|
⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents — Next Article ⇒
New Energy Times home page
Randall Investigation of Energy
Appendix 1 to New Energy Times Report #3
[Ed: Mitch Randall, an inventor and engineer from Boulder, Colorado, embarked on his own investigation of Andrea Rossi's device. There is much to learn from Randall's process, and we have elected to display the relevant parts of his e-mail communications and diagrams. Randall's investigation process was precise and thoughtful, as were his communications.
Highlights of his investigation include the following:
1. Swedish professor Hanno Essén's admission of a crucial and major assumption that he made when he evaluated Rossi's device.
2. Confirmation with Rossi of a crucial technical characteristic of his device.
3. Identification and explanation of a key factor in the Rossi device that could change the claimed results from extraordinary to mundane.]
From: Mitch Randall
To: Hanno
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 12:15 PM
Subject: Question regarding Rossi demonstration
Dr. Essen,
I am a researcher in the field of condensed matter nuclear science (CNMS). I read your report of the March 29 demonstration of the Rossi E-cat device. I hope you will take some time to answer a question I had.
I see that the inlet water flow rate was measured, and I see that the dryness of exit steam was also measured. It appears that the steam comes out of the top of the reactor, and then for operation, steam and water go out the hose attached to the side of the reactor.
My question is, Was the outlet steam flow rate measured? For example, by condensing steam only and measuring the weight of the resulting water? If not, how did you validate the assumption that all of the input water was converted to steam?
I would appreciate any information you can provide on this question.
Best regards,
Mitch
Mitch Randall, MSEE, MS Phys, Member IEEE
Boulder, CO
******************************
From: Hanno
To: Mitch Randall
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: Question regarding Rossi demonstration
Dr. Randall,
We have had a large number of questions on the flow of water and amount of steam. Unfortunately, time and resources did not allow us to check these things more carefully.
The pump was set to pump at a certain rate and was not adjusted. Since there was no other path for the water than straight through the device in a single hose-pipe-hose track, we concluded that all the water must become steam. The steam was checked by observation and appeared to be consistent with the water flow (order-of-magnitude-wise).
[Ed: What Essén meant by "hose-pipe-hose track" is that the water goes in from a hose, through a pipe, and comes out through another hose.]
I must also stress that our test must be seen in conjunction with the 18-hour test by Giuseppe Levi, which had better controls and had been set up with greater care and thought. Levi is an Italian physicist at the University of Bologna and is not otherwise associated with Rossi.
[Ed: There are major factual problems with this sentence, but they’re not Essén's fault.]
Hanno Essén
Docent Studierektor
KTH Mekanik
******************************
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Mitch Randall wrote:
Dr. Rossi,
I am a researcher in the field of CMNS. I am very impressed with your device, and I wish you the best in developing the 1MW plant. I hope you receive many riches and proper recognition for your achievement, which will change the world forever.
I hope you can take the time to answer a simple question about the reactor you displayed on 29/3/2011:
There is a valve on the top of the vertical column of the device, as well as a port on the side of the vertical column with a hose connected. Is the valve a means of seeing the steam and checking the dryness? Then, once checked, the valve is closed so the steam exits the hose?
I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond.
Best regards and best wishes in solving one of the planet's most important issues,
Mitch
******************************
From: "info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com" <info@journal-of-nuclear-physics.com>
To: Mitch Randall
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: One question, if you please.
Dear Prof. Mitch Randall:
Exactly.
Warm regards,
Andrea Rossi
******************************
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 22:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mitch Randall"
Subject: Dry/Wet distraction
To: "Steven Krivit"
Steven,
Please find below a brief communication between myself and Andrea Rossi on April 20.
I've been watching your Web page and reading the dialogue regarding how measurements were made.
I've noticed that much attention is directed at the dryness of the steam and whether by mass or by volume.
It appears that the issue of steam dryness is postured as the defining factor: If the steam is dry, the reactor is valid; if the steam is wet, the reactor is not valid.
However, there is something important that is being overlooked. I tried to explain in a few posts on your blog. Let me try again here.
Output power is measured by computing the amount of energy required to raise a gram of water to steam, and multiplying by the mass flow rate of steam. In every case, the researchers made the assumption that the mass flow rate of steam is equal to the mass flow rate of input water. Steam dryness is [allegedly] measured to validate this assumption. However, this overlooks something very obvious.
There is an auxiliary output port at the top of the Rossi reactor. This port is used to [allegedly] measure steam dryness. A valve is opened, allowing steam to exit this port, and instruments are used to [allegedly] measure dryness there.
When the measurements are complete, the port is closed, and steam and any liquid water are forced to exit through the black hose on the side.
Clearly, there is a flaw in this approach. Even if the steam from the auxiliary port were perfectly dry, this does not prove that all of the inlet water is converted to steam.
In fact, there is a very good argument that liquid water *must* exit the reactor by Rossi's design. Here is the argument:
The reactor has been shown in pictures and video. One thing that stands out is the simplicity of the design. There are just two temperature sensors providing a readout on Rossi's laptop. There are two heaters controlled by two user-operated light dimmers. There are no other controls or sensors apparent.
The steam output is always close to 100°C. This is consistent with the reactor core being submerged in a pool of water. If the reactor core were not submerged in water, you would expect the output steam to, at times, be much greater than 100°C based on the exact power balance between the inlet water flow rate and the instantaneous reactor power.
There must necessarily be a control system to keep the water level above the core [because], if all the water boiled away, the core would overheat. [Because it is not a sophisticated system], it is clear that the water level is regulated by water overflowing through the outlet. The way this would necessarily work is that the inlet flow would need to be greater than the rate of steam generation. Thus, the water level increases until it begins to overflow through the outlet hose.
Based on this argument, it is highly likely that water is constantly overflowing into the output hose. When the steam dryness is measured through the auxiliary port, water is still overflowing out the black hose, but the steam may measure as completely dry.
Dry steam is necessary, but not sufficient to prove that all the inlet water turns to steam. I suggest that you steer the conversation toward the issue of how the steam mass flow rate was measured. The answer is that it wasn't measured; it was assumed. Steam dryness [assuming it was properly measured, but it was not] was used to validate the assumption, but it overlooked the obvious fact that liquid water is running down the hose even if dry steam comes out the auxiliary port.
A scientist would have to conclude that the measurements as reported are not sufficient to support a valid claim of output power [if they are based on energy to vaporize steam].
Best regards,
Mitch
******************************
At 09:12 PM 6/16/2011, you wrote:
Steven,
I just read your preliminary trip report. In it, you ask anyone who has information about the Essen/Kullander April 3 report of March 29 to please contact you.
Below please find my question to Hanno Essén and his response.
I asked Dr. Essén how he confirmed that all the water input had been turned to steam.
His response that it is a "hose-pipe-hose" arrangement; thus, [his assumption that] all the water must turn to steam seems flawed.
Steven, I suggest that the output power of the Rossi reactor be measured by condensing the steam and measuring the temperature rise of the condenser bath. Thus, regardless of the phase of the material flowing from the Rossi device, the power can be deduced by the heat transferred to the bath.
Best regards,
Mitch Randall
******************************
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mitch Randall"
Subject: Re: Fw: Question regarding Rossi demonstration
To: "Steven Krivit"
Steven,
Here is a diagram of a heat exchanger to measure the Rossi reactor.
Mitch Randall
******************************
From: "Mitch Randall"
Subject: Re: Fw: Question regarding Rossi demonstration
To: "Steven Krivit"
Steve,
The idea of condensing the output with a bath is to exchange all of the heat output from the reactor into a simple-to-measure bath. This avoids all the questions that come up about the steam. Of course, it would take some thought (as does any measurement) to set up such a measurement to deliver high-confidence results. I'll draw something up with slightly more thought and send it to you in a moment.
I can't tell you how much I want the Rossi reactor to be real. I'm disappointed in the measurements of the reactor, because they have not been done well enough to eliminate the possibility of deception or self-deception.
There are two issues that leave doubt for me. You've already hit on the first:
1) How much of the inlet water has been turned to steam?
On this first point, I will add that Rossi *must* have water overflowing into the outlet tube to prevent the reactor from running dry! This is obvious.
2) For experiments without steam, do not measure the outlet temperature with a probe in the "black box."
To be clear about the second point, the 18-hour test was done to avoid the issues raised about measuring steam. In that test, they increased the water flow to be all the faucet could deliver. They measured the flow rate, the inlet temp, and the outlet temp. The temperature difference was 4C from inlet to outlet.
However, the outlet temperature was not measured at the outlet. It was measured by a probe entering into the vertical stack of the reactor. This is not good practice. In addition, I think it would be difficult for observers to know by feel if the outlet water was 4C warmer or not.
If you are trying to measure the performance of a "black box," you should not use a measurement from *within* the black box.
Best regards,
Mitch
******************************
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 07:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mitch Randall"
Subject: Re: Fw: Question regarding Rossi demonstration
To: "Steven Krivit"
Steven,
Here is a setup that is easier and a little more thought-out.
A fitting is attached to a hole in the center of a copper plate. The Rossi output hose attaches to the fitting so that the steam bubbles are held at a shallow depth under the water by the copper plate long enough to fully condense before reaching the surface.
Thus, all of the heat generated by the Rossi reactor is transferred to the water in the pan. Since the initial volume/weight of water is known, and the input flow is known (and small), and the temperature as a function of time is known, the heat can be readily calculated.
The copper plate solves the problem that the steam tube does not have to be submerged deeply in order to ensure that the steam bubbles condense before they make it to the top. Rossi regularly submerges the steam tube to a shallow depth in his collector bucket.
Not sure if this is helpful.
Best regards,
Mitch
| 
