• Axil Axil

    Heat is light, infrared light. LENR needs light as a stimulant. Heat is converted to magnetic energy. It is magnetic energy that produces muons and mesons. I suspect that muon will be found coming out of all LENR reactions, even very low powered reactions.

    The assumptions behind this article and what Ed Storms is says are wrong. Its light that is important in LENR.

    • Slad

      Axil. Where’s this infra-red coming from? Storms gets a straight line when he plots power out vs. temperature. Wouldn’t the infra-red radiation increase according to Temperature^4? Hence, why does excess heat not increase in a similar fashion in Storms’ experiment?

      • Axil Axil

        Storms in not producing nano particles(Hydrogen Rydberg matter). Hydrogen Rydberg matter is produced by using a lithium or potassium dispenser. For example, Rossi uses large amounts of lithium,

        In the Lugano test at one point when the temperature was increased to the max level, the COP on that temperature increase was 7.

        • Slad

          According to Holmlid (of muon fame), his experiments are more akin to hot fusion than cold?

    • Obvious

      Phonons in and photons out , the reaction is supraluminous, and requires constant heat in or it will freeze. Well, micro particles that just reacted freeze anyways, and steal heat from the rest of the particles, causing the device to drop below its operating range, killing further reactions. A device with molten metals is not functioning, and is most certainly dead.
      IMO

      • Axil Axil

        When the reaction is subcritical, the SPPs require constant pumping. But when the positive feedback loop that transfers energy into the SPP produces more heat than is required for pumping, the reaction become supercritical and the reactor melts down. The ideal case is when the energy required for pumping plus the energy needed to boil water is equal to the energy produced by the positive feedback loop.

        • Obvious

          Insufficient particle size distribution causes meltdown. Since the output reaction is a collective effect, only an identical particle can directly resorb the entire energy “packet” emitted by another reacted particle. When an identical stationary, zero Kelvin particle accepts a full packet, it causes an explosion of the particle (rare), initiates a fusion event, or immediate re-emission. When a hot identical particle accepts a full packet it melts immediately, and melts its neighbours subsequently. Too many identical particles thereby cause a resonant sequence which is fatal to the device. This is why nano particles are bad for the reactor. The odds of having a large number of functionally identical particles is greatly increased with decreasing particle size.
          IMO

          • Axil Axil

            You are correct. The reaction will destroy nano particles…hydrogen particles. That is why they must be constantly recreated dynamically to replace the ones that are destroyed. Fixed nano particles won’t work because of the destruction issue you raise.

  • Jarea

    I find that info new about the Optris.

    In the document you can find:

    DON’T YOU KNOW THAT THE CoP WAS = 1.07?
    ‘here are two types of Optris PI-160 camera. The standard version, and a manufacturer modified, high temperature version. The Lugano team used the latter, however the authour of the CoP = 1.07 paper based his arguments on the datasheet for the former.

    • Slad

      I prefer the Bob Higgins COP figure based on his emissivity recalculation (2.36), over the Lugano figures, however it’s certainly greater than 1.07

      • Obvious

        Although several people looked into it, I am not aware of anyone getting to the bottom of the high temperature calibration Optris 160 and the low temperature calibration Optris 160 difference. Due to the need for Optris to have the camera in their factory for some extended period ( I forget how long, more than a week), there was a sense that the microbolometer array needed to be replaced. What this change does ( whatever it is ) to the sensitivity, response, emissivity setting, etc. is an unknown I would like to un-unknown a bit more.

  • Slad

    The exponential dependence is implicit in the argument that there could be thermal runaway in the system as designed. It’s the unstated basis behind their whole reasoning.

    • fact police

      The exponential dependence is implicit in the argument that there could be thermal runaway in the system as designed. It’s the unstated basis behind their whole reasoning.

      No. Thermal runaway does not require an exponential dependence. It only requires that the heat generated exceed the heat loss, and the rate of increase of heat generation with temperature is the same or higher than that of heat loss, whether linear or not.

      In your graph that condition is met everywhere (above the alleged turn-on) if the heater generates 13 W/m^2 or more, and is met above the intersection for no input heat at all. And at the operating point, if the power increased slightly, it would go into thermal runaway as well, if it was not immediately turned down. It’s always on knife-edge.

      Regarding your final paragraph, what happens if you design the heat transfer surface to loose four ‘units’?

      If it loses 4 units, then it will never reach the operating temperature. On your graph, the 5 W/m^2 from the heater at the operating point would not have been enough to reach the alleged turn-on point where the heat loss is already 13 W/m^2.

      And if you used 13 W/m^2 to reach that point, then it would have to be turned down by more than a factor of 2 to prevent thermal runaway at the operating temperature. The ecat input power for the Lugano experiment does not follow this description.

      Anyway, the more important point is that in the interest of eliminating the need for external input, it *could* be made to self-sustain, and if it could, they would do it.

      Answer – a stable and easily controllable reactor.

      No. It would actually be rather unstable, because a slight increase in heater power could send it into runaway, and that slope is unlikely to be stable, depending on the particular NAE density. If it changed suddenly, even turning off the heater would not prevent runaway.

      (There’s more detailed discussion of this on ECN, in the “Rossi Sells eCat” thread.)

      • Slad

        “Thermal runaway does not require an exponential dependence. It only requires that the heat generated exceed the heat loss”

        ** Well obviously this is true, but in real life, you would have to be pretty dumb to design a system that suffers from this issue.

        ” 5 W/m^2 from the heater at the operating point would not have been enough to reach the alleged turn-on point where the heat loss is already 13 W/m^2… …And if you used 13 W/m^2 to reach that point, then it would have to be turned down by more than a factor of 2 to prevent thermal runaway at the operating temperature.”

        ** Which is exactly how a normal heat control would work!

        As for the “discussion” on ECN, what you see there is a butt-hurt young astrophysicist trying to argue about thermodynamics and control systems with a doctor of mechanical engineering. It’s fairly amusing, however, it’s also unlikely to get a response, as the time required to fully explain his mistakes just takes too long. Plus… your man Mr Tan prefers to argue, rather than listen, which is a shame, as in this case, he would learn something.

        • fact police

          Do I attempt to lecture him on Cosmology?

          So, you’re suggesting we accept your arguments on your authority instead of your logic?

          I’m not in the habit of doing that. And it that’s what you want, why bother writing a paper? Since you did write a paper, it seems reasonable that objections to the logic be raised, and that you try to defend them.

          • Slad

            I’m suggesting you go read a Heat Transfer textbook instead of all those Cosmology ones.

          • fact police

            Slad wrote:

            I’m suggesting you go read a Heat Transfer textbook instead of all those Cosmology ones.

            I am not a cosmologist. And I have read thermodynamics texts, enough to know that you completely misuse the equation for transfer through a cylinder in applying to a fuel pellet as though all the fuel were concentrated at zero radius.

            The logic isn’t in question (if the assumptions are correct)

            Definitely the logic. It’s an illogical use of an equation in a situation it was not developed for.

            I suppose you also argue with your lawyer about the law, and with your doctor about medicine.

            If they make blatant errors in logic that I can understand, of course. You don’t?

            Again, you seem to telling us to trust you because you are a mechanical engineer. But I don’t because you make obvious errors that an undergraduate can spot.

          • Slad

            “you completely misuse the equation for transfer through a cylinder in applying to a fuel pellet as though all the fuel were concentrated at zero radius.”

            As I have explained to you already:

            “You are right to say It is incorrect to use that equation to analyse a fuel pellet… The “r tending toward zero” section is merely there to help illustrate a point that shape matters a lot. (In fact, the same very point I am having to repeatedly make to you)”

          • Slad

            An argument also cannot be made coherently if one is out of one’s depth

          • psi2u2

            Slad, somehow I find it difficult to take seriously someone called fact police. Police rarely work with facts, and pretty often their “facts” are deemed wrong or irrelevant by scientists, judges, and lawyers. I admit this is a prejudice. Sorry “fact police.” You may be correct, but you would be more effective under a less presumptively silly name.

          • Slad

            Police Chief, perhaps?

  • Slad

    Hello Josh?

    Nope, one is cylindrical, and one is a tube.

    And you are mixing up inner and outer radius when trying to suggest the effective radius of the fuel pellet would be zero.

    • fact police

      Slad wrote:

      Nope, one is cylinder, and one is a hollow cylinder. Look at the ‘heat flow through a hollow cylinder’ equation, and see how Q alters when the tube becomes a solid cylinder (ie. ‘r inner’ starts to get smaller, eventually becoming zero)

      Again, that equation applies to a tube in which all the heat is generated within the tube. But the heat in a fuel pellet is not generated on the axis in a cylinder with a zero radius. It is generated throughout the pellet, with more of near the rim than the axis, so there is an effective radius probably larger than 5 mm. That’s certainly consistent with the temperature profile within pellets.

      And 2cm dia. is pretty big for a fuel pellet. Got a reference for that?

      In the “nuclear fuel cycle” article in Wikipedia, they give a temperature profile for pellets with a 1 cm radius (2 cm diameter).

      The whole point is that similar temperature differences do not give similar heat flows,

      No, but similar temperature differences with similar thermal properties do. And these are similar, and if anything the conduction out of a pellet is *better* than for the ecat because much of the fuel is nearer to the rim.

      And you are mixing up inner and outer radius when trying to suggest the effective radius of the fuel pellet would be zero.

      No, I think you are. Your zero radius does not apply, because most of the heat is not generated at zero radius.

      • Slad

        No… The heat struggles the most to conduct away of the centre of the pellet. This is the hottest area, and the area that would melt first if the power density was increased.

        I wish I had seen the reference for 2cm, as it would have helped make an even stronger argument.

        “No, but similar temperature differences with similar thermal properties do. And these are similar, and if anything the conduction out of a pellet is *better* than for the ecat because much of the fuel is nearer to the rim.”

        ** a) The thermal properties are different, due to the shape, which I have repeatedly explained to you… The equation I quoted explains this.

        ** b) As I explained above, it’s what is happening at the centre of the MOX pellet that is the problem.

        “I think you are”

        It doesn’t matter what you ‘think’, because you are arguing against the science of thermodynamics and heat transfer… Not against me.

  • Slad

    Please. It’s about the E-Cat, a point which everyone else seems to get. See *purposeful misunderstandings* below

  • Slad

    Listen. It’s my graph… I could easily have drawn it so it wouldn’t ever have run away, I was going to make a further point based on that, but took it out to keep things *relatively* concise

  • Slad

    Nearly right… It is a like weighted average, but because your theoretical outer hollow cylinder of the fuel pellet is also generating heat, the temperature profile going towards the centre climbs much faster than you are allowing for.

    • john

      Slad i am very impressed .I was going to keep quiet and respond but you explaines all the key points.. Be alite less heavy on fact police ..hes only learning and its a good things…

      • Slad

        I find it annoying having to repeat myself.

        Feel free to take over my friend.

        • Slad

          And only a troll calls themself ‘fact police’

      • Slad

        As I had suspected: ‘fact police’ is actually one of the fine fellows who inspired the article in the first place…. Hopefully Mr Hody and Mr Clarke might soon join our discussion here too?

        • doug marker

          FWICT – Fact police is actually George Hody. (Mary Yugo, Al Potenza etc: etc: etc: etc: ) – I may be wrong but I doubt it. Joshua Schroeder (IMHO) has a far more condescending and arrogant style. Hody, when it suits, can be polite but among ‘friends’ (the pack), he is not shy about what he really thinks and the insults/innuendo/assasinations flow freely.

          Doug

          • Slad

            I also doubted it was ‘Tan nee Schroeder’ at first, as he generally comes across as being more intelligent, but he eventually admitted it above. I think his style has to be toned down here to pass moderation, but the arrogance still comes through IMO.

  • Slad

    If you can’t formulate a clear and unambiguous argument, then It shouldn’t surprise you if people misinterpret it.

  • Slad

    Of course it supports my case.

  • GreenWin

    Wait. Is “fact police” in fact… MY or JoshCude???

    • Agaricus

      ‘fact police’ is the self-admitted ECW incarnation of ECN’s incredibly verbose bigot, ‘popeye’, aka ‘joshua cude’: http://ecatnews.com/?p=2655#comments.

      Abd ul-Rahman Lomax thinks ‘cude’ is actually Joshua P. Schroeder. This and other interesting insights about the ECN trolls here: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/newvortex/conversations/topics/361

    • Slad

      Report updated to clarify some continued misunderstandings…

      • Slad

        And I will probably do so again, after this beauty:

        Your graph would actually serve your purpose better if the slope of the reaction were *less* steep than the cooling curve. That would produce a stable operating point dependent on the input heat (fact police)

        Oh dear. It seems you are mixing the axes of my graph up.

        • fact police

          Your graph would actually serve your purpose better if the slope of the reaction were *less* steep than the cooling curve. That would produce a stable operating point dependent on the input heat… (‘fact’ police)

          Oh dear. It seems you are mixing the axes of my graph up.

          No, I have the axes straight. Your mocking would be more effective if you revealed the logic that led to the idea that I might be mixing them up. But I’m not. See my other reply for details.

          Please pay more attention to the graphs you quote;

          You might consider this advice yourself. Your graph was intended to show immunity from runaway, but failed. If you modified according to my advice, you would have what you were looking for.

          this is even worse than that “20mm fuel rod” graph from the other day.

          …which did not affect the argument at all, as shown explicitly now using the appropriate formula. And you still haven’t explained why you think I’ve confused your axes.

          Did you manage to answer my three questions regarding the “more complex bits” yet?

          These questions were answered before you asked them. All you have to do is read. And it’s not because of the geometry.

          • Slad

            But anyway, let’s avoid the excess verbosity…
            Did you manage to answer my three questions regarding the “more complex bits” yet?

          • Slad

            In fact, you are right, you didn’t mix the axes up. My bad.

            It wasn’t such as an egregious error compared to the ’20mm fuel rod’ stuff after all.

            So yes, you could increase the slope of the cooling graph, to increase it’s stability at high temperature, but then, I like my conjecture about self-sustain mode, which is why the graph is drawn how it is.

            Regarding your “appropriate formula”… Have you adapted it to a hollow tube yet, for the sake of a comparison?

          • Slad

            And I agree with you that:

            These questions were answered before you asked them. All you have to do is read.

            The answer to the question, about the temperature across the alumina, is “~200C”. It is very simple to calculate.

            So why do you also say:

            the temperature difference needed should be half of the value in the pellet, or about 600C across the ceramic wall

            Which is a quote from yourself, that was included in the original version of the report. All this discussion, of shape, and effective radius, revolves around that single statement. Do you now agree that 600C is wrong?

          • 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?

          • 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.

          • 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

      I think it’s time for your milk and cookie

  • Slad

    He goes by the name of Popeye, you’d like him, you share a lot of traits.

    And, as I have explained to you three times now:

    “You are right to say It is incorrect to use that equation to analyse a fuel pellet… The “r tending toward zero” section is merely there to help illustrate a point that shape matters a lot.”

  • Slad
  • Slad

    I ‘believe’ you are an astrophysicist because your twitter account is ‘astrophysically’ and you studied astrophysics. The reasons I beliveve this can be found a few posts below.

  • Slad

    You left an indelible slug trail all over wikipedia! Same style. Same arguments. Same atitiude. Same topics of interest. Unbroken timeline between the various pseudonyms. Stand tall and proud man!

  • Slad

    So you think heat is conducted instantaneously?

    • 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?

  • Slad

    If you choose to dodge the question, that’s OK, most people probably would too. Just don’t pretend you don’t understand the concept, seeing as how you are such an expert in heat transfer and all. Like I said above, it is hard to formulate a coherent argument, when one is out of one’s depth.

    Transient heat flow, Google it.

    Another thing I quoted is that “if you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots”. Now I don’t believe you are an idiot, but you are incredibly arrogant.

    It’s a waste of my time talking to someone who only wants to argue, when it is very apparent (to me at least) that you could learn something, if only you would choose to.

    • fact police

      Slad wrote:

      Just don’t pretend you don’t understand the concept, seeing as how you are such an expert in heat transfer and all. …

      Transient heat flow, Google it.

      I didn’t say I don’t understand the concepts. I said your use of the terms made no sense. It makes no sense to say that there must be a transient temperature gradient or the heat conduction would have to be instantaneous. The other sentence was simply irrelevant.

      Like I said above, it is hard to formulate a coherent argument, when one is out of one’s depth.

      You have provided ample proof of that.

      Now I don’t believe you are an idiot, but you are incredibly arrogant.

      It’s a waste of my time talking to someone who only wants to argue, when it is very apparent (to me at least) that you could learn something, if only you would choose to.

      That sounds kind of arrogant itself, but in your case, it’s not justified.

      • Slad

        “It makes no sense to say that there must be a transient temperature gradient or the heat conduction would have to be instantaneous. The other sentence was simply irrelevant.”

        * * No, I was pointing out two daft things that you said.

  • Slad

    I’m starting to understand why you have been banned from Wikipedia so many times.

  • Slad

    Zing!

  • GreenWin

    WARNING: 2fp/1my = 1/2potenza + 1/2hoady + spurious radiation. Danger Will Robinson!

    • Slad

      Hot air flow calorimeter suggests major excess heat.

  • Slad

    If you practice hard enough, at some point, you may develop a sense of humour too…

    The only errors in the report are yours, as quoted verbatim.

    • fact police

      If you practice hard enough, at some point, you may develop a sense of humour too…

      You mean the kind people here exhibit?

      The only errors in the report are yours, as quoted verbatim.

      You were wrong about the need for exponential dependence for thermal runaway, or that anyone had assumed it.

      You were wrong that letting the inner radius go to zero provided a better or even realistic approximation to a cylinder with fuel distributed uniformly. Indeed, since more fuel is nearer the rim than in the Lugano configuration, letting the inner radius increase is a better approximation.

      You were wrong that your graph suggests thermal runaway won’t happen, and that it is a realistic representation of the ecat; particularly the Lugano ecat.

      You were wrong that the presence of water cooling in your description has any relevance to the thermodynamic objections to the Lugano configuration.

      You were wrong about the fuel in ecats being 30 cm square, particularly in the configuration relevant to the thermodynamic objections you were trying to refute.

      You were also wrong about Fukushima and forced cooling as described in more detail on ECN.

      In short, there was little, if anything, you were right about.

      • Slad

        This is a collection of your opinions, stated as fact. The idea being that if you throw enough muck, some must stick. By tirelessly arguing and expounding these made up points, you are seeking to win the argument only by wearing the responder out.

        Indeed, it’s your usual M.O. and the reason I included the Robert Kiyosaki quote at the top of the report.

        We have already covered all these points either in the report, or these comments.

  • Slad

    Only if operated it near the runaway point of 1366C.

    • fact police

      Wrong. With external input heat of 13 W/m^2, it would runaway at any temperature above your alleged turn-on point.

      • Slad

        Oh dear. Are you really pretending not to understand the concept of a proportional heat controller?

        • fact police

          Slad wrote:

          Oh dear. Are you really pretending not to understand the concept of a proportional heat controller?

          No. But you talked a lot about an entirely passive system. Now you’ve changed your paper to require a robust and responsive control system, when elsewhere you argue that the need for a control system for self-sustained mode is too dangerous.

          I didn’t say it *would* runaway below the intersection. I said it was vulnerable to it. If the control system is not sufficiently robust or responsive, from your operating point, a mere 5 W/m^2 decreasing too slowly would cause thermal runaway. Or if the output spiked because of diffusion of the hydrogen to an anomalously high density of NAEs, simply turning the heater off would not help.

          The use of a proportional controller for a simple heater is quite different. Regardless of excursions above the set temperature, reducing power *at any rate* will always bring it back. Not so, with an ecat following your graph. And it doesn’t have to exceed 1366C either. As the temperature begins to increase, the lines converge and less heat is needed to exceed the rate of dissipation. If this convergence is faster than the decrease in the input, you get runaway.

          This kind of knife-edge control is bad design, and it’s not necessary. What you want is a system in which the rate of cooling increases faster from the operating point than the reaction rate, to provide a stable point. That’s what stabilizes the sun, and many other exothermic reactions. And in the ecat theory, presumably, the location of this stable point is adjustable by changing the input heater power.

          The problem is you can’t get it with linear cooling and linear reaction rates. What’s more, with linear dependencies, as you’ve shown them, the operation would be very different from the way the Lugano ecat was in fact operated. It would have to be heated much more to get it started than to keep it going, whereas with the Lugano ecat, the heat was simply ramped up. So your speculated dependencies are not in evidence from the Lugano data.

          A year ago, after the release of Lugano, Paul Stout and I hashed over this in some detail. Paul actually contrived a cooling dependence and a reaction rate dependence that fit the Lugano operating procedure, and that would give stable operation determined by the input power, and could never runaway. But the dependencies were highly non-linear, and also highly unrealistic.

          But more important than whether such a system could be contrived, is the question of why anyone would do it. The important point is that if one unit of energy (from the outside) can initiate the reaction, then 2 or 3 units from within can be made to sustain it. That means that with suitable insulation and controlled cooling, it could run without input power, which aside from being far more practical, and useful for making electricity, would make for one hell of a demonstration.

          • Slad

            Oh, you are… OK

          • fact police

            Slad wrote:

            And you seem to be working off the assumption that things are non-linear.

            No, I’m not making any assumptions. I’m just interpreting yours, since you don’t seem to understand your own graph. The point is your graph does not fit the behavior reported for the Lugano ecat.

            Your graph would actually serve your purpose better if the slope of the reaction were *less* steep than the cooling curve. That would produce a stable operating point dependent on the input heat, and it would quench without input, and never run away. Then the risk would simply involve the unpredictability of the reaction slope. A higher than expected slope would still produce runaway.

            But, as it happens, in the Lugano ecat, most of the heat loss from the device is by radiation, and that *is* highly non-linear, so at least to that extent, your graph is not realistic.

            And again, the more important question is why bother trying to control an exothermic reaction with heat. The important point is that if one unit of energy (from the outside) can initiate the reaction, then 2 or 3 units from within can be made to sustain it. That means that with suitable insulation and controlled cooling, it could run without input power, which aside from being far more practical, and useful for making electricity, would make for one hell of a demonstration. It’s inconceivable that they wouldn’t do that if it were possible. And if the claims have validity, it would be possible.

            And again, the

            Read the report, my views are clear.

            Unfortunately, it’s the logic that is muddled.

          • Slad

            I’ll just paste what you actually said above: “But the dependencies were highly non-linear”

            Now you say, you didn’t make that assumption. What?

      • Slad

        Please don’t pretend you didn’t mix the axes up.

      • Slad

        But the argument is not valid, as shown in detail in another post.

        So you claim It’s just that, to me, you have very little credibility.

        • fact police

          The argument does not depend on my credibility. Just verifiable information and simple logic.

          • Slad

            Maybe, but how much attention I pay to your arguments does depend on it.

          • fact police

            I don’t mind if you don’t pay attention to my arguments. But simple courtesy would suggest that you pay attention to them before you respond to them.

          • Slad

            You are the last person who should ever be lecturing anyone regarding courtesy or manners.

        • bachcole

          For me:

          1. Anyone with a handle “fact police”

          2. Anyone has denies LENR

          has not credibility.

  • Slad

    I’m not “admitting” anything. As I have said, for the fourth time now:

    “You are right to say It is incorrect to use that equation to analyse a fuel pellet… The “r tending toward zero” section is merely there to help illustrate a point that shape matters a lot.”

    Just google fuel rod temperature profile, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

    …But please try not to let any more odd graphs on Wikipedia fool you.

    • fact police

      Slad wrote:

      The point is that ‘effective wall thickness’ is dependent on shape, not on thickness and/or radius, which become dimensionless. The fuel pellet hasa much larger effective radius, which drastically limits it’s heat transfer.

      Slad, you’re not making any sense. Of course it depends on thickness and radius. You’re still hung up on your equation with zero inner radius, which says nothing about this situation, because all the fuel is supposed to within that radius, and it’s *not*.

      The pellet does not have a much larger effective radius. The outer radius is simply the outer radius. The effective inner radius for your formula is *increased* (beyond say the 0.4 ro in Lugano) because much more of the fuel is outside 0.4 ro, and therefore closer to the coolant, with less thermal insulation in between.

      Look, heat from the reaction has to flow through ceramic to the coolant. In a fuel pellet, there is *less* ceramic it has to flow through, and yet the temperature difference is 10 times higher. The claim that you can dissipate the same power through *more* ceramic with a *smaller* temperature difference is just plain nonsense.

      • Slad

        You are trying to argue against a mathematical equation. This is insanity. No wonder it is very easy to write reports that mock you.

  • psi2u2

    I will leave you and Slad to debate the science. Its your handle I was commenting on. I did not personally find the tone pompous, but I’m just a lit. prof. Sorry, but your chosen name evokes a prejudice in me. Police logic is the reasoning of stage 4 in the Kohlberg typology. Sometimes police have valid facts and tell the truth. In my experience, many do not, most of the time. Consider that the primary reason we are still arresting people for cannabis in this country is that police departments are funding vacations and buying Humvees with the stolen proceeds. Yikes.

  • Slad

    Of course it tends towards infinite. That’s why the report clearly says:

    “We can draw an analogy by looking at the Heat Flow Through a Hollow Cylinder# equation from the original report”

    And….

    “Whilst it is true to say this equation should not be used to analyse the heat emanating from a working nuclear fuel rod, this is merely an argument based on the shapes under consideration

    The only point of this section in the text is to help you to understand why…

    “it is wrong to say they both have similar effective wall thickness”

    Understand now?

    • Slad

      The calculations where I compared the heat transfer through the alumina tube, to the heat transfer through a MOX pellet.

      As I have said, please stop wasting my time, and answer the three simple questions I have asked you, rather than trying to re-invent the wheel by introducing other pointless formulae.

      As my report says:

      “We can draw an analogy by looking at the Heat Flow Through a Hollow Cylinder equation from the original report

      “Whilst it is true to say this equation should not be used to analyse the heat emanating from a working nuclear fuel rod, this is merely an argument based on the shapes under consideration

    • 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

    Care to sum up this this latest brainwave of yours in a few sentences, without throwing in extraneous references to confuse the matter, causing me to loose the will to type?

    And a figure number in that 61 page document would be most useful.

  • Slad

    First, I want to see a reference for “the element is hundreds of degrees above the water” in a kitchen kettle.

    Second, a nice guy, who seeks to waste my time with his solipsisms?

    I’m going to really help you out now…

    All you need to do is answer these three very simple questions.… The answer to the first two questions is a number, not a sentence. The third can be answered however you please.

    1) What temperature difference (across the wall) is required to transmit 2150W through a 200mm long alumina tube that has external diameter 20mm and wall thickness of 6mm?

    *Hint: If you are struggling, the working is in the first report.

    2) What is the temperature profile of a working 5mm radius MOX fuel rod?

    *Hint: Google is your friend here.

    3) Now, why is the temperature difference seen in the fuel rod 2 to 3 times higher that seen in the alumina tube, despite the alumina tube having a 20% longer apparent conduction length?

    *Hint: The answer should include the word “shape”.

  • Slad

    The heat from the fuel in my original model was 2140W. This equates to a ~200C difference between the inside and outside of the tube. This is found by using a simple equation, itself found in every heat transfer textbook. I actually quote this equation in the report.

    Why do you disagree, by saying this temperature should be 600C?

    Please be concise.

  • 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

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

    Discussion over.

  • 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.