• Slad

    I think a goodportion of large force would also be replicated by the effect.

    And for sure, there’s a porosity, which I included, but the pores are filled with hydrogen (I modeled air) so I’m happy I used a somewhat conservative figure.

  • Slad

    TLDR. You are entitled to your own opinions, and these obviously differ from mine. Your replies have been noted, and in the cases where you have been able to make a cohesive argument that I was wrong, I have now edited the report to reflect this.

    As for the rest, I disagree with nearly everything you have said, but I will not be drawn into any further never-ending discussions, as frankly, it takes up too much time, and the lack clarity in your writing just allows you more wriggle-room in your arguments:

    The kettle analogy was a prime example of this. I honestly cannot tell if you changed your position halfway through the discussion, as your original statement was so unclear.

    Maybe you should write your own report, in order to help define your ideas concisely, and in an unambiguous way.

    Robert Kiyosaki was right.

    • fact police

      Slad wrote:

      TLDR.

      Again, I don’t mind if you don’t read what I write, but none of my posts are as long as your paper, and they are much more logical. I would just appreciate the courtesy of your not responding to what you don’t read.

      As for the rest, I disagree with nearly everything you have said,

      You mean the parts you bothered reading, and took the time to understand, I presume.

      I similarly disagree with the essential points from your paper, and you have failed to defend them here. In case you’re curious, there are additional disagreements we haven’t covered over at the other place.

      The kettle analogy was a prime example of this. I honestly cannot tell if you changed your position halfway through the discussion, as your original statement was so unclear.

      There was no change in position. I just simplified the analogy to make it more relevant. Transferring more than 1 kW from a gram of fuel to a surface already at 1300C is almost certain to put the fuel above its melting point at 1455C.

      Maybe you should write your own report, in order to help define your ideas concisely, and in an unambiguous way.

      Like I said, this is all gross over-interpretation, and as such, little more than mental gymnastics. I like gymnastics, but really dislike marathons. But if you write another paper, I’ll be delighted to tell you what’s wrong with it.

      • Slad

        Transferring more than 1 kW from a gram of fuel to a surface already at 1300C is almost certain to put the fuel above its melting point at 1455C.

        I think the opposite is entirely plausible, especially if the whole inner surface of the tube is considered i.e. if the foaming LiAlH moves the powder. However, I acknowledge your disagreement, and I would be interested to see some numbers.

        I’m sorry to labour the point, but direct and concise communication is a good thing. Especially if I am at work… Mainly because it avoids misunderstandings, but also so your main points are not obfuscated, which can only be a good thing.

        And any final report will be likely be written after this sorry saga is over, and will be unlikely to feature yourself heavily, as frankly, it is far more enjoyable to needle others, who are far less rational.

  • Slad

    I specifically mentioned the wire inside, and also explained to you why it got so hot.

    Discussion over.

  • Slad

    I’m not talking about heating water here (except as a measure of the overall power transfer). I’m talking about heating the pot with the element.

    No, the surfaces I’m considering were in contact. And both are pretty flat, so the percentage contact would be pretty high,

    Flatness is a very relative thing in heat transfer. Unless you’ve polished your surfaces, a slight roughness can matter a lot.
    Like ‘factor of 100’ a lot.

    That’s the point about the fine nickel particles, they can contact a rough surface as if two highly polished (~5um) surfaces are in contact.

    And your hob was likely dry. Liquid metals at the interface in the E-Cat.

  • Slad

    The 100x power density is a (paraphrased) quote from yourself, that’s why the original report uses it. Underestimated or not, it doesn’t matter to me, I’m only aiming for ballpark figures, in order to assess plausibility or not.

    the mass fraction of the Li is only 1.2% at the beginning and only 0.03% at the end.

    From a tiny sample. Maybe it’s all stuck to the tubes walls? My report assumed 10% Li, and similar amounts are mentioned in rossi’s patent.

    Maybe you are right about over interpretation, but the two main arguments about the credibility of Lugano are based on Thomas Clarkes notions*, and what essentially amounts to slurs against Rossi or the researchers.

    *Which I covered, in a somewhat provocative fashion, and I’m interested to hear a response to.

  • Slad

    What you calculated in the paper was the temperature difference to the coil (assumed to be at 7 mm radius), which was 92C. But these are quibbles.

    You just didn’t read down far enough, that’s just an intermediate stage in the calc.

    OK I see where the 600C comes from… I assume full contact with the inner surface. Short and sweet.

    So lets say: The LiAlH bubbles up at 700C or so, and pushes the nickle powder out towards the the inner face of the tube, which it then clings to, due to surface tension forces. Full contact restored.

    Or does that also sound completely implausible to you?

    • fact police

      Slad wrote:

      What you are saying above, about power per unit length, is the same point I made in my original report.

      I don’t recall any mention of it in your report.

      (I also calculate the thermal conductivity of the nickel as being higher). If we restore the full surface area, my point still stands.

      Yes, I remember that, but it was the transfer of heat through the ceramic that was the issue. The fuel conductivity is lower by a little more than a factor of 2 compared to alumina.

      If we restore the full surface area, then the temperature of the *surface* is not implausible based on a comparison to fission fuel. But that point stands not because of shape differences, but because of linear power density differences. The question of the fuel temperature is still implausible to me.

      If you don’t mind me saying, it is not easy to pick out the bones of your arguments, due to the lengthy surrounding material, and bombardment of several ideas that they often contain (a counter example being my short summation above) You risk a reader skimming over them. Yes, the radius arguments were a blind alley, but I thought that was the only reason you could arrive at the apparently nonsensical idea of a 600C gradient in the alumina tube.

      If you don’t mind my saying so, it seems you don’t actually make the necessary effort to consider what I’ve written. You admitted that yourself, when you said you don’t pay attention to what I write. And that was abundantly clear when you repeated questions I had answered several times already.

      And the ultimate point, that shape matters (to some degree), is one that I don’t believe you can completely disagree with,

      Obviously shape matters to a degree, but the point was the difference in the fuel shape *reduced* the thermal resistance for the fuel pellet compared to the ecat geometry — it did not increase it. And this was reasonably plausible from simple considerations, and verified by quantitative analysis.

  • Slad

    Come on, there’s a huge air gap between your pan and the element. This will make the element get hotter than it needs to.

    Also did you measure the bottom of the pan to get the 200C? For a realistic way of comparing it to a kettle elements temperature, you should have measured inside part of the pan touching the water.

    And you used an IR thermometer, did you calibrate it for the pans surface?

    but a steep gradient is necessary for the heat to flow out of the element at the necessary rate

    I disagree. Google ‘water pool boilng curve’, and look at the saturation temperature at the critical heat flux.

    There is a much steeper gradient inside the element… The inner wire is very hot, but surrounding material is an insulator, it’s designed to ‘step down’ the temperature, to better fit water’s boiling curve.

  • Slad

    OK thanks, I meant 1240W. The 200C remains unchanged.

    So, you are saying that you prefer to guesstimate the temperature difference of the alumina as 600C, by comparing it to a fuel pellet, despite the fact that a simple standard equation can calculate this value much more accurately?

    Yes or no?