Real Clear Politics
More at Free Republic and CNN.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Lithium ion battery hidden in E-cat to fool everybody?
A simple analysis is attempted here:
First, let's take a look at the weight of the E-cat before and after the Oct 6th test- from the pdf titled Test of Energy Catalyzer - referenced here before
Let's look at a couple of things in order to answer that question
These are the readings from the chart
1. 2.7
2. 6.7
3. 6.5
4. 5.3
5. 7.1
6. 8.5
7. 7.1
8. 5.3
9. 4.9
10. 5.7
11. 4.1
12. 3.9
13. 4.1
14. 6.7
total 78.6
avg reading 5.61 kw
3.5 hrs x 5.61 equals 19.635 kwh produced or 19,635 Watt hours.
This is not a scientific accounting, but it is the best that I am going to do with what I've got available.
Now, based upon the two numbers mentioned above, how much should the supposed lithium ion battery weigh and how big should it be?
Using the most favorable performance data for a li-on battery, it should weigh 19,635 Wh/ 250 Wh/kg which gives the weight of 78.54 kg. That takes up most of the available weight of the E-cat. If the performance number 100 Wh /kg is used, it exceeds the weight of the E-cat altogether. It doesn't appear likely that the lithium ion will fit on the basis of weight.
What about the size? Again, using the numbers above 19,635 Wh/ 620 W/liter, which gives 31.669 liters. Again, that would take up most ( if not all) of the available space of the E-cat. If the performance is less than that, it will be too big to fit inside the device. It looks implausible to fit a battery like that inside the E-cat.
Another issue is thermal runaway. Lithium ion batteries need to be cooled down. If they get too hot, they can explode. One problem with that is if you were to put it inside the E-cat with a lot of boiling water around it, how does it keep cool?
Another question: how does all that heat affect the performance of the battery? If it falters just a little, it becomes absolutely impossible for it to fit inside the available space.
All of this supposes also that the battery would not be detected when the E-cat was opened. Or, everybody who is there is deaf, dumb, blind, or a liar.
But, what about putting the battery elsewhere? But how do you account for the steam coming out of the E-cat? No. It is either in the E-cat or it isn't. You can't pull off this trick any other way that I can see.
But the trick is implausible unless the error is really large. That is the only plausible fault that exists, in my opinion.
First, let's take a look at the weight of the E-cat before and after the Oct 6th test- from the pdf titled Test of Energy Catalyzer - referenced here before
Weight of E-cat before test: 98 kg after test: 99 kgIf a battery is inside of the E-cat device, it must be able to fit in there and weigh no more than 98 kg. Is that possible with a Lithium ion battery?
Let's look at a couple of things in order to answer that question
- Specific power for li-on batteries range from 100-250 W-h per kg.
- Energy density is between 250-620 W-h per kg.
These are the readings from the chart
1. 2.7
2. 6.7
3. 6.5
4. 5.3
5. 7.1
6. 8.5
7. 7.1
8. 5.3
9. 4.9
10. 5.7
11. 4.1
12. 3.9
13. 4.1
14. 6.7
total 78.6
avg reading 5.61 kw
3.5 hrs x 5.61 equals 19.635 kwh produced or 19,635 Watt hours.
This is not a scientific accounting, but it is the best that I am going to do with what I've got available.
Now, based upon the two numbers mentioned above, how much should the supposed lithium ion battery weigh and how big should it be?
Using the most favorable performance data for a li-on battery, it should weigh 19,635 Wh/ 250 Wh/kg which gives the weight of 78.54 kg. That takes up most of the available weight of the E-cat. If the performance number 100 Wh /kg is used, it exceeds the weight of the E-cat altogether. It doesn't appear likely that the lithium ion will fit on the basis of weight.
What about the size? Again, using the numbers above 19,635 Wh/ 620 W/liter, which gives 31.669 liters. Again, that would take up most ( if not all) of the available space of the E-cat. If the performance is less than that, it will be too big to fit inside the device. It looks implausible to fit a battery like that inside the E-cat.
Another issue is thermal runaway. Lithium ion batteries need to be cooled down. If they get too hot, they can explode. One problem with that is if you were to put it inside the E-cat with a lot of boiling water around it, how does it keep cool?
Another question: how does all that heat affect the performance of the battery? If it falters just a little, it becomes absolutely impossible for it to fit inside the available space.
All of this supposes also that the battery would not be detected when the E-cat was opened. Or, everybody who is there is deaf, dumb, blind, or a liar.
But, what about putting the battery elsewhere? But how do you account for the steam coming out of the E-cat? No. It is either in the E-cat or it isn't. You can't pull off this trick any other way that I can see.
But the trick is implausible unless the error is really large. That is the only plausible fault that exists, in my opinion.
Morning Summary, 10/18/11
A quickie post. I don't have a lot of time this morning, so this is just to inform anybody that posting will be light today.
I am thinking over the lunar rocket proposition. It may turn out to be an interesting proposition.
Update:
Here's what I've figured out so far:
Hopefully, the above is readable. I put together sources from a couple web pages. I wanted it all in one spot, so it can be seen together. I've been working a bit on the delta v's, so this is not complete.
Update:
Here's some more calculations on a spreadsheet
Update:
If there's a problem here, it may well be that there isn't any such thing as a klystron or what have you that is capable of doing what I am describing. If there is, I'm not finding it on the web. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Gyrotrons and Magnetrons too. The stuff may be out there, but may not be suitable for this type of application. This may work, but the mass is more than I expected. Also, I'm not sure about the power output.
It also may be restricted technology because of its military potential.
I found such topics as induction heating, but this doesn't work for this type of purpose.
Also, I came across something I hadn't seen before: Magnetic field oscillating amplified thruster. However, the ISPs are not what I'm looking for, at least not in that range. Plus the thrust is too low. Here's another interesting page, but not practically useful. Also, this.
Overall, the idea may be feasible, but it would have to be some sort of government project. I would suspect that the government wouldn't want people to fool around too much with this type of technology.
Update:
Compare some of the numbers with the Lunar Excursion Module, which landed 12 men on the moon and brought them back safely. You can bump that up to 15 men, because of Apollo 13. If the lunar excursion module wasn't available to the Apollo 13 astronauts, they wouldn't have made it back safely.
Update:
It doesn't say that in this source, but it does in this. There may be nitrogen on the moon. If so, you don't need anything else in order to make rocket fuel, such as the hydrazine used on the lunar module on the Apollo moon missions.
Or you could crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and burn it. But hydrazine may be more easily stored and makes for a simpler engine.
Update: 10/20/2011
I found a likely error by comparing my work with the actual lunar lander numbers, which I obtained here. Also, my numbers were using kgs as opposed to pounds. The lunar lander ascent stage only weighed 10,000 pounds. I was allowing for 10,000 kg, and 1 kg equals 2.2 pounds. This wasn't the error, it was just a coincidence that the numbers were familiar.
I am thinking over the lunar rocket proposition. It may turn out to be an interesting proposition.
Update:
Here's what I've figured out so far:
 |
| some material obtained from wikipedia- thrust weight ratios and definition of watt |
Update:
Here's some more calculations on a spreadsheet
Update:
If there's a problem here, it may well be that there isn't any such thing as a klystron or what have you that is capable of doing what I am describing. If there is, I'm not finding it on the web. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Gyrotrons and Magnetrons too. The stuff may be out there, but may not be suitable for this type of application. This may work, but the mass is more than I expected. Also, I'm not sure about the power output.
It also may be restricted technology because of its military potential.
I found such topics as induction heating, but this doesn't work for this type of purpose.
Also, I came across something I hadn't seen before: Magnetic field oscillating amplified thruster. However, the ISPs are not what I'm looking for, at least not in that range. Plus the thrust is too low. Here's another interesting page, but not practically useful. Also, this.
Overall, the idea may be feasible, but it would have to be some sort of government project. I would suspect that the government wouldn't want people to fool around too much with this type of technology.
Update:
Compare some of the numbers with the Lunar Excursion Module, which landed 12 men on the moon and brought them back safely. You can bump that up to 15 men, because of Apollo 13. If the lunar excursion module wasn't available to the Apollo 13 astronauts, they wouldn't have made it back safely.
 |
| Looks like less power on the ascent stage than what I allowed for |
Update:
It doesn't say that in this source, but it does in this. There may be nitrogen on the moon. If so, you don't need anything else in order to make rocket fuel, such as the hydrazine used on the lunar module on the Apollo moon missions.
Or you could crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and burn it. But hydrazine may be more easily stored and makes for a simpler engine.
Update: 10/20/2011
I found a likely error by comparing my work with the actual lunar lander numbers, which I obtained here. Also, my numbers were using kgs as opposed to pounds. The lunar lander ascent stage only weighed 10,000 pounds. I was allowing for 10,000 kg, and 1 kg equals 2.2 pounds. This wasn't the error, it was just a coincidence that the numbers were familiar.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Andrea Rossi's E-Cat- the energy catalyzer's test of October 6, 2011
In Italian with English subtitles
Superhero and Sidekick return
DATING YOUR MOM
(In case you don't know their real identities, they're Rhett and Link----oops, was I supposed to mention that?)
(In case you don't know their real identities, they're Rhett and Link----oops, was I supposed to mention that?)
Floating airship could radically reduce the cost of space access
Sander Olson interviews John Powell of JP Aerospace ---Next Big Future
excerpt (from the comment section):
Here are the 3 remaining potential showstoppers:
1. Scaling active drag reduction.
Active hypersonic drag reduction has been demonstrated in the lab for 30 years. Can we take it out in the real world and scale it up to the airship to orbit requirement?
2. Power density.
Can we achieve the necessary electrical power to mass ratio? The current trend in industry says it will happen in 5 to 7 years, but it's out of our hands.
3. Can you really build two mile long lightweight structures at the edge of space? Working on it, we will let you know.
JP
President
JP Aerospace
America's OTHER Space Program
Comment:
It would be highly ironic and amusing if this can be made to work before NASA can get their big rocket to work. It won't cost the taxpayer a dime.
Update:
Just noticed the date: October 6th. No wonder I missed it. I was watching the E-cat news very closely that day.
excerpt (from the comment section):
Here are the 3 remaining potential showstoppers:
1. Scaling active drag reduction.
Active hypersonic drag reduction has been demonstrated in the lab for 30 years. Can we take it out in the real world and scale it up to the airship to orbit requirement?
2. Power density.
Can we achieve the necessary electrical power to mass ratio? The current trend in industry says it will happen in 5 to 7 years, but it's out of our hands.
3. Can you really build two mile long lightweight structures at the edge of space? Working on it, we will let you know.
JP
President
JP Aerospace
America's OTHER Space Program
Comment:
It would be highly ironic and amusing if this can be made to work before NASA can get their big rocket to work. It won't cost the taxpayer a dime.
Update:
Just noticed the date: October 6th. No wonder I missed it. I was watching the E-cat news very closely that day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)