[Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm I think, this is easy to debunk. They say, they have a toroidal magnet. An ideal toroidal magnet has no external field and so there can be no back electromagnetic force. Now this is untrue. In this magical moment, where the permanent magnet passes by at the toroidal magnet, the ferrite core is momentary driven into saturation. Because -obviously- the total magnetic field is not toroidal -in this magic moment-, the saturation will not be toroidal. The saturation will be strong where the magnetic field is strong. Obviously the magnetic field is strongest near to the permanent magnet. So, -in this magic moment- the ferrite core is saturated near to the permanent magnet and is less saturated at the opposite side of the toroidal core. Therefore -in this magic moment- we have a situation where the toroid looks like a toroid, but it doesnt work like a toroid. In this magic moment the toroid will act like an electro-horseshoe magnet. and we get a back-emf for a short moment. I think this is easy to understand and to debunk. Im disappointed that Naudin apparently tries to support this rubbish instead debunking it and this makes me very critical about his other experiments. Can he be trusted? He supports and tries all kinds of obvious crap experiments. Possibly he does it for money, creating faked overunity orgasms for his undisclosed customers. Of course, I cannot accuse him that. Maybe he does it just for fun ;-) Best, Peter
[Vo]:my offer for this Sunday
My dear Friends, My offer for this Sunday: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/09/thin-hopes-for-fat-e-cats.html - what I think about the recent E-cat news. And obviously the issue No 473 of my newsletter- interesting but not my merit: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com/2011/09/informavores-sunday-no-473.html Next week we (my wife Judith and I) will travel to Toscana. LENR problems and tourism. Very truly yours, Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Hi Walter! Am 18.09.2011 14:04, schrieb Walter Eager: Regarding your Debunking of Steorn You have some great theory my friend. It sure makes a lot of sense, and I do agree with some of what you are saying (because it makes sense). Just one thing. Have you actually tested your theory? No. I do however have knowledge and experience how magnet amplifiers and magnetic transductors work, and so this is not pure theory. Most of this what I say is well understood by any engineer and there is no need to prove my theory, ther would be a need to disprove it, if there are any doubts. I have now doubts. I know for a fact that Steorn have done some muli-million dollar practical, real-life tests to prove what they are saying, what have you brought to the table? Yes, it is a big investment hoax, this is not the only one that exists, this is clear to me. Even J.L. Naudin have done some real-life testing, even if he hasn't yet proven overunity, but he has proven the principle of the point that Steorn has made. What have you done apon which you base your so-called theory? As said, it is not theory, it is based on well known facts. I can clearly explain how this works, Naudin obviously cannot. You can use all sophisticated instruments and calculation, if there is a lack of understanding, this is useless. Naudin clearly doesnt understand it. If he understood it then he would try to demonstrate the back EMF. This shoudnt. be too difficult, but he shows no efforts in this direction, but does instead present a lot of overcomplicated measuremts and data without getting any clear result. You say you THINK this is easy to debunk!! This clearly shows to me you are unsure of your own facts. Im not unsure. Im just polite. If you dont want to agree, you need not to do it I dont force anybody to share my personal opinions. Be careful my friend, words are cheap, and just fools try to DEBUNK others without physical proof. 2 Days before the Wright brothers made their first flight a so-called expert debunked them saying Such a thing (flying) is impossible and foolhardy and it will never be done. This expert was compelled to publicly acknowledge his mistake afterwards! The Wright brother finally and repeatedly did fly. Steorn never has done a successful demonstration and all indpendent tests that where done years ago where without positive results How degrading! This so-called expert completely lost face afterwards. Real proof can only be gotten from real-life experimentation. I don't care if you have the most brilliant theories, but if they have not undergone any physical proof they are worthless my friend. This is not a brilliant theory. My explanation is based on well known and well proven and rather trivial technical facts and principles. Best wishes, Peter
RE: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
From Catania, ... As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah, I know, they tell us it was late in the evening and they needed their beauty rest. For true skeptics, the abrupt ending is nothing more than further proof that something fishy is going on. I'm suspect many skeptics probably feel vindicated... again. I supposed for true believers the recorded anomalous heat is just more evidence that proof is in the pudd'in... but, oh, what a shame they didn't run it a while longer, perhaps for a couple of hours, but oh well... I guess I'm currently in the camp that feels frustrated by the abrupt ending. Such abruptness tends to make me feel less confident as to the outcome. In the continued vacuum of solid rock-hard evidence such abruptness tends to make me personally want to conjure up unfounded assumptions - to manufacture conjecture based primarily on my emotionally laced suspicions: That the termination was done deliberately, with forethought. I don't know why they terminated it so abruptly. They tell us it was late in the evening, but Hell! Who really knows why. All I know is that basing my conclusions on emotionally based conjecture that neither proves or disproves an extraordinary claim is a fools game. Therefore, I will endeavor to do what I have done in the past: Wait and see. IOW I remain ignorant. Under the current circumstances there is no shame in that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
I saw the termination as a resignation that there is no anomalous heat. It showed there is no self-sustaining reaction since the temperature drop is correlated with power off. The write-up that Lewan gives shoes his lack of general physics knowledge and that he is most likely a paid biased spokesperson. A continuation of the demo would have borne out the continuation of temperature drop from the cooling of the thermal mass. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 11:25 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The September E-Cat From Catania, ... As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah, I know, they tell us it was late in the evening and they needed their beauty rest. For true skeptics, the abrupt ending is nothing more than further proof that something fishy is going on. I'm suspect many skeptics probably feel vindicated... again. I supposed for true believers the recorded anomalous heat is just more evidence that proof is in the pudd'in... but, oh, what a shame they didn't run it a while longer, perhaps for a couple of hours, but oh well... I guess I'm currently in the camp that feels frustrated by the abrupt ending. Such abruptness tends to make me feel less confident as to the outcome. In the continued vacuum of solid rock-hard evidence such abruptness tends to make me personally want to conjure up unfounded assumptions - to manufacture conjecture based primarily on my emotionally laced suspicions: That the termination was done deliberately, with forethought. I don't know why they terminated it so abruptly. They tell us it was late in the evening, but Hell! Who really knows why. All I know is that basing my conclusions on emotionally based conjecture that neither proves or disproves an extraordinary claim is a fools game. Therefore, I will endeavor to do what I have done in the past: Wait and see. IOW I remain ignorant. Under the current circumstances there is no shame in that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 18.09.2011 17:25, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson: From Catania, ... As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all. I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah, I know, they tell us it was late in the evening and they needed their beauty rest. Yes, it was foreseeable that it will become late when they started ;-) So this was planned. Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended. Otherwise they could have go to sleep and look next morning what happened and what the computers had recorded. Video recording over night or webcam would be fine... Peter
[Vo]:Fwd: hammering me and cold fusion in Germany
-Original Message- From: fznidarsic fznidar...@aol.com To: vortex-l-request vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Sep 18, 2011 8:37 am Subject: hammering me and cold fusion in Germany Quote from planet hunter Regarding cold fusion is indeed so, that in recent years, repeatable experiments were carried out, but we find no explanation for it - resulting in a paper do so? This sentence is arrant nonsense. I have to explain why, or you yourself want to think about it, how you argue this? So is there anything to it already. No. There are no serious conferences will, and there is no reproducible results. Cold Fusion Science was short times, but is now run almost exclusively by spinners. Because there just are no experimental confirmation. I would like to get said (sorry, I'm so passive there), here and there, because it makes nonsense, wrong assumptions or similar requires Super, so I will deal further with this stuff and write a rebuttal to understand layman. Rather jump from banks or lenders get off, for fear of losing the (oh so) reputation. Managers are demoted or fired, just because they have tapped a sensitive issue. A little more courage would not hurt really. Why do not you think to yourself sometimes critically, instead of parroting this crap? It is not difficult to learn and find out why the field is so dead. The reasons lie elsewhere. Paper . Let's start with Znidarsic's constant Vt qualifies the velocity of the transitional quantum state. Already in the introduction of a constant named after himself. That's enough to have proper context as Crank. Low Level Nuclear reactions proceed in a domain of 50 nanometers.1, 12,13 They have a positive product of the thermal thermal coefficient.The frequency domain and the size is one megahertz-meter. Misuse of terminology (thermal frequency). Completely unmotivated product alleged domain size with the peak wavelength of blackbody radiation at an unspecified temperature. The product of the disk size and radio- frequency stimulation which, as in the case with ColdFusion, one megahertz-meter. Typical numerical mysticism. Electromagnetic energy flow strongly from the parent to the daughter states during transition. No. This sentence makes no sense. In the transition from a higher to a lower state of energy is released. It is reasonable to assume that the other natural forces interact so strongly during transition. Not at all. It is finally an Electromagnetic transition. The flux of the force fields flow strongly, and at range, from the parent to the daughter state. Nice alliteration, complete nonsense. Parent and Daughter states are in general spatially overlapping. A convergence in the motion constants uncouple the frequency of the EMITTED photon from the frequency of the emitting electron. A convergence of the constants of motion decouples ... Siinnfrei. What could possibly be decoupled? What is the frequency of the electron? What to do with the frequency of the photon? This theorem authors, The Constants of the Motion Tend toward those of the electromagnetic in a Bose condensate that is stimulated at a dimensional frequency of 1094 megahertz-meters A big Bose gas Bruach lower frequency than two small ones? Even if the two small ones are just as big as the big one? Anyway, who's suddenly the Bose gas? Vt Describes the velocity of the emitting structure. What speed? What moves it? now I'm tired of detailed comments. The main problem is that the author expresses nothing coherent, one could criticize. How does one determine when it is based on faulty assumptions, if it ever does not define a simple set of assumptions but unmotivated rate ranks? yet what firmer hand: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity states that a force can induce a field.The gravitational gravitational field of the electron may be coupled to the outward force of its confined energy.Newton 's formulation of gravity was set equal to Einstein's formula of gravitational induction in Equation (2 ). Needless to say, that the outward force again is an unmotivated zahlenmystischer any nonsense. In any case, says nothing of the kind of ART. A search for the keyword illuminates the facts: This fascinating world of law is used exactly one author, and it has also devised. No, not Einstein. We get one later classical radius of energetic accessibility, an elastic constant of the electron, a discontinuity of elastic displacement, electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic flux, a transitional centric electronic state, Lengths of energetic accessibility and this is only an excerpt. Not one of the terms has a counterpart in known physics. Not one is explained or motivated. All calculations are funny combinations of a few classic formula, such as the Coulomb or E = mc ². None of these calculations yields a prediction motivated some interesting measurement result. Everything is
RE: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
From Catania: ... The write-up that Lewan gives shoes his lack of general physics knowledge and that he is most likely a paid biased spokesperson. That is your speculation. However, since you seem convinced of such speculation, how do you plan on going about convincing... let me rephrase that, PROVING to the rest of the world that Lewan is indeed nothing more than a carnival barker? ...or are you just speculat'n, here? It leads me to wonder: Are the rest of your speculations based on the same caliber of personal conjecture? From Peter: ... Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended. As far as speculation goes, I find myself in sympathy with such speculation. What I find interesting about such speculation is that it suggests to me the distinct possibility that somewhere within the contraption anomalous heat may indeed be generated when input power is turned off. However, controlling and measuring these anomalous conditions isn't as predictable as Rossi might like us to believe. Actually, alluding to such speculation is a no-brainer. Rossi has pretty much alluded to it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 18.09.2011 19:03, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson: From Peter: ... Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended. As far as speculation goes, I find myself in sympathy with such speculation. What I find interesting about such speculation is that it suggests to me the distinct possibility that somewhere within the contraption anomalous heat may indeed be generated when input power is turned off. However, controlling and measuring these anomalous conditions isn't as predictable as Rossi might like us to believe. Actually, alluding to such speculation is a no-brainer. Rossi has pretty much alluded to it. Yes, Rossi repeatedly said selfsustained mode is unstable it can runaway. Therefore now he runs it selfsustained only for 50% of time now. Thats what he says. He must have done experiments for this. He has Labview on his computer. So I would think he has created a Labview programm to run it unattended in 50%-50% mode and to study the behaviour, but this seems not to be the case, or if, then it is not reliable enough. Best wishes, Peter
Re: [Vo]:The September E-Cat
Am 18.09.2011 19:26, schrieb Peter Heckert: Yes, Rossi repeatedly said selfsustained mode is unstable it can runaway. Therefore now he runs it selfsustained only for 50% of time now. Thats what he says. He must have done experiments for this. He has Labview on his computer. So I would think he has created a Labview programm to run it unattended in 50%-50% mode and to study the behaviour, but this seems not to be the case, or if, then it is not reliable enough. On the other side he claims he has heated a building years ago and saved 90% electricity. Honestly, that all is hard to believe. His plumber could easily get some old used radiators without cost from trash or from a building that is on demontage and connect them for free and a old heater pump then he could demonstrate this ;-) Best wishes, Peter
[Vo]:Test of archive dropping posts
I noticed that only some of my posts are showing up in the archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/maillist.html Any post which starts a new tread name appears to be unlikely to show up. I am sending some duplicate posts of some prior posts to check this theory. Sorry for the redundant posting. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Test of archive dropping posts
Weird! I resent the Henry Dircksand BLP's CIHT posts and they did not show up, while the Test of archive dropping posts post immediately did. I wonder if mail-archive.com is now screening screening mail for unwanted domain name URLs? On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Horace Heffner wrote: I noticed that only some of my posts are showing up in the archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/maillist.html Any post which starts a new tread name appears to be unlikely to show up. I am sending some duplicate posts of some prior posts to check this theory. Sorry for the redundant posting. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Test of archive dropping posts
http://www.blacklightpower.com/Press%20Releases/ BlackLightHydrinoElectricity112910.htm http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/02/25/ebay-walmart-google-among- early-adopters-fuel-cell-bloom-boxes http://www.earthtech.org/capabilities/vwfc/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Test of archive dropping posts
It appears mail-archive.com is now screening out mail which uses tinyurl.com. I go to the trouble to provide a redundant tinyurl reference as a courtesy, to avoid problems readers might have with line-wrap. This is a significant loss of function I think. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Henry Dircks
The following quote was sent to me by Scott Little. A more self-willed, self-satisfied, or self-deluded class of the community, making at the same time pretension to superior knowledge, it would be impossible to imagine. They hope against hope, scorning all opposition with ridiculous vehemence, although centuries have not advanced them one step in the way of progress. Henry Dircks, Perpetuam Mobile, or A History of Search for Self- Motive Power from the 13th to the 19th Century, 1870, P.354 http://t i n y u r l.com/3vuopax The above quote was Dircks' description of perpetual motion seekers. As a bona fide member of the free energy lunatic fringe, I must admit to seeing much of myself in the above description. It seems human foibles in general were the same foibles in the time of Dircks, Shakespeare, the bible, or the egyptian pharaohs. They are timeless. Dircks lambasts those who would engage in Alchemy, or the search for perpetual motion. And yet the discovery of the unstable nucleus, and its hitherto untapped energy, and alchemy, discounts Dircks' view, however well he may have described the personalities of those engaged in such Quixotic enterprises, both then and today. In addition to our foibles it is today thankfully still inherent in the diversity of human nature to quest for the secret key to the limitless energy that nature has hidden beneath its clockwork. If it is not found our future looks bleak. If it is found, it is not known if we are ready to handle it. We live in interesting times. And then there is the derision failure brings for our Quixotic efforts, even today. Some familiar names already appear in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines Who will be next? It seems to me the best thing we can do is to move forward yet constantly be on guard against our own self deception, to work as diligently to disprove as well as prove our conclusions, to struggle to get nature's true response to our view of her. Scott Little is a former vort (or vortexian might be more appropriate), a semi-retired employee of EarthTech International, and a guy that I know from personal experience approached many free energy concepts with an open mind. He has extensive experience with calorimetry applied to free energy devices. http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf http://www.earthtech.org/capabilities/dual/ http://www.earthtech.org/capabilities/vwfc/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant. Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar, @100 centigrade = 2675 J/g (taken from an industrial steam table) 10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s. Volume of steam = 1.7l / g So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the steam speed is 6.36 m/s. If the COP is 6 then the input power = 167 kW. At 380 Volt the current is 439 Amperes. I think they use 380 V 3-phase current in industry in US. The single phase voltage against the neutral zero conductor is 230V in this case. (I dont know the precise english words for this. Hope it is understandable) So this all sounds reasonable. I post this as is, you may use it or check for errors ;-) Best wishes, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 18.09.2011 21:19, schrieb Peter Heckert: So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the steam speed is 6.36 m/s. Oops immediately after posting I found an error ;-) 1l = 1000 cm^3 636000 cm^3/s / 100 cm^2 = 6360 cm/s = 63.6 m/s. So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm. Is this correct? Did somebody see in the video what the actual diameter is?
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 18, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant. Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar, @100 centigrade = 2675 J/ g (taken from an industrial steam table) 10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s. Volume of steam = 1.7l / g So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the steam speed is 6.36 m/s. If the COP is 6 then the input power = 167 kW. At 380 Volt the current is 439 Amperes. I think they use 380 V 3-phase current in industry in US. The single phase voltage against the neutral zero conductor is 230V in this case. (I dont know the precise english words for this. Hope it is understandable) So this all sounds reasonable. I post this as is, you may use it or check for errors ;-) Best wishes, Peter The photos are here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg49798.html The outside width of a standard container is 8 feet, or 2.44 meters From the full photo of the back side: The 8 feet = 129 pixels The red handle = 16 pixels = (16 px)*(2.44 m)/(129 px) = 30 cm, much larger than I would have thought. In the closeup photo the handle is 94 px, giving (30 cm)/(94 px) = 0.319 cm/px. The cap is 40 px, or 12.8 cm OD. The exit pipe appears to have a 22 px OD, or 7 cm OD. Maybe the pipe is 6.5 cm ID, or 3.25 cm radius, giving an area pi*(3.25 cm)^2 = 33 cm^2. The energy put into the steam depends on the temperature to which it is condensed before being fed back into the E-cat. Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C. The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g. If 1 MW is heating 100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s, with a volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec. This gives a flow velocity of (737500 cm^3/s)/(33 cm^3)= 223 m/s in the pipe, or 803 km/ hr. If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam could be released inside the container. Note, if water is fed back a 50°C I get only 675 liter/sec steam flow. Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of 4160 kg! I wonder what the shipping cost on that is? Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:BLP's CIHT
On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:54 AM, MJ wrote: First the eCat, now BLP. What's next? Antigravity? http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/975- undergroundbases MJ I wouldn't be the first time! 8^) See the vortex-l rules: http://amasci.com/weird/wvort.html http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html http://amasci.com/pathskep.html Quoting Bill Beaty: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vortex-L is for those who see great value in removing their usual mental filters by provisionally accepting the validity of impossible phenomena in order to test them. This excellent quote found by Gene Mallove clearly states the problem, and reveals the need for true believers in a science community otherwise ruled by conservative scoffers: It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them. - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963 So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of those who believe in the stereotypical scientific method. While this does leave us open to the great personal embarrassment of falling for hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to consider ideas and phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of hand without a fair hearing. There are diamonds in the filth, and we see that we cannot hunt for diamonds without getting dirty. Note that skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly acceptable on Vortex-L. The ban here is aimed at scoffing and hostile disbelief, and at the sort of Skeptic who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly proved true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations which conflict with widely accepted theory. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of 4160 kg! I wonder what the shipping cost on that is? Must be cheap (compared to sending a space aircraft across the ocean). Those containers are standard they can carry up to 25000 kg. A big ship carries thousands of those. see for instance: http://www.worldshipping.org/ mic
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 18.09.2011 23:22, schrieb Horace Heffner: Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C. The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g. If 1 MW is heating 100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s, with a volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec. This gives a flow velocity of (737500 cm^3/s)/(33 cm^3)= 223 m/s in the pipe, or 803 km/hr. If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam could be released inside the container. Note, if water is fed back a 50°C I get only 675 liter/sec steam flow. Thank you very much. So we must wait. Possibly he adds pipes or tubes. Or he uses higher pressures and temperatures or something else than water. Or he has other surprises. Only Mr. Rossi knows and he probably will not tell this to us and to competitors. I dont expect too much from the 1MW plant. Observers will not want to do measurements and tests inside this hot and somewhat dangerous box. My hopes are on the promised test in Upsalla. best regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Horace wrote: »Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of 4160 kg! I wonder what the shipping cost on that is?» Can anyone estimate what would be the building costs of this fake Megawatt plant? If it is asumed that there is inside conventional fuel water boiler, that can produce 200°C steam. Cargo fares may also be some few kilodollars. I think that this cost issue is right now the strongest argument that support Rossi, because I would say that no matter if it is a fake, the buiding and cargo costs of this MW plant should be some hundreds of kilodollars, especially if time is also counted. Therefore as we do not have any evidence that Rossi has attracted any investment money, for sure this is not very cost effective fakes. If you want to do fakes, I think that first requirement would be making at least convincing tests, that would attract media attention. Rossi have not even tried to attract media attention and is reluctantly accepted interviews. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:BLP's CIHT
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM, MJ feli...@gmail.com wrote: First the eCat, now BLP. What's next? Antigravity? http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/975-undergroundbases Harrumph! Not one mention of reptilians. T
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Woops, sorry Alan. I should be more careful. On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: Hi Colin, Alan Fletcher gets the credit for that scenario. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ On Sep 16, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: Hi Horace, Your 3rd scenario may be right. From mats Report According to Andrea Rossi the increased dimension is due to a larger volume inside where the water is heated, approximately 30 liters, and a larger heat-exchanger with a greater surface which should result in a more effective heat transfer from the reactor to the circulating water and *also in additional heating of the steam after vaporization. *Just strange how this works at the outlet and it also means the pressure may be 1bar as suggested by Mats. This will change a lot of the energy calculations. Colin On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: I'm still trying to figure out what's going on! The outlet port is very high on the unit ... if it was just the overflow from a kettle boiler then there wouldn't be any room for steam. I might have to go back to thinking of it as a Tube boiler, where the flow of the steam carries the water with it. But in the early stages of the process the overflow water clearly pulses, just a fraction of a second later than the sound of the pump. That implies it's directly connected to the incoming water. It's a kettle again. I've put up a few of my calculator results at http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_b.php It's clearly producing SOMETHING ... but how MUCH? How does it get the 130C at the instrument port and 50% fluid water at the outlet? I think there are three ways of reaching 130C. a) The internal pressure is 3 Bars, and the quality is 0.5. The water and the steam are in equilibrium at 130C. As the 130C steam leaves the system the pressure drops to 1 Bar and the temperature drops to 100C (adiabatic expansion -- a vertical line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram) -- and it might start condensing. But the 130C water would probably flash into steam, and in the process cool down to 100C. So do we end up with MORE or LESS water than we had inside the eCat? b) The internal pressure is 1 Bar (atmospheric, plus a little back-pressure), as a single chamber. In this case, the only way you can reach 130C is for ALL the water to evaporate, and for the steam to be super-heated. The 130C 100% Dry superheated steam leaves the eCat. But to get the observed 50% fluid water, this has to cool and condense in about 10cm. I don't think you can get rid of enough heat that quickly : it need nucleation sites, which will be available only on the wall of the tube. c) The eCat is structured as TWO chambers : the first is a kettle boiler at 100C (1 Bar). Any excess fluid overflows directly, at 100C. The steam component then goes into a second chamber, where it is superheated to 130C at 1 Bar. Because it is a separate chamber it does not have to be in equilibrium with the water. Note : this separation of boiler and superheater is very common in traditional boiler design. WARNING : needs a non-proportional font like courier !!! Port | | *--* ** | Superheated 1 Bar | || | Steam130C == || outlet hose 95% Dry | * 1 Bar 100C | ^ *=* Superheated steam = Steam | | | CORE |130C |~| |~~~ overflow fluid 100C | | | *-* ~ *- | *=* | | ~ | ~ | Water | | ~ | Inlet | Boil 100C |Water Trap 100C *--* This 130C steam also exits through the hose, and may (but need not) condense. It does not have time to reach equilibrium with the 100C overflow fluid over the 10cm distance. The main reason I DON'T like this is that the outlet is so high on the eCat. Missing measurements: a) Pressure at the instrument port (to confirm it is 1 Bar) b) Temperature of the overflow fluid water -- should be 100C c) Temperature of the steam exiting the eCat -- if it was superheated at 1 Bar then it should still be at 130C I can't figure out the dumping of the water at the end, either. Is it 100C water, or is it 130C water? 1 Bar or 3 Bars ? I've never seen 25L of boiling water dumped through a tap, so I don't know what it should look like. The general
[Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
Hello group, I have a question, its not so important but it keeps bugging me. In the movie Heavy Watergate Written by Mallove, Rothwell Frank http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6562030534380820378 At min 4:24 John Maddox Editor of Nature magazine says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox meant to say? Was there maybe a piece of footage cut-of after these words, that could explain what he actually meant to say? Did mr. Maddox himself believe cold fusion was true? And did he believe that it would be dead for a long time because the publicity was so negative? In another movie the voice over on the same piece of footage suggest that Mr Maddox was NOT believing anything about cold fusion, saying Mr. Maddox was the last nail on the coffin. I know, it doesn't matter all that much, it just keeps bugging me. Thanks, Bastiaan.
[Vo]: Slow-motion replay of valence electron motion...
You must take a look at the animation on right side of page, about half way down. The caption reads: Slow-motion replay of valence electron motion. Time has been magnified by a factor of approximately 10^15 in this sub-atomic-resolution time microscope to make this intra-atomic dance perceivable to human observation. http://www.attoworld.de/Home/newsAndPress/BreakingNews/index.html#2011-03-13 _snlde Depending on when the 'strobe light' hits it, the electron looks like either a figure-8 or a toroid! I think this is one reason why current models are only partially accurate. because it's a dynamical entity whose 'physical' or 'charge' extent is oscillating between two or more 'shapes'. I would assume that the extent of the vertical oscillation is across the entire diameter of the atom. -Mark
