[Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Hi, isnt Rossi and everybody else aware that the energy produced is the most important thing in this experiment? Why did they hide the dissipators behind pressboard that looks like junk? This is the most important thing, and they try to make it look uninteresting. Why did they obviously underdimension and misconstruct the heat dissipators and pipes? Why didnt they measure air temperatures and air flow there and give some data about the dimensionig? From a psychological point of view this is telling much. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Who cares what it's behind?? Maybe he doesn't want people getting burned! Most machinery has some form of idiot fence around it! I find it amazing that people seize on the tiniest details, like a matron dissatisfied with her curtains. Rossi's test was a shambles of science - but what difference does it make? It once again demonstrated the reality of the phenomenon. That's all that matters. -- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin --- On Tue, 11/1/11, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de Why did they hide the dissipators behind pressboard that looks like junk?
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 09:19, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford: Who cares what it's behind?? Maybe he doesn't want people getting burned! Most machinery has some form of idiot fence around it! I find it amazing that people seize on the tiniest details, like a matron dissatisfied with her curtains. This is not a tiny detail. This is the final result. Arent you aware about this? From beginning on I was mostly interested in this, because anything else of importance - the steam is made invisible. Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
The previous tests were done, if not perfectly, then at least with care enough to demonstrate massive excess heat. Since the big plant is just a lot of small ecats thrown together, what point to Rossi would there have been? He was making a sale, not impressing his neighbors, or us. That he even threw this open to (as it turns out disinterested) reporters is amazing. The customer (NATO or NASA?) wanted to remain secret. If I'm selling something, the customer is always right! I think many people are projecting their own expectations onto Rossi. He's not a scientist, or even a hardcore engineer at this point. He's the lead sales tech for his company. Perhaps one day he'll hire another person to take over this role and he can get back to engineering and study. But without capital from sales, that's going to be hard. -drl -- I write a little. I erase a lot. - Chopin --- On Tue, 11/1/11, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tuesday, November 1, 2011, 3:26 AM Am 01.11.2011 09:19, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford: Who cares what it's behind?? Maybe he doesn't want people getting burned! Most machinery has some form of idiot fence around it! I find it amazing that people seize on the tiniest details, like a matron dissatisfied with her curtains. This is not a tiny detail. This is the final result. Arent you aware about this? From beginning on I was mostly interested in this, because anything else of importance - the steam is made invisible. Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 09:31, schrieb Danny Ross Lunsford: The previous tests were done, if not perfectly, then at least with care enough to demonstrate massive excess heat. Since the big plant is just a lot of small ecats thrown together, what point to Rossi would there have been? He was making a sale, not impressing his neighbors, or us. That he even threw this open to (as it turns out disinterested) reporters is amazing. The customer (NATO or NASA?) wanted to remain secret. If I'm selling something, the customer is always right! I think many people are projecting their own expectations onto Rossi. He's not a scientist, or even a hardcore engineer at this point. He's the lead sales tech for his company. Perhaps one day he'll hire another person to take over this role and he can get back to engineering and study. But without capital from sales, that's going to be hard. He could rent or lease these plants. This would be a reasonable business model. In this case he should get acceptance. Anyway these will nee constant supervision by him or his unssen support organization.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Peter Heckert wrote: Had he documented the airflow and temperatures in a credible way or had he used an industrial cooler that has known calibration data, then the energy would have been proven almost irrefutable. He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even if it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was massive anomalous energy. If you believe that Fioravanti honestly reported input power, the flow rate and the temperatures you do not need any other proof. If he was honest, this is not almost irrefutable; it is utterly irrefutable. It is ridiculous to raise any questions. On the other hand, if you do not believe he is honest, then you cannot believe these results. There is no middle ground and nothing to quibble with. The fact that you cannot see the steam is irrelevant. Stop making up silly reasons to doubt this. You need only say that you do not trust a person you have never heard of from an unnamed company. That is reasonable. That is a perfectly valid objection. Demanding to see the steam and complaining about the quality of the pressboard is not reasonable. You have a valid reason to doubt this, so stop inventing silly, childish reasons. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 14:56, schrieb Jed Rothwell: He documented the water flow. The water was vaporized. The temperature was well over 100 deg C. Fioravanti and all other experts in steam say this proves it was dry steam, fully vaporized. For that matter, even if it was wet steam or magically hot water in liquid state, there was massive anomalous energy. No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero. Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he is an expert. He did not mention the heat blowing out from this airtight pressboard jail. There was no abnormal heat. This is a proof that this guy was not interested in the real energy, but interested in a successful scam. Because nobody was talking about remarkable heat at the dispensers, we must assume there was no abnormal energy. All observers there where obviously technical ignorants or mentally handicapped or fanatical believers or scientific conmans. I think the experts from NASA and military experts will know how to analyze the visible diameters of pipes and the misconstruction of the heat dissipators and will recognize what is going on there. So much thermal energy (470 kW) streaming up into the sky must be visible to the naked eye like air on a hot tin roof on a summerday. Why did nobody look up and point to this? This demo was a perfect disproof, this is my impression. kind regards, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Peter Heckert wrote: No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero. Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he is an expert. Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant. Look, stop telling us that Fioravanti and Rossi might have faked this. That is perfectly obvious. No one disputes it. That is not news. If they wanted to present fake results they would not bother to put a heater near the thermocouple; they would simply present fake numbers. No one saw the power input measurements or temperature measurements. For all we know, the genset was powering the reactor the whole time. This situation is very, very simple. It is binary. If you think Fioravanti is telling the truth, this must be a real result with real anomalous heat. If you think that he and Rossi got together to put fake heaters near the thermocouples or pretend flow rates or any of a dozen other ways to make a fake demonstration, then you do not believe it. There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. We know these ways. Listing them proves nothing. Okay, it illustrates how easy it is to fake a demonstration and why we must have independent verification and replication. I am sure that all readers here agree with that, so there is no need to keep repeating it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero. Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he is an expert. Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant. So you have X ray eyes? He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately closed his eyes and goto somewhere else. Possibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision for the sale. Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
I think if there is a scam, you can put Levi with all of them. He was with Rossi and the costumer all the time. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/1 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? To: vortex-l@eskimo.com . It is binary. If you think Fioravanti is telling the truth, this must be a real result with real anomalous heat. If you think that he and Rossi got together to put fake heaters near the thermocouples or pretend flow rates or any of a dozen other ways to make a fake demonstration, then you do not believe it. There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. We know these ways. Listing them proves nothing. Okay, it illustrates how easy it is to fake a demonstration and why we must have independent verification and replication. I am sure that all readers here agree with that, so there is no need to keep repeating it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not enough heat from the radiator corral.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Peter Heckert wrote: Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant. So you have X ray eyes? When you insert a large thermocouple, you look at the thermowell and make sure it is properly placed. In a test of this nature you would remove it and make sure the pipe is clear. He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately closed his eyes and goto somewhere else. You are saying that he is taking part in the scam. Yes, we know you think that. Yes, we agree it is possible. Tell us something new. Don't keep repeating something that everyone here agrees may be true. Possibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision for the sale. Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before. Yes, indeed. It has happened. That is why everyone agrees this could be a scam. Do you have some other point? Do you think no one noticed this? Do you think we are all gullible fools and you are the only person on Vortex who realizes this might be a scam? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
vorl bek wrote: There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not enough heat from the radiator corral. That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat: 1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. That seems impossible to me, but okay. 2. Blatant cheating: If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero. Well, okay. But I say why bother? Just tell people the wrong flow rate, or make up fake temperatures, or leave the genset powering the reactor. No one was allowed to check so they might have easily done that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 15:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell: vorl bek wrote: There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not enough heat from the radiator corral. That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat: 1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. That seems impossible to me, but okay. Sorry, I edited this sentence and dismissed something. It should read: if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 470 kW, that means less than 100 kW. Water is at 100° can be steam and can be solid. Impossible to tell, because the pressure is not held precisely constant. Water does not suddenly explode, when the temperature goes from 99.99° to 100 degree, because any vaporization causes a small increase in pressure and consumes thermal energy and this stops vaporization.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 15:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell: vorl bek wrote: There is no point to listing all the ways they might have cheated. I thought he pointed out evidence that they DID cheat, i.e. not enough heat from the radiator corral. That was a different discussion. I think that is debatable. In this case, Heckert was listing various other ways to cheat: 1. Using magical hot water that is liquid at 100 deg C and 1 atm; i.e. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. That seems impossible to me, but okay. Sorry, I edited this sentence and dismissed something. It should read: if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 470 kW, that means less than 100 kW. Water is at 100° can be steam and can be solid. Impossible to tell, because the pressure is not held precisely constant. Water does not suddenly explode, when the temperature goes from 99.99° to 100 degree, because any vaporization causes a small increase in pressure and consumes thermal energy and this stops vaporization.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 15:50, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant. So you have X ray eyes? When you insert a large thermocouple, you look at the thermowell and make sure it is properly placed. In a test of this nature you would remove it and make sure the pipe is clear. This proves nothing. If there is a special device inside with a heater then it will be clear (dry). He did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately closed his eyes and goto somewhere else. You are saying that he is taking part in the scam. Not necessarily. He might be convinced it works from the previous demos. If he has too much faith then he is fooled. But anyway I say, he takes part. He can sue me. Then we learn about the customers idenity. Yes, we know you think that. Yes, we agree it is possible. Tell us something new. Don't keep repeating something that everyone here agrees may be true. Possibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision for the sale. Nothing new. Stuff like this has happened before. Yes, indeed. It has happened. That is why everyone agrees this could be a scam. Do you have some other point? Do you think no one noticed this? Do you think we are all gullible fools and you are the only person on Vortex who realizes this might be a scam? Somebody must say this and point to the visible and observable facts to make it clear.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
I have been monitoring this argument for quite a while. It is getting humorous. Peter, can you name one scientific experiment that has been conducted where there is absolutely no possible way to scam the results? The level of scrutiny that you seem to subject the ECAT to is incredible. I would venture a bet that you would not accept the reality of this device if you were given one to test for a year. For this suggestion, we shall assume that the ECAT actually is functioning as a LENR device, just you must prove it. What is the reason for the repetition over and over of the same arguments? Please try to come up with new concepts to suggest as we are very aware of the hot air question. I am confident that you can make many important contributions to the vortex with your vast knowledge. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Nov 1, 2011 10:41 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? Am 01.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: No. if it was hot water, then the energy was 5 times less than 100 kW. If there was a cold water flow in the other pipe, then it was less than 50 kW. If there was a heater near the thermoelement, then it was almost zero. Especially Domenico Fioravanti (customer engineer) must know this if he is an expert. Yes, he is an expert. And as an expert he would have know there was a heater near the thermocouple, or that there was cold water in the other pipe. Any expert would notice this. Heck, I would notice this in an instant. o you have X ray eyes? e did not want to see it. If he had seen it, he had immediately closed is eyes and goto somewhere else. ossibly he was an independent consultant and got monetary provision or the sale. othing new. Stuff like this has happened before.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 16:26, schrieb David Roberson: I have been monitoring this argument for quite a while. It is getting humorous. Peter, can you name one scientific experiment that has been conducted where there is absolutely no possible way to scam the results? The level of scrutiny that you seem to subject the ECAT to is incredible. I would venture a bet that you would not accept the reality of this device if you were given one to test for a year. You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing the Essen Kullander demo) When I see it output 470 kW energy and heat at the dissipators then I still dont believe, then I know ;-) If I then know the fuel consuption of the generator, then I know double ;-) Because this is impossible to fake.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Peter Heckert wrote: You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing the Essen Kullander demo) I do not see how anyone can believe that and disbelieve the Oct. 6. I thought the latter was much more convincing. When I see it output 470 kW energy and heat at the dissipators then I still dont believe, then I know ;-) If you think the EK demonstration is real then it stands to reason the big machine must be real. The individual reactors in the large demonstration are not putting out more power than they did during desktop tests. Why assume this is fake when the smaller tests were clearly real? It is not as if Rossi has become more controversial since EK. His credibility is no worse than it was back then. I was a little surprised it worked so well. I feared it might be difficult to coordinate so many units, or there might be a problem with a steam pipe getting plugged up or one of the machines overheating. I feared there might be an accident. I was relieved to hear that they ran at moderate temperatures and low pressure. I never thought it could not work in principle. If one reactor can produce 4 or 8 kW, it stands to reason that 100 can produce 470 kW. Why would anyone here who believes the smaller tests suddenly think the big one is fake? That makes no sense. For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? I do not understand why people think Rossi would go to the trouble to make a real system and a fake one too. If he has one that works he will use it every time. The big reactor was clearly made up of an array of the smaller ones. Anyone can see those were not fake boxes. If one works, why shouldn't they all??? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Hi, On 1-11-2011 19:43, Jed Rothwell wrote: I was a little surprised it worked so well. I feared it might be difficult to coordinate so many units, or there might be a problem with a steam pipe getting plugged up or one of the machines overheating. I feared there might be an accident. I was relieved to hear that they ran at moderate temperatures and low pressure. In hindsight I'm glad Rossi pursued his approach of building a big system to be shown to the World, which can produce up to 1 MW i.s.o. of showing only a couple of small e-cats with only a couple of kW. In fact I think Rossi did us all a tremendous favor as it just proves that this technology is absolutely mature and through it's basic simplicity and modularity just like building with Lego Bricks is extremely well scalable to any required size from small to extremely large. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In hindsight I'm glad Rossi pursued his approach of building a big system to be shown to the World, which can produce up to 1 MW i.s.o. of showing only a couple of small e-cats with only a couple of kW. I still disagree, vehemently. I think this is a terrible approach, from the business point of view. I think he wasted 10 months on this reactor. This reactor is entirely too big and it serves no useful purpose. It is a crude prototype which the customer will not be able to use for any real world application. Rossi should have done a proper test of a kilowatt scale device back in January. Many venture capitalists and business people have approached me since then, and said they would give him large sums of money and all the support he needs if he will only do a properly instrumented engineering test. In fact I think Rossi did us all a tremendous favor as it just proves that this technology is absolutely mature and through it's basic simplicity and modularity. . . It does not prove a damn thing, because he did not allow independent verification of the claims, and we do not even know who the customer is. It suggests the technology is real. It is further evidence of that, which fits in with previous evidence. It is not proof in the engineering or scientific sense. It does not look mature to me. Obviously you can use modules in this method but I think that is a wacky way to build a megawatt scale reactor. It has way too many individual modules and pipes, and way too many things that can go wrong and will go wrong. Many small cells integrated into a larger device would be better. Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Hi Jed, Am 01.11.2011 19:43, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: You are in error. There was a time when I believed. (After analyzing the Essen Kullander demo) I do not see how anyone can believe that and disbelieve the Oct. 6. I thought the latter was much more convincing. This is simple to explain, it has a reason: Essen Kullander observed clearly that the input energy was not enough to heat the water flow to 100°C. So there was a definitive massflow proof of overunity. It was witnessed by 2 independend and trustable scientists. Of course this is not a scientific proof, but it is impressing. It was not enough to exclude tricks like a secret remote switch that activates the heater when no one watches the Amp meter. There where no contradictions in the explanations. With the October 6 test there was so much false selfcontradicting information about Defkalion, Steam, Pressure and so on, and the claims where not coincident with the observations, for example hot water shooting out with obviously high pressure while Rossi claimed it is almost air pressure inside. So I decided to ignore this. To much misinformation. If you dig into dirt you get dirty so better stop. Hope you understand. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
2011/11/1 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? In Krivit's E-Cat we can directly calculate that power output was significantly less than with Mats Lewan's E-Cat. Something like 0.9-1.5 kW, depending on real flow rate. As lower limit was so close to input that was 800 watts, it is reasonable assumption that there was no excess heat. At least, not much. It is not about thinking Rossi's motive to do such parlor trick, but calculating the numbers. But Rossi did not mind about the bad publicity, and that E-Cat was already outdated model. –Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Am 01.11.2011 22:33, schrieb Jouni Valkonen: 2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com: For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? For Krivit, Rossi /claimed/ the water flow and it was doubted by others and this was so early I did not understand everything and was confused by Krivits wetz steam argument. (I dont believe in wet steam today, but at this time I was unsure) Essen Kullander /measured/ the water flow, so this was secured believable data. When they then found, that the input energy is too low for boiling, I was impressed.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Hi, On 1-11-2011 22:33, Jouni Valkonen wrote: 2011/11/1 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com: For that matter, why would anyone think the Krivit test was fake? In Krivit's E-Cat we can directly calculate that power output was significantly less than with Mats Lewan's E-Cat. Something like 0.9-1.5 kW, depending on real flow rate. As lower limit was so close to input that was 800 watts, it is reasonable assumption that there was no excess heat. At least, not much. Wait a minute, if the e-Cat during this test in June was running in self-sustained-mode this matches approximately the results from the 28 October test. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Peter Heckert wrote: With the October 6 test there was so much false selfcontradicting information about Defkalion, Steam, Pressure and so on, and the claims where not coincident with the observations, for example hot water shooting out with obviously high pressure while Rossi claimed it is almost air pressure inside. Are you talking about the Oct. 6 test? It sounds like the Sept. 14 one. I mean the one with the heat exchanger, no hot water shooting out. The instrument readings on that are questionable, but I think the fact that it remained hot for 4 hours is first-principle proof of tremendous anomalous heat, as I wrote here: http://lenr-canr.org/News.htm I do not see how you can quibble with that. In this analysis I am assuming there are no hidden wires or chemical fuel. So I decided to ignore this. To much misinformation. If you dig into dirt you get dirty so better stop. There can be no misinformation at the most basic level. 30 L of water in a poorly insulated container, that was quite hot to the touch (80 deg C surface temperature) remained very hot for 4 hours. That cannot be caused by anything other than heat generation. You can ignore all other aspects of the test, and you can be certain of that. I do not think there was any misinformation but only confusion. However, if you think it was misinformation then you should ignore it and look only at the temperature of that vessel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
Hi, On 1-11-2011 22:27, Jed Rothwell wrote: It does not look mature to me. Obviously you can use modules in this method but I think that is a wacky way to build a megawatt scale reactor. It has way too many individual modules and pipes, and way too many things that can go wrong and will go wrong. Many small cells integrated into a larger device would be better. Yes, this takes a lot of effort and time but that's just the power and essence of modularity, think small and put small modules that work well together to build large systems and achieve huge results. This is also how really large computer systems are designed and build. This is due to the fact that there is a limit to what technically can be achieved with single components and parts because of the constraints of the laws of physics and then you need to follow a different approach such as by designing and building for going in parallel. I have seen this years ago with capacity of digital transmission via light passing through optic fibers. The only way that Lucent's Bell Labs was able to tackle this problem and achieve higher capacity through their optic fibers was, by multiplexing light signals with a technique called DWDM (Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing). Therefore in my opinion Rossi has understood the concept of modularity perfectly well. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
rofl! aleays start with a sphere Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea. - Jed
Fw: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard?
- Original Message - From: John Harris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? Jed Wrote Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea. Safety and the Rossi reactor Have only just subscribed but been a lurker for quite a while so I thought to add a comment on a previous discussion about the square design of the reactor water chamber. (wrote this a while ago but didn't post it) I think this is probably a good design at this stage of understanding of the reactor. A cylinder with domed or concave ends is the prefered shape for water heaters and boilers but there is a good understanding of the maximum pressure they will be subject too and the maximum kW power input they will be expected to receive. We all know the result when someone removes the pressure relief or in the case of a wood fired boiler, fires it too enthusiastically, In this case there is a good likelyhood of a quite spectacular failure and there have been cases of houses practically demolished from exploding systems. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bU-I2ZiML0 ) In the Rossi case we have a system where the maximum power from the raction cannot be properly determined and maybe the possibility of thermal run-away so it is fairly well impossible to properly size a relief valve for a cylindrical boiler. A square boiler on the other hand is a good compromise, the bolted on top will distort and begin leaking not far past its design pressure, a long straight seam will fail without much overpressure and do so in an unspectacular fashion - a bit messy and dont stand in the way of the steam but there will be warning signs and the results will probably not be too damaging. a rupture disk in a cylinder would offer some of the same protection but once again they tend to discharge quite violently and still cant be ported to a safe location and retain their simplicity and integrity. John - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 5:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi 1MW : Why is the energy hidden behind pressboard? Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: In hindsight I'm glad Rossi pursued his approach of building a big system to be shown to the World, which can produce up to 1 MW i.s.o. of showing only a couple of small e-cats with only a couple of kW. I still disagree, vehemently. I think this is a terrible approach, from the business point of view. I think he wasted 10 months on this reactor. This reactor is entirely too big and it serves no useful purpose. It is a crude prototype which the customer will not be able to use for any real world application. Rossi should have done a proper test of a kilowatt scale device back in January. Many venture capitalists and business people have approached me since then, and said they would give him large sums of money and all the support he needs if he will only do a properly instrumented engineering test. In fact I think Rossi did us all a tremendous favor as it just proves that this technology is absolutely mature and through it's basic simplicity and modularity. . . It does not prove a damn thing, because he did not allow independent verification of the claims, and we do not even know who the customer is. It suggests the technology is real. It is further evidence of that, which fits in with previous evidence. It is not proof in the engineering or scientific sense. It does not look mature to me. Obviously you can use modules in this method but I think that is a wacky way to build a megawatt scale reactor. It has way too many individual modules and pipes, and way too many things that can go wrong and will go wrong. Many small cells integrated into a larger device would be better. Also, square reactors are a really, really bad idea. - Jed
