You are on page 1of 7

_____________________________________________________________________________________

A DIALOGUE CONCERNING TWO CHIEFS WORLD-SYSTEM

(ver3.0)

(A Savage Treatise on Further Myths Surrounding the E-Cat)

Slad Sladilei

CEng MIMechE MRSL

chief [tif] noun.


1. often used affectionately or as a casual greeting. Ey up chief
2. a term used to condescend someone, equivalent to ace, slick, champ. "Fill it up with regular, chief"
3. sarcastic term for someone who thinks they have superiority over you, but does not. Nice job chief.

This paper does not meet the criteria of a scientific publication; it is interesting though!

Andrea Rossi

A man who has blown all his options cant afford the luxury of changing his ways. He has to capitalize on
whatever he has left, and he cant afford to admit no matter how often hes reminded of it that every day of his
life takes him farther and farther down a blind alley Hunter S. Thompson

If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots

Robert Kiyosaki

----------------

This is a (second) short report, written to clear up some unfortunate and continued misunderstandings of
thermodynamic realities.

WHY DOES THE E-CAT NEED AN ELECTRIC HEATER TO CONTROL THE REACTION, AND
WHAT USE IS A HEATING ELEMENT RATED AT ONLY 25% OF THE E-CATS MAXIMUM
POWER OUTPUT?

Why does a highly exothermic device need a Joule heater in order to run? After all, the reaction
generates about three times the heat compared to the heater and in the same volume! Rossi has said
it's for safety. Exactly how does adding heat to a potent heat source make it safer?

The issue is about the need to continue feeding power to sustain operation of a device with a
claimed power ratio (out to in) of 6 or better as Rossi used to claim for his old ecats. That should
never be necessary! In the event of runaway of a device with a power ratio of 6 or more, removing
1/6 of the heat would do absolutely nothing.

Maybe Gordon Docherty can be bothered to answer why Rossi uses a heater for safety or control
instead of coolant.
George Simplicio Hody nee mary yugo

The above arguments are based on the fallacious reasoning that the rate of an LENR reaction must have
the same exponential dependence on temperature as chemical reactions (The Arrhenius Equation). In
truth, this supposition in reasoning is not supported by any research in the field.
__________________________________________________________________________________
1

_____________________________________________________________________________________
When considering exothermic chemical reactions, it is generally true that an underpowered heater cannot
robustly control the reaction, as the reaction rate increases exponentially with temperature, but any heat
loss can only increase linearly. Therefore, above a critical temperature, the only possible outcome would
be thermal runaway.
Edmund Storms theorises that Temperature at the NAE [is] a major variable affecting power production
because it determines how fast [hydrogen], the fuel, can reach the NAE by diffusion. In short, the
temperature is the throttle for the process.
But we know from the Einstein Diffusion relation, that the rate of diffusion is only linearly proportional to
temperature:

D = KB T
Where:
D is the diffusion constant
is the "mobility", or the ratio of the particle's terminal drift velocity to an applied force, = vd / F
kB is Boltzmann's constant
T is the absolute temperature
Hence: the power produced by LENR fuel must also be directly proportional to the temperature.
This is backed up by an experiment of Storms, which
shows a clearly linear relationship between excess
power and temperature, above an ignition point

http://lenrexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PROGRESS-REPORT-5-corrected.pdf

Once we move beyond the erroneous belief that


LENR reactions must follow the Arrhenius equation,
we can understand why a small joule heater is the
best way to control the E-Cat

Comparison between applied power produced by using a variable applied


current or a fixed applied current of 0.1 A while causing a change
in cell temperature. The amount of applied current is shown.

Consider the operating envelope of an E-Cat type system: The reaction apparently starts at the Debye
temperature of nickel, and its rate of power production increases linearly until the nickels melting point
__________________________________________________________________________________
2

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Also, heat is lost (or rather, power is transmitted) in a linear fashion though a heat transfer material
(basically a watertight insulating box) to the coolant, according to the standard equation:

q = h T
It is possible to select the thermal characteristics (thermal conductance x thickness = h) of the heat
transfer material, so that the temperature difference required to push a given amount of power through it
is always less than the fuel temperature required to produce this power. Hence the system will always
cool down, unless extra heat is provided, in this case by joule heating.
For example, in the diagram below, the fuel temperature is 950oC, and it produces 45W/cm2 but the heat
transfer material can conduct 50W/cm2, when given a T of ~830oC
Furthermore, as we are working in a linear regime, it is also possible to select the above thermal
characteristics, so that for any given fuel power output, the temperature of the outside face of the heat
transfer surface remains at a constant temperature. Assuming that the cooling system is not highly
pressurized, this temperature is likely around 120-150oC, as this allows the most efficient transfer of heat
into boiling water, with a small safety margin. (120oC is 70% of the critical temperature on waters poolboiling curve, which corresponds to a heat transfer of 70W/cm2 at 1 atm).

__________________________________________________________________________________
3

_____________________________________________________________________________________
And Before some chief tries to claim this graph is based on assumptions and made-up numbers, know
this: The numbers may change slightly, but the graph will always be roughly the same shape, because the
maximum heat flux you can realistically put into (still) water at mains pressures is 70-100W/cm2.
Some points that may be of interest are:
The minimum heater size required to fully control the reactor over its entire temperature range is just over
1/6th of the reactors rated power. Rossi actually claims his heater is sized at 1/4 of his overall rated
power.
Rossis patent shows each fuel module is a flat double-sided unit measuring 30cm square. (The heater is
placed centrally). At these dimensions (2 x 30cm x 30cm x 70W/cm2), each fuel module could produce
125kW without being overly stressed, and this could be increased depending on cooling water flow rates.
In this example, the closer the reactor is driven to a limit of 1366oC, the slower it will loose temperature
when the heater turns off. An intelligent operator would seek to hold the reactor as close to this limit as
possible, as it would reduce their electricity bills. This could be achieved by pulsing the power input, to
utilise the (heat) diffusion time-constant of the heat transfer material. I believe this is what Rossi calls
self-sustain mode. (See original report for a better explanation of this). Although, to avoid thermal
runaway (when the temperature is above 1366oC) the reactor would need a robust and responsive
control system.
NB. In reality two extra heat transfer coefficients (one at each surface of the heat transfer material) would
have to be added in to the calculations. However, these are also based on linear temperature
dependencies. So, no big deal.

Why can't you feed back a small amount of drive energy through some control mechanism from the
output of a highly exothermic device? I can think of several ways to do it reliably. Rossi can't?
George Simplicio Hody

I can guarantee that every single one of these reliable ways will be straight out of the Heath Robinson
handbook of engineering: completely unnecessary complexity. Seriously I want to see a control system
block diagram or STFU. At best it would be less efficient than the heater method. Have you never heard
of Keeping It Simple, Stupid?

It was always odd that the hot cat, doesnt even have a forced cooling system of some sort
cooling is entirely passive!
George Simplicio Hody

__________________________________________________________________________________
4

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Safety systems should be entirely passive. Fukushima had a forced cooling system to control the reactor
during a crisis, and look what happened to that. Do you realise that no country in the world, other than
Japan, would allow a modern nuclear reactor to be cooled (during a crisis) in this manner? Unfortunately,
the consequences of this oversight were completely predictable (at least for the rest of the world). It was,
and still is, a dumb idea. What happens when theres a power cut? Maybe a costly and entirely
unnecessary back-up generator, Mr Robinson?

Another way to look at the absurdity of needing controlled heat to stabilise a temp-dependent
exothermic reaction: With controlled heat the max power stabilisation is equal to the maximum
power in.
With controlled (liquid or radiant) cooling the max power stabilisation is equal to whatever the
cooling system can manage and much larger.
And, of course, controlled liquid cooling gives you a simple way to extract your heat. Temperature
control in a PID loop can then be used to modulate power out.
T. Clarke

As shown in the example above, statements about maximum power stabilisiation being only equal to
power in, are incorrect: A relatively small heat input can drive the fuel temperature over its full
working range, regardless of how much additional heat the fuel is producing.
The effect of the PID controller would be reduced by the vastly increased reset-time inherent in the
solution proposed above, due to the large capacitance positioned between the controlled variable (the
fuels temperature) and the control input (the cooling water). One would have to choose between a
relatively unstable fuel temperature, or instability in the rate of power delivered to the customers process,
which might not be tolerant of such fluctuations. Its the engineering equivalent of driving blindfolded,
with your passenger shouting directions. The alternative strategy of an electric heater in relatively
intimate contact with the fuel (as used in the e-cat) allows more robust control overall, without the
instability trade-off.

DESPITE SLADS PREVIOUS GRACIOUS EXPLANTION, IM STILL NOT CONVINCED THAT


THE E-CAT CAN OFFER 100x THE POWER DENSITY OF MIXED OXIDE NUCLEAR FUEL
WITHOUT MELTING CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT TO ME SOME MORE PLEASE?
(NB: edited for excessive length and extraneous arguments)

Following publication of my previous report, several comments were received that led me to make some
minor changes to the original text. In addition to this, several other comments were also received which
suggest that a particular skeptic (with an astrophysics PhD, no less) is still struggling with some very basic
thermodynamic concepts:

__________________________________________________________________________________
5

_____________________________________________________________________________________

In your consideration of the comparison, you missed the important point that the fuel in a fission
reactor is cooled, whereas the E-Cat fuel is heated. That is to say the E-Cat fuel has to transfer its heat
to the wall at a temperature even you put at 1300C, whereas the rim of the fuel pellet in a fission
reactor is typically 200C. So even if you account for the factor of 100 in power density by the
increased thermal conductivity and reduced thickness, which would suggest a similar temperature
difference (1000C) should be needed.
Joshua Sagredo Tan nee popeye

Ye gods! Where to start with this one The E-Cat fuel is not heated in the sense you claim above it
is loosing more heat than is being provided by the electric heater. It makes no difference what the
temperatures of the two transfer surfaces are, if one is cooler, heat will flow to it, whether its at 1300oC or
200oC. What you seem to be suggesting is that at any boundary, for a given T temperature (1000oC), the
same amount of heat will flow. Never heard of a heat transfer coefficient?
The point is: That if an active nuclear fuel rod has a temperature at the centre of 1500oC, but at its edge
(only ~5mm away) the temperature is 200oC, that should tell you everything you need to know regarding
the horribly inefficient heat transfer happening inside the fuel rod: Its a sintered ceramic, it is insulating
its own generated heat. It would not be difficult to drastically increase the efficiency in theory, just make
the fuel pellets (much) thinner and wider. Come on chief. Maybe one should stick to star-gazing?

BAH! WHY DOES NO ONE SEEM BOTHERED BY THE POMPOUS AND ARROGANT TONE OF
THE SUBJECT ARTICLE?! THIS FROM SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO THINK HE IS GALILEO?!

Sigh Perhaps it is a matter of taste.

I FOUND A GRAPH ON WIKIPEDIA THAT PROVES YOU WRONG. CAN I TELL YOU ABOUT IT?

No, Josh I dont have time, and youll only end up embarrassing yourself.

WHAT WAS THAT QUOTE BY ROBERT KIYOSAKI AT THE TOP OF THE PAPER AGAIN?

I cant remember. All I can say is that my brain feels odd, and it didnt feel like this last week.

Continued.

__________________________________________________________________________________
6

_____________________________________________________________________________________
SLAD, WHY ARE YOU STILL WASTING YOUR TIME WITH THIS NONSENSE? DONT YOU
KNOW THE E-CATS CoP = 1.07?

There are two types of Optris PI-160 camera: The standard version, and a manufacturer modified, hightemperature version. The Lugano team used the latter, however the authour of the CoP = 1.07 paper based
his calculations on the datasheet for the former.
So, one should not be too surprised by the strange result. Bullscheisse in usually equals bullscheissen out

DOES THIS MEAN THERE ARE, IN FACT, THREE CHIEFS?

Well, in my professional opinion, I could say that depends on whether there was an intention to deceive,
but didnt you read the title? There can only ever be two chiefs, chief.

Res ipsa loquitur.

__________________________________________________________________________________
7