tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post7774195557215231172..comments2024-03-27T21:35:04.988-07:00Comments on EGO OUT: LEAN LENR RESEARCH Georgina Popescuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04628821029016016988noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-11463607651772030322014-12-30T08:42:04.935-08:002014-12-30T08:42:04.935-08:00I want to emphasize the need for safety. Anyone th...I want to emphasize the need for safety. Anyone thinking of running this experiment should read the MSDS for LiAlH4, and remember Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will. The material, when heated, releases quite a lot of hydrogen. The pressure inside the device will go high. I've seen some very large numbers, but what seemed like a decent calculation said 50 atmospheres, I think that was without the expansion from heat. So be ready for the thing to explode if heated. The Parkhomov apparatus seems reasonably safe, and could be made safer. The danger would be from shrapnel from the device itself, I think. If it is at operating temperature, the hydrogen would ignite, but not explosively (because no oxidizer is mixed with it until it's in the air), it would simply burn.Abd ulRahman Lomaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14566271926809161923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-45929821442711695962014-12-30T08:33:55.137-08:002014-12-30T08:33:55.137-08:00There is a very simple reason: alumina has been us...There is a very simple reason: alumina has been used and it obviously works. When one has replicated, when one can see the effect at will, then it is completely in order to try to improve it. That's going to happen.<br /><br />This was classic in cold fusion, the entire Japanese effort with MITI, millions of dollars of investment, was largely wasted because they decided to "improve" the experiment by using very pure palladium. By eliminating the mess -- and the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was very messy -- they eliminated the effect, based on a theory that pure = better. An untested theory, that they tested at great expense.<br /><br />No, start out by testing something with positive results already. If you can't reproduce those results, there is little basis for thinking you can do better. But maybe you can. You are essentially starting over.<br /><br />At this point, we are looking at cheap and available materials. The only difficulty is obtaining LiAlH4, particularly in the U.S., because, as a very strong reducing agent, it's apparently popular with clandestine drug labs. That strength as a reducing agent probably cleans the nickel, radically. But we don't really know what's important. What Parkhomov showed was a test of the *material,* and it worked.<br /><br />On the face of it, this should be completely and readily reproducible. This is not like the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, where F&P spent five years trying to get the thing to work more reliably, where very difficult electrochemistry was involved, where the materials were expensive and the effect was still chaotic and very difficult to reproduce.<br /><br />In this case, Parkhomov is not a simple original experiment. It is to some degree, a confirmation of the Lugano report. But Lugano was shrouded in secrecy and the Lugano researchers, as Peter pointed out, were incommunicative. They may, in fact, have an actual agreement to be incommunicative, it's easy to imagine. ("We will not talk about this except collectively in print.")<br /><br />Parkhomov is communicative, and disclosed enough of the work in his report that it *should be* easy to confirm, at least in part. At this point, I suggest not wasting time arguing with pseudoskeptics. Genuine skepticism is completely appropriate. We can point out what is missing. At this point, however, the preponderance of the evidence has shifted.<br /><br />We could be disappointed. There could be some unanticipated artifact. The real Parkhomov might be on an extended vacation somewhere and the source of the report is an inventive, bright, and fun-loving teenager sitting in his mother's basement somewhere.<br /><br />But I don't think so.Abd ulRahman Lomaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14566271926809161923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-25765649355701431812014-12-30T02:13:24.788-08:002014-12-30T02:13:24.788-08:00Dear Ecco,
In this case ill-willed skeptics are n...Dear Ecco,<br /><br />In this case ill-willed skeptics are not a term in the equation. Replications will come - exponential development. <br />There are huge energies at the play, so safety first!<br /><br />As regarding MFMP I know them, they are no more apprentices,<br />learning fast good team. Bill Gates could mke a better investment giving them money.<br />MFMP will solve this problem.<br />However it is a bit of pre-test optimization necessary for the Parkhomov method.<br /><br />Peter<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-41259687016364175212014-12-30T01:52:07.816-08:002014-12-30T01:52:07.816-08:00@Peter: my question to "anonymous" was m...@Peter: my question to "anonymous" was more or less rhetorical. I knew too that to evaporate 1kg of water at boiling temperature you have to deliver 2257kJ of additional heat. Skeptics however say no, that is wrong, we have instead to take into account steam wetness or that value could be overestimated by up to a factor of 6. I assumed this would be true if we were measuring collected/condensed steam mass only. However in our (Parkomov's and maybe soon MFMP) case we're only looking at the water mass difference inside the boiling container caused by evaporation over a certain amount of time. <br /><br />We don't care about steam quality because most of the water (except for a small part, around 10% by mass, due to entrainment) leaving an open boiling container does it by evaporation, anyway. To evaporate water already at boiling temperature we indeed need 2257kJ per Kg (under standard conditions). That is, unless skeptics are claiming that most of the water leaves a boiling pot in liquid form, which be a most unexpected phenomenon contradicting my everyday experience with cooking. However, I'm open to learning new things.<br /><br />As for MFMP --- successful and peer reviewed excess heat replication first. Hopefully, optimizing will come next.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-18454595643361120102014-12-30T01:16:42.620-08:002014-12-30T01:16:42.620-08:00First question:
To evaporate 1kg water you have to...First question:<br />To evaporate 1kg water you have to deliver 2257kJ heat- to the water already hot<br />Think 2257kJ is 2257kWXseconds, you deliver it in 300 seconds<br />per second 2257/300= 7.5 kWatts<br /><br />Similarly you can calculate the heat for any quantity of water evaporated in any time.<br /><br />Parkhomov uses 500W at the peak, 2257= 0.5.time<br />Time for evaporating 1kg water is 4514 second i.e. 1.25 hours.<br />Water evaporated per hour is 0.797 kg without the internal heat source from the reactor. With the reactor it is 1.8 kg/hour..<br /><br />What MFMP has to do? The system has to be optimized as Dennis Cravens has optimized CETI in 1995, I wrote about this <br />yesterday- I also can tell them in detail- simple technical common sense.<br />Peter Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-89865029436252903142014-12-30T00:57:10.585-08:002014-12-30T00:57:10.585-08:00Why not use Magnesia instead of Alumina? It's ...Why not use Magnesia instead of Alumina? It's more heat tolerant but just as abundant and cheap.Amoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891697597391791744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-51419003101969110762014-12-30T00:43:09.960-08:002014-12-30T00:43:09.960-08:00@Peter: ok, so if the MFMP were to use the same ca...@Peter: ok, so if the MFMP were to use the same calorimetry as Parkhomov did, to be conservative they would have to compute a 90% steam dryness with an added +/- 5% error margin, correct?<br /><br />My nickname is only coincidentally related with the topic discussed in this blogpost, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-43608400545183667212014-12-30T00:38:13.529-08:002014-12-30T00:38:13.529-08:00@Anonymous: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/...@Anonymous: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-much-energy-is-needed-to-evaporate-1-liter-of-water-in-5-minutes.399908/<br /><br />Is explanation this wrong? If yes, can you explain how one can calculate how much energy is needed to evaporate a known amount water in a known amount of time? That is the calculation Parkhomov did. He didn't take into account steam entrainment, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-27403946180689411602014-12-30T00:34:47.306-08:002014-12-30T00:34:47.306-08:00congrats for your chosen nickname, you must be sma...congrats for your chosen nickname, you must be smart- linguistically in any case!<br />re the question absolutely yes; and with a simple droplet retainer i.e. a sieve in/over those holes where steam escapes you can decrease the wetness of steam even more<br />si, carissime!<br /><br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-89184933562585478682014-12-30T00:17:21.983-08:002014-12-30T00:17:21.983-08:00Hi Peter. Hopefully you can answer. What is the ty...Hi Peter. Hopefully you can answer. What is the typical entrainment range of steam for open containers of boiling water at standard pressure? Would 10% +/- 5% (=> 90% +/- 5% steam dryness by mass) be realistic? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-12881022335571241922014-12-30T00:14:06.284-08:002014-12-30T00:14:06.284-08:00This re. ignorance is and is not true. At exams, p...This re. ignorance is and is not true. At exams, professors take advantage from your ignorance and declare you have failed.\Your quotation is out of context- who, exactly is ignorant?<br />Parkhomov's calorimetry has maximum +/- 8% error limits and any curious individual can prove this in the kitchenwith a minimum of fantasy.<br />PeterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-56616999692655560702014-12-29T23:55:41.467-08:002014-12-29T23:55:41.467-08:00Ignorance is a bliss.Ignorance is a bliss.tyyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05296030725193206870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-27768348002969289002014-12-29T19:28:45.789-08:002014-12-29T19:28:45.789-08:00Nice write-up Peter, thank you.
At least Parkhomo...Nice write-up Peter, thank you.<br /><br />At least Parkhomov has a name and a face and the courage to stand up. Anonymous, please point us to some papers you have published so they may be critiqued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-9264718891742868922014-12-29T19:07:28.096-08:002014-12-29T19:07:28.096-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-61493877359993176382014-12-29T12:40:42.661-08:002014-12-29T12:40:42.661-08:00If you read this:
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-co...If you read this:<br /><br />http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Lugano-Confirmed.pdf<br /><br />... you will find that there is no blank run and no calibration with the electric heater and no fuel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-52873680721073411572014-12-29T09:52:37.244-08:002014-12-29T09:52:37.244-08:00I bet with you he had calibrated the system, and a...I bet with you he had calibrated the system, and actually it is in use for other energy measurements from ages. <br />At the peak energy 500 W leads to an hourly loss of about 800 grams<br />and with the reactor working the loss at 500W the loss was 1800g/hour.Not considering the heat loss through insulation.<br />The steam entrains some droplets of water- 5-10%, these can be retained with a simple sieve.<br />Such an error is impossible.<br /><br />Be so kind and<br />a)find a cure for your gaseous hydrophobia;<br />b) do not consider that those who do not agree with you are idiots<br /> If you are honest you can easily reproduce this experiment with an electric heater in your kitchen.<br /><br />Peter<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-326167780677397310.post-18563001149260610642014-12-29T09:23:58.845-08:002014-12-29T09:23:58.845-08:00Peter, it is nonsense. Pakhomov assumes that the ...Peter, it is nonsense. Pakhomov assumes that the steam evolved is dry and bases his calculations on that. He is either making fun of Rossi or he is ignorant about physics and calorimetry. The steam is not dry when you boil water at atmospheric pressure -- it is mostly droplets with a small amount of vapor, hence it is visible as white clouds of material. Dry steam is completely transparent and invisible. This error accounts for a COP up to 6 and is described here:<br /><br />http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf<br /><br />Pakhomov could have easily calibrated his system by running a reactor without fuel and electrical power input only. He didn't.<br /><br />The whole report is a joke. Or it should be. I am constantly amazed by how amateurish and incompetent so-called investigators of LENR are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com