:

The temperature of the output fluid begins at about 15C, and increases
over a period of about 1/2 an hour to near 100C (101.6 is claimed),
and then remains at that temperature for another 30 to 40 minutes.
According to the figure in Levi's report, the *average* input power
during the plateau was about 1 kW, not 400 W as has been frequently
quoted.

* What is claimed by Levi:

Given the flow rate, and the temperature change, the amount of power
transferred to the water before boiling at say 99C is about 1.2 kW.
One minute later, when the temperature reads 101.6C, Levi claims the
water is all being vaporized, meaning the power transferred is more
than 10 kW.
So, although it took 30 minutes to increase from zero to 1.2 kW, he
expects us to believe it takes only one minute or so to increase
8-fold to 10 kW.
When it reaches the necessary power transfer to vaporize all the
water, the increase stops abruptly;
5% more power would increase the temperature of the steam by 60C.

* Why it doesn't hold water:

1. Presumably, the H-Ni system is not aware of what is happening
inside the conduit, so the notion that at the exact moment the
temperature hits boiling, its power output would increase 8-fold is
not believable.
Even less believable is the notion that it would stop increasing
exactly when the water is all converted to steam, and not a per cent
more.
How could the nickel know?

No, the fact that the temperature becomes constant over a long time
period should be taken as strong evidence that the phase change is not
complete, and therefore that the actual power transfer is not known.

2. The only way to increase the power delivered to the water, assuming
the flow rate is constant, is to increase the temperature of the
conduit.
Before boiling the power increases about 1 kW in 30 minutes, so you
might expect an additional kW or so over the next 30 minutes, which on
average would amount to less than 2 kW during the plateau.

3. In test 2, the temperature is not pinned at the plateau during the
entire period, and in fact, about half-way through, briefly drops by a
few degrees, suggesting that on the plateau, power is only slightly
above the level needed to heat the water to boiling.
Otherwise, if the power is really 10 kW just before and after this
dip, then the power would have to decrease 8-fold and then increase
8-fold in a matter of minutes.
The heat capacity of the conduit would make this impossible.

* What would make 10 kW believable:

If the power transfer to the water increases at a continuous rate, the
output fluid temperature will increase to boiling over a time period,
and then remain at (or near) boiling for about 7 times that time
period, and then increase to higher temperatures.
When the temperature increases substantially above boiling (>110C),
you can be reasonably sure that the steam is dry.

So, to believe the 10 kW claim, the temperature should be increased to
110C or higher.
If Levi's interpretation were correct, and all the water was converted
to steam, then a slightly lower water flow would cause the temperature
to increase rapidly.
And yet, even though the flow rates in the two tests were quite
different, the temperature was exactly the same -- amazingly, near the
boiling point.

* What is probably happening:

1. The claim of dry steam is not credible, and certainly not from the
moment the fluid hits 100C.
When boiling begins, the turbulent flow of rapidly escaping steam and
boiling water is likely to produce a steam/mist mixture.
Whatever the "air quality monitor" measured, this claim requires more
than a pronouncement to be believed.

2. Looking at the shape of the temperature curve in test 2, assuming a
smooth variation of the power transfer, suggests that at most the
power increases by a factor of 2 during the plateau, giving an average
power output during the plateau of less than 2 kW.
The input was briefly reduced to 400 W in test 2, and that seems to
correspond to the dip in temperature below 100C, consistent with this
interpretation.

3. If the flow rate measurement is accepted, and that could have been
made much more definitive, then less than 1 kW is being produced by
the reactor.
This could easily be explained by a hydrogen reaction; combustion
would require only a few tens of grams of hydrogen.
Considering that the measurement of the hydrogen consumption was
almost confounded by a piece of tape, hiding a 30-g change in 14 kg
would not have been difficult.
If the reaction were nuclear, then less than 1 mg hydrogen would be
needed, and a connection to a hydrogen bottle would have been
completely unnecessary.

Extending this experiment to 24 hours would not make nuclear activity
any more believable.

Now, if it were run for 24 hours, without electricity or hydrogen
connections, with output steam at 150C, and a flow rate easily
observable by emptying a large reservoir, and open to scientists who
are on record as skeptics, and willing to monitor the experiment
continuously, then they may win over some converts.
Good luck with that.

And I don't see why asking for energy that exceeds the device's weight
in the best chemical fuel by 10 or 100 times should be such a tall
order.
Advocates repeatedly remind us that the reactions have a million times
the energy density of chemistry.
They have a factor of 10,000 left over.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org