July 30, 2011
Issue #37


Previous ArticleTable of ContentsNext Article
New Energy Times home page


Rönnblom Analysis of Outlet Hose in Rossi Experiment

Appendix 5 to New Energy Times Report #3

By Johan Rönnblom

I looked at New Energy Times Editor Steven B. Krivit's video from Andrea Rossi's demonstration of his E-cat apparatus. Here are some observations I made.

When Rossi displays the steam (actually, mist) at 11:30, we can see that the mist does not move at any great speed. If there is steam in addition to the mist, it will, of course, move with the same velocity at the opening of the hose.

The density of water vapor is 0.804 grams per liter. Rossi claims a flow of 7 kg per hour, mostly steam. At 13:10, the text on the hose is visible, and googling this returns http://www.parkerstore-malz.de/img/industrialhose.pdf, where this hose is found at Page E6.

This means that Rossi's claim that the hose is a high-temperature hose is incorrect. This hose is rated for 80 degrees (which of course does not rule out that 100-degree water and/or vapor can pass through it; this probably only degrades the lifespan of the hose, rather than destroying it immediately).

There is a high-temperature version of the hose on Page F6, but it is marked TERMOPRESS rather than PRESS, and the lowest diameter is 20.5 mm. Also, this hose is rated at 120 degrees, not 180. At 10:11, we can see Rossi holding his hand behind the hose, and we can see that the diameter is less than his little finger. I therefore conclude that the hose has a diameter of 15 or 17 mm, which, according to the data sheet, means that the inner diameter is 8-12 mm. My guess is 17 mm outside and 10 mm inside, but let's calculate for 12 mm.

Using Rossi's claim, the volume per second is (7/0.000804)/3600 l/s = 2.42 l/s = 0.00242 m2/s. With 1.2 cm diameter and 75% steam, the velocity would then be 0.00242*0.75/((0.015/2)^2*pi) = 16.0 m/s.

This does not seem consistent with the observation, and therefore I conclude that either the throughput is lower or a significant mass part exits the hose as water and/or mist rather than steam — or a combination of these.

For the case in which we assume that the water enters the hose as vapor but a significant mass part condenses inside the hose, the hose must absorb somewhere on the order of several kW heat. This does not appear probable.


Brief Biography of Johan Rönnblom (Stockholm, Sweden)
Johan Rönnblom has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering and has studied steam mechanics. He works as a software engineer.


Previous ArticleTable of ContentsNext Article