Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
On 2011-07-18 06:04, Daniel Rocha wrote: How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with 600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to 1MW to emulate the big e-cat. Regarding the input power of the 1MW power plant, today Rossi added this: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=501cpage=3#comment-54536 Dear Marcia: The maths of your question are quite messy, so let me make it simple: in the worst case, we consume 170 kW to produce 1 MW. In the best case we consume nothing to make 1 MW. The average is 85 kW to produce 1 MW. Warm regards, A.R. Perhaps the best way to make sure that the 1MW plant is true would be to measure the output energy while the input is zero. 1 MW of heat in such conditions would be quite hard to fake (the test would have to run long enough, ie more than a few seconds - possibly minutes - without a noticeable drop in output heat. Of course one would have to pay attention to possible external sources of power or heat). Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
From Akira ... Perhaps the best way to make sure that the 1MW plant is true would be to measure the output energy while the input is zero. 1 MW of heat in such conditions would be quite hard to fake (the test would have to run long enough, ie more than a few seconds - possibly minutes - without a noticeable drop in output heat. Of course one would have to pay attention to possible external sources of power or heat). Admittedly, I could be naive on this point but I find myself still willing to accept the premise that Rossi's eCats probably produce a fair amount excess heat... probably well beyond what's being fed into them. What I remain less certain about, however, is just how much and how stable the generated heat might be. It would not surprise me if Rossi is concerned about the stability of his eCats as well. The apparent fact that he kept changing the size of his eCats WELL after the initial January demo suggests to me that Rossi may still be performing a lot more RD work that we might assume is the case, as compared to finalizing the engineering specs for the scheduled October dog pony show. Alas, we speculate... we worry. Worry produces excessive thinking of the speculative kind. Fertile speculation produces more worry, and on and on it goes. I'm reminded of a famous phrase from a popular song: Don't worry, be happy. The song made that artist a ton of money. ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
Yeap. This is what I expect transpire:- A 1 MW unit will be qualified in the very same way the individual devices have been qualified: volumetric input of liquid water will be compared to electric power input. It should be a marketing success. On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Dear people, How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with 600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to 1MW to emulate the big e-cat. If this is a scam, we won't have the means to know that easily in October with the presentation of the big e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
At 01:56 AM 7/18/2011, Damon Craig wrote: Yeap. This is what I expect transpire:- A 1 MW unit will be qualified in the very same way the individual devices have been qualified: volumetric input of liquid water will be compared to electric power input. It should be a marketing success. Andrea Rossi July 18th, 2011 at 11:21 AM Dear Maryyugo: I repeat: no more public tests will be made. The tests will be made by our Customers with the plants they will buy, based on precise guarantees we give. If our Customers will want to make their plants tested from third parties, this will be a right of them. Warmkest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi July 18th, 2011 at 6:31 AM Dear Ing. Albert Ellul: Honestly, I must say that it will take time before we will be ready to deliver small units. We will start in November to accept orders for 1 MW plants. For the small units many problems have to be resolved still, starting from the issue regarding the authorizations, which are more complex for units destined to households, for obvious reasons. It is too soon to talk of the characteristics of the small units, in any case when they will hit the market the version will be supplied with all the items deriving from the experience with the 1 MW modules. Warm Regards, A.R. [ I thought that Defkalion said they were taking orders for small Hyperions in November. ]
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
At 10:02 AM 7/18/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote: [ I thought that Defkalion said they were taking orders for small Hyperions in November. ] Their products page says http://www.defkalion-energy.com/products The 1MW Hyperion will be inaugurated in Q4 of 2011 with its production phase to commence in Q1 of 2012. No mention of schedule for small hyperions. ps : They have a big black-box pop-up warning AVOID SCAMS.
[Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
Dear people, How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with 600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to 1MW to emulate the big e-cat. If this is a scam, we won't have the means to know that easily in October with the presentation of the big e-cat.
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: Dear people, How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? That's a good question. Individual ecats have produced nothing but controversy. If the MW reactor is just multiple ecats, and they use the same sort of demo to prove it works (claiming dry steam) I don't see why the same objections wouldn't apply. Rossi needs a reactor that does not need input.
Re: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
I don't know if I wasn't clear or I am just not understanding you. I am not actually questioning if the whether the objections would apply or not but how we could objectively object by looking at videos or reproducing small demos. Even 140KW is a bit too much of steam or even heated water to make sense in terms of house hold objects.
RE: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
I would expect that the 1MW demo will not involve a phase-change in the calorimetry. With Defkalion's statements as to alternate coolants being used into a heat-exchanger, and combination heat-and-power models, the questionable Rossi tests will hopefully be rendered obsolete. This is presuming that it's not a scam. The statements of Defkalion, including their alleged liquid-phase-only testing, mean that they've either passed Rossi in development, or they are complicit in propogating misinformation. I find it difficult to believe that the Defkalion Board of Directors could be complicit in such a scam, but a desktop nickel-hydrogen powerplant is tough to swallow, too. I commend Cude in making straighforward, sensible arguments on the steam-issue. But, this dead horse needs a reprieve. October is fast approaching, and Rossi has done nothing to make himself more credible in his past few demonstrations. I don't expect this leopard to change his spots, and cringe when I imagine who will next join his pool of snakes and clowns. Let's hope that Defkalion's demonstration will leave all of the questions in the dust, and redeem Rossi as simply one of many defensive inventors who lacks people skills. Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:04:26 -0300 From: danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true? Dear people, How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true during a presentation? It is certainly not hard to emulate the e-cat performance at home with 600W, 1KW or maybe a laboratory with a 5KW source to heat water. But for a fake e-cat, it would be required 140KW to 1MW to emulate the big e-cat. If this is a scam, we won't have the means to know that easily in October with the presentation of the big e-cat.
RE: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
1MW demoplant will produce ca. 414°C steam. It is completely irrelevant if it really works in scientific way or not, because it will be only a demonstration for journalists and politicians. If you want real proof, you can pay and preorder your own E-Cat and if you do not get what was promised, you can just send Rossi co. into prison for commiting fraud. —Jouni
RE: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true?
Robert wrote: The statements of Defkalion, including their alleged liquid-phase-only testing, mean that they've either passed Rossi in development, or they are complicit in propogating misinformation. Rossi is not really into the design of final products -- his 'product' is the reactor core with the secret sauce... that's all. Productizing it is up to the licensees like Defkalion. Thus, I think Robert's comment is accurate. It certainly appears that Defkalion has been building units and testing the technology for at least 6 months. The statements made so far also seem to reveal that they've taken the design and testing much further than Rossi. If they were not getting the performance out of the technology, managers of the RD would definitely know about it and Defkalion would have scrapped the effort... the only reasonable explanation is if they're all in on the scam, and that just seems very unlikely... either way, not much longer to wait. -Mark _ From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 9:54 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:How can we make sure that 1MW e-cat is true? I would expect that the 1MW demo will not involve a phase-change in the calorimetry. With Defkalion's statements as to alternate coolants being used into a heat-exchanger, and combination heat-and-power models, the questionable Rossi tests will hopefully be rendered obsolete. This is presuming that it's not a scam. The statements of Defkalion, including their alleged liquid-phase-only testing, mean that they've either passed Rossi in development, or they are complicit in propogating misinformation. I find it difficult to believe that the Defkalion Board of Directors could be complicit in such a scam, but a desktop nickel-hydrogen powerplant is tough to swallow, too. I commend Cude in making straighforward, sensible arguments on the steam-issue. But, this dead horse needs a reprieve. October is fast approaching, and Rossi has done nothing to make himself more credible in his past few demonstrations. I don't expect this leopard to change his spots, and cringe when I imagine who will next join his pool of snakes and clowns. Let's hope that Defkalion's demonstration will leave all of the questions in the dust, and redeem Rossi as simply one of many defensive inventors who lacks people skills.
