| 
					 
			 		  			 		    ⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents —  Next Article ⇒ 
New Energy Times home page 
  
		Storms Supports Rossi Claim 
				Appendix 31 to New Energy Times Report #3 
				[Ed: These two messages were sent from Edmund Storms,  a longtime LENR researcher, to the CMNS e-mail list. All formatting, font type  and colors in Storms' message are original. New Energy Times does not  necessarily agree with any of Storm's analysis; however, we present his views  as an alternate technical opinion in  support of Rossi's claims.] 
				  
				Subj:   CMNS: Rossi claims  
				  Date:   7/2/2011  
				  From:  storms2@ix.netcom.com 
				  To:       cmns@googlegroups.com 
				A variety of ways the Rossi  claims might be wrong have been suggested. Let's examine each. The following  values are used:   
				Cp (H2O at 65°) = 4.18  J/g-deg ,  
				  enthalpy of vaporization @  100°C = 2.27 kJ/g.  
				1. Not all of the water  is turned to steam.  
				 If applied power is  making all of steam, the following would be observed. 
				Applied power = 745 watt 
				  Flow rate = 7 liter/hr =  1.94 g/sec 
				  Power to heat water to 100°  = 73°*4.18*1.94 = 592 watt 
				  Power to make steam = 745 -  592 = 153 watt 
				  Amount of steam produced =  153/2270 = 0.07g/sec out of 1.94 g/sec = 3.4 % of water flow. 
   
				  The chimney would fill with water through which steam would bubble.  The  extra water would flow into the hose and block any steam from leaving.  As  the water cooled in the hose, the small amount of steam would quickly condense  back to water.  Consequently, the hose would fill with water that would  flow out the exit at the same rate as the water entered the e-Cat.  
				CONCLUSION:  No steam would be visible at the end of the hose, which is not consistent with  observation.  
				2. The steam contains  water droplets, i.e, was not dry.  
				Power to heat water to 100°  = 592 watt 
				  Power to vaporize all water  = 1.94 * 2270 = 4404 watt 
				  Total  = 4997 watt if  all water is vaporized 
				  Excess power = 4249 watt 
				According to the attached  link, wet steam contains 5% by mass of water.  
                     
				  Power to vaporize 95% of water = 4183 watt 
				  Excess power =  3736 watt 
				CONCLUSION:  Significant excess power is being made regardless of how dry the steam may be.  
                     
                    3. Energy is stored in the apparatus that is being released during the  demonstration. 
                     
				  Assume e-Cat contained 2 kg of material having an average heat capacity equal  to that of copper.  Copper has a heat capacity of 0.385 J/g*K. 
				  Assume steam is made for 15  min, i.e. the e-Cat remains above 100° C during this time. 
				During 15 min, 1750 g of  water is converted to steam = 1.94*15*60*2270 = 3963 kJ 
				  Applied energy = 745 *60*15  = 672 kJ 
				  Amount of energy that has to  be stored = 3291 kJ 
				  Energy stored in Cu/degree =  2000*.385 = 770 K/° 
				  Initial temperature of e-Cat  = about 4400° 
				The e-cat would have to  weight over 20 kg to contain enough energy to make steam for only 15 min. after  being heated initially to over 500° C. 
				CONCLUSION:  The e-Cat cannot retain enough energy to account for the observed behavior  during cooling from high temperatures.  
				4. The flow rate is wrong  by a factor of 2.  
				Power to heat water to 100°  = 296 watt 
				  Power to vaporize all water  = 2204 watt 
				  Total  = 2500 watt  if all water is vaporized 
				  Excess power =   1752 watt 
				CONCLUSION:  Excess power is being generated even if the flow rate is misrepresented by a  factor of 2.  
                    BASIC CONCLUSION:  None of the plausible assumptions are consistent  with the claim for excess energy being wrong.  
				  
				At  09:56 AM 7/8/2011, Edmund Storms wrote: 
                     
				  I would like to remind Dr Gazzoni that skepticism about the Rossi claims is  just as much based on faith and religion as are the beliefs that the claims are  real. Both views are based on selected information and a personal  interpretation there of.  Time will tell  which belief is more in contact with reality. 
				  
				Brief  Biography of Edmund Storms: 
				  Edumund  Storms was trained as a radiochemist, and he worked at Los Alamos National  Laboraory for many years. While there, he was one of the first LENR researchers  to claim evidence of tritium production in a LENR experiment. Storms worked  with Jed Rothwell and started the LENR-CANR.org Web site to promote "cold  fusion." Since retiring from Los Alamos,  Storms has worked independently in his home laboratory. At one time, he was  employed by Lewis Larsen of Lattice Energy, LLC, and Storms now works with  Brian Scanlan of KivaLabs. 
				  
						  ⇐ Previous Article — Table of Contents —  Next Article ⇒ 
         
		
	
 |