Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Hi Peter, In every test there's been something missing. Why? Colin On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Dont ask me. Ask Rossi, ask Levi, ask Focardi, ask Passi or any other from this team. There is a very obvious answer, but it is impossible to prove, so I cannot give an answer. Also I have learned in live, the obvious answers are sometimes false and there are other surprising explanations. Peter Hi Peter, In every test there's been something missing. Why? Colin On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
That would have been an excellent idea Peter with one exception. If the fire and police had arrived to stop the display, then there might not have been enough time to prove that the self sustaining mode had a large enough COP. It is hard to win in that situation. Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 3:36 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Yes this is true. t was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much onsideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was inished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the ky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary essel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this ould look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts bout the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been uaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the xperiment. ;-) Peter Original Nachricht on: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com n: vortex-l@eskimo.com atum: 03.11.2011 02:43 etreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
I think I know the reason why there is always a question in such a demonstration. No one has ever performed an experiment that has completely eliminated any optional explanation for the results obtained. Those who accept the limited proof are convinced that the experiment was successful, while those who think it is a scam will always have a way to accuse the perpetrator. I feel that this is a law of human nature. Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 4:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Dont ask me. sk Rossi, ask Levi, ask Focardi, ask Passi or any other from this team. There is a very obvious answer, but it is impossible to prove, so I cannot give n answer. lso I have learned in live, the obvious answers are sometimes false and there re other surprising explanations. Peter Hi Peter, In every test there's been something missing. Why? Colin On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Yes this is correct. If the poutput energy is proven then it is still possible to doubt the amount of input energy or hidden energy sources. But I think the output energy can be proven: By heating a big amount of water or -preferably- by boiling a known amount of water in an /open/ vessel. This technology is well known and if the boiler is open, then anybody can see that no water overflow occurs. After this it is just a matter of time. Let it run long enough and reliably measure the diesel consumption. The point is this: Only the boiler and the diesel engine must be tested for this proof, no proprietary and secret parts need investigation. They could even use a diesel generator supplied by the testers. So a lot of trained independent people can do this without restrictions and witness it and under these circumstances no error is possible if there is really a COP of 6. Another absolute proof where this: Stirling engines specially designed for low temperatures to be combined with a household heater boiler are available nowadays with power in kW range. These are expensive, but if such a maschine is used, the ecat could run for days without external supply. But I think this is not necessary. If he allows the steam boiler to be investigated, or simply uses an open boiler, then the steam quality cannot been doubted, because this is visible and it is technology well known for 100 years to experts. Then the electrical input must be measured reliably and then no reasonable doubts can remain. As long as Rossi insists to keep the details of steam generation secret he cannot expect that his measurements are acceppted as proof. There is absolutely no reason to hide these trivial and nonproprietary components. Peter Am 03.11.2011 17:34, schrieb David Roberson: I think I know the reason why there is always a question in such a demonstration. No one has ever performed an experiment that has completely eliminated any optional explanation for the results obtained. Those who accept the limited proof are convinced that the experiment was successful, while those who think it is a scam will always have a way to accuse the perpetrator. I feel that this is a law of human nature. Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 4:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Dont ask me. Ask Rossi, ask Levi, ask Focardi, ask Passi or any other from this team. There is a very obvious answer, but it is impossible to prove, so I cannot give an answer. Also I have learned in live, the obvious answers are sometimes false and there are other surprising explanations. Peter Hi Peter, In every test there's been something missing. Why? Colin On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:33 PM,peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Yes this is true. It was a quick idea that I had during work and posted during work without much consideration. Rossi should have released the steam into the air after the testing was finished. This would give 300 liter of dry steam per second but in air up in the sky it will condense and should look impressive. Even better: If he had used this 105 degree steam to heat water in a secondary vessel with a heatexchanger, and let the water evaporate into the sky, this would look impressive and it would be hard if not impossible to have any doubts about the steam quality and energy. Worldwide attention would have been guaranteed, especially if then police and fire brigades come and stop the experiment. ;-) Peter - Original Nachricht Von: Colin Hercuscolinher...@gmail.com mailto:colinher...@gmail.com An:vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 03.11.2011 02:43 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM,peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think I know the reason why there is always a question in such a demonstration. No one has ever performed an experiment that has completely eliminated any optional explanation for the results obtained. On the other hand, some experiments are more convincing than others. The October 6 demo was very convincing to me, not because of the instruments. It was almost inadvertently good. Those who accept the limited proof are convinced that the experiment was successful . . . You also have to look at the totality of the evidence. One experiment on its own seldom prove something beyond doubt. You have to other experiments, especially ones that are replicated in other laboratories. Rossi is weak in that respect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Am 03.11.2011 18:25, schrieb Jed Rothwell: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I think I know the reason why there is always a question in such a demonstration. No one has ever performed an experiment that has completely eliminated any optional explanation for the results obtained. On the other hand, some experiments are more convincing than others. The October 6 demo was very convincing to me, not because of the instruments. It was almost inadvertently good. Those who accept the limited proof are convinced that the experiment was successful . . . You also have to look at the totality of the evidence. One experiment on its own seldom prove something beyond doubt. You have to other experiments, especially ones that are replicated in other laboratories. Rossi is weak in that respect. He must allow to connect tested and calibrated calorimetric equipment provided by an independent party to the steam output of the ecat, and allow to connect professional instruments that record the electrical input power. Thats all. Then he must allow enough time to exclude conventional sources. This has to happen all at the same time. If this succeeds then all noncriminal manipulations and errors can been excluded. Rossi is not weak. His qualification is good enough to understand this. If it doesnt happen, then he doesnt want this. Same for Levi. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: He must allow to connect tested and calibrated calorimetric equipment provided by an independent party to the steam output of the ecat, and allow to connect professional instruments that record the electrical input power. Thats all. Then he must allow enough time to exclude conventional sources. Why must he? Who says? He is a businessman running a private company. He can do whatever he wants as long as it is legal. He has no obligation to do any of what you describe. I think you would be more appropriate for you to say: I wish . . . as in, I wish he would allow to connect . . . It would be nice if only he would allow enough time . . . Or: gee, if he wants people to believe him, he will allow people to connect . . . Incidentally, in my opinion he has given enough time to exclude conventional sources. Four hours with only 30 L of water was plenty of time. I would like to see these things too, but no one is any position to order Rossi to do anything. When he fails to do these things he makes himself look bad. The thing is, he has every right to make himself look bad. That is his business and no one else's. He knows people do not believe him. He says he does not care. I think he is acting this way for a good reason. I suppose he is keeping a low profile because his intellectual property protection is weak. His patent is a joke. He is trying to avoid exposure and competition, while he shores up his patent position. There is nothing unethical about doing that. Any businessman would. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Am 03.11.2011 19:19, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: He must allow to connect tested and calibrated calorimetric equipment provided by an independent party to the steam output of the ecat, and allow to connect professional instruments that record the electrical input power. Thats all. Then he must allow enough time to exclude conventional sources. Why must he? Who says? He must do this if he wants to do a scientific level proof of evidency. If he wants public or political support he must do this. If he does not want this, then can his strange hobby in privacy and do what he want, I dont care which reasons he has for this. Its his time and I prefer to practise piano than studying these crappy experiments. Anyway he has not delivered what he promised. Compare his announcements against reality. What he delivered is not a thin shadow of this what was announced. No high level scientists or NASA experts where present and if, they wouldnt have had permission to examine the system. No high level scientific press. No webcam. No online power meters. No visible steam. Even the household ecat that was announced for January is delayed 2 years now. He did a lot of chatter before, but facts, as promised. did not follow. He violated his own rule: Facts, not chatter. He only sells 1 MW plants, anybody who is interested can buy them I dont care. He can for sure do what he wants I dont care. But I have a little bit fun about this, hehe its funny to watch and comment this ;-) Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Now Peter, you need to calm down there. Maybe the piano is not such a bad idea for relaxation. Rossi has his plans and we have our desires so who do you think will get there way? He has done a lot more than most companies that keep trade secrets hidden until the actual moment of sales. We have witnessed some wonderful results. I have been able to convince myself by several different processes that the LENR effect is real and functioning within Rossi's device. Why have you resisted proving this for yourself so thoroughly? That is all you need to do to join the club of people who will bear witness to a great era in history. Can you show proof that it is a scam? I suggest that you begin a rigorous attempt to do this so that you will see the truth. Do you want to be like Krivit who is blinded by his agenda? We need you to come back to the fold. Negative comments such as yours do not help further the technology in the public eyes. But, if you are totally convinced that it is a scam, I support and understand your reasons. Just make that proof solid and show us why you so believe. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Am 03.11.2011 19:19, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: He must allow to connect tested and calibrated calorimetric equipment provided by an independent party to the steam output of the ecat, and allow to connect professional instruments that record the electrical input power. Thats all. Then he must allow enough time to exclude conventional sources. Why must he? Who says? He must do this if he wants to do a scientific level proof of evidency. If he wants public or political support he must do this. If he does not want this, then can his strange hobby in privacy and do what he want, I dont care which reasons he has for this. Its his time and I prefer to practise piano than studying these crappy experiments. Anyway he has not delivered what he promised. Compare his announcements against reality. What he delivered is not a thin shadow of this what was announced. No high level scientists or NASA experts where present and if, they wouldnt have had permission to examine the system. No high level scientific press. No webcam. No online power meters. No visible steam. Even the household ecat that was announced for January is delayed 2 years now. He did a lot of chatter before, but facts, as promised. did not follow. He violated his own rule: Facts, not chatter. He only sells 1 MW plants, anybody who is interested can buy them I dont care. He can for sure do what he wants I dont care. But I have a little bit fun about this, hehe its funny to watch and comment this ;-) Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Am 03.11.2011 20:07, schrieb David Roberson: Can you show proof that it is a scam? No. Rossi knows how much scammers are out there and are competing. He often complains about all these snakes that are paid by hostile and fraudulent competition. If he wants to be different then he must show this evidency that he claims. As long as he doesnt do this I cannot decide between Piantelli and Rossi and others I see no difference. Do you see: Piantelli is totally quiet. He does at least not do present crappy demonstrations until now. Possibly Krivit knows better. He has seen a demonstration and discussed with the people, I have not. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: He must do this if he wants to do a scientific level proof of evidency. He has said countless times that he does not care what scientists think. He is only interested in what his customers think. That is a perfectly valid set of standards. Many businessmen think that scientists are a bunch of ivory tower academics who do not understand the real world. If he wants public or political support he must do this. If he sells enough reactors the public and politicians will surely support him! The public does not care about scientific standards at all. If he does not want this, then can his strange hobby in privacy and do what he want, I dont care which reasons he has for this. It is absurd to call this a hobby. It is a business. He just sold a reactor for $2 million. He probably has orders for several more at that price. His reasons are obvious. He wants to make money. Who wouldn't?!? My only objection is this: I think he should do things my way, because he would make a lot more money a lot sooner. I told him that. He ignored me. He has every right to ignore me. Its his time and I prefer to practise piano than studying these crappy experiments. It is childish to denigrate him this way. You sound like one of these elitists who denigrate hard work and capitalism. Anyway he has not delivered what he promised. Oh yes he did! He promised a 1 MW reactor. 470 kW is so close, the difference does not matter. Heck, the thing apparently works with no input. That's much better than what he promised. If Rossi had the outward appearance and smooth delivery of a scientist from central casting, such as Mike McKubre, * everyone would believe him and he would win the Nobel Prize next year. His problem is mainly public relations and poor presentation. He does not bother to spend a half-hour straightening up his experiment or placing the thermocouples in a way that inspires confidence, or in a way that can be independently checked. Arata is the same way. Everyone believes him because he has a hundred patents and metals from the Emperors past and present and a building named in his honor on the campus. Not because he gives a good presentation or writes good papers. His tests are nowhere near as convincing as Rossi's. Few experiments in the history of cold fusion have been as irrefutably convincing as Rossi's, especially the October 6 test. I have not seen a single valid objection raised to it here. Just a lot of silly hot-air. Lots of irrelevant bullshit about the instruments. The instruments have no connection to the first principal proof. They were a distraction. It is better to ignore them. He only sells 1 MW plants, anybody who is interested can buy them I dont care. You can bet that many important and influential people care! They care way more about 1 MW reactors than a body of 3,000 papers about cold fusion. If Rossi sells 10 more reactors, he will convince more people than all of the other cold fusion researchers in history. He will single-handedly overcome the political resistance to this field. I wish you would use a different strategy but I'm sure this strategy will work. It does have merit. He is no fool. - Jed * This is not to suggest that Mike McKubre does not deserve fulsome praise.
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Why not attempt to prove it is a scam? I suggest that you will find it is real. I prefer to have some data as supplied instead of just words as we see from Piantelli and others. Words are cheap. I saw a youtube link where some others talk about great progress. Now, let them show us a device. It may be that some of the snakes are paid by others. I doubt that the reason for their crappy results is because of money, it is more likely that they do not understand what they have seen. Everyone dislikes the crude experimental setups during Rossi's demonstrations. This is not new. A good scientist or engineer can work with the tools he has available. Use your tools. The ECAT is real. Not perfect, but real. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 3:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Am 03.11.2011 20:07, schrieb David Roberson: Can you show proof that it is a scam? No. Rossi knows how much scammers are out there and are competing. He often complains about all these snakes that are paid by hostile and fraudulent competition. If he wants to be different then he must show this evidency that he claims. As long as he doesnt do this I cannot decide between Piantelli and Rossi and others I see no difference. Do you see: Piantelli is totally quiet. He does at least not do present crappy demonstrations until now. Possibly Krivit knows better. He has seen a demonstration and discussed with the people, I have not. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
I hope Piantelli is like Conrad Roentgen. He worked for years in total secrecy and silency and did not tell a word to others. And then he presented a scientific work and experiments that gave total proof. Piantelli behaves like a real scientist until now. Lets hope for a surprise. He has announced it for spring 2012 so far I know. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Following up on Jed's comments: Conjecture that Rossi has been, in a sense, indirectly obfuscating some of his own results - as if to throw the bloodhounds off of his scent trail has been discussed to some extent within the Vort Collective. I suspect there is some merit to such conjecture. It's a form of disinformation. Disinformation is used all the time in warfare, both the hot and cold kind. Businesses use disinformation to confuse and baffle their competition all the time as well, so why wouldn't Rossi avail himself to exploiting the same tactics. Under the current circumstances, particularly where control over Rossi's little-understood technology could easily be pirated, Rossi would be naive not to employ disinformation tactics. Indirectly allowing his technology to appear bogus in the eyes of the scientific community through Rossi's repeated inaction of following inadequate scientific protocols, of not generating a sufficient amount of scientific evidence, is a tactically expedient way of dealing with potential competitors. Rossi, IMHO, is not naive. Also consider the possibility that Rossi may not even have to be deliberately pursuing this kind of a disinformation campaign. The fact that it's pretty well understood that Rossi's possesses a mercurial/intuitive temperament, a temperament that often does not seem to lend itself to the rigors of following proper scientific protocol, and well... the rumor mill will take care of the rest. The result is that conjecture that Rossi might be a con artist cannot be completely overruled. Add to the fact that anyone who is inclined to be suspicious and/or cynical of the actions of others, particularly where the evidence appears to have been obfuscated - the only conclusion that would make any sense to such observers would be that Rossi must be a fake. Meanwhile, as a business venture, all Rossi really needs to accomplish is to convince prospective investors of the fact that his controversial technology, however flawed and incomplete it may be, is authentic and repeatable. If prospective investors are allowed to bring in their own trusted experts (as they appeared to have been able to do at the Oct 28 demo), and if those trusted experts come away convinced that Rossi's technology is for real, the investor will sign on the dotted line and Rossi wins. It doesn't matter one damned hoot if the scientific community, skeptics and scoffers continue to hoot and holler and scream FOUL and SCAM!. Rossi will be laughing all the way to the bank, while Rossi's investors realize the distinct possibility that they have acquired a potential competitive technological edge over their rivals. Under the circumstances, such investors are probably inclined to remain discrete. They will probably continue the charade a little while longer. They will use that time to secretly tinker away in their own RD labs in an effort to improve on the technology to the point that it can be commercialized. The question we should be asking ourselves is as follows: Is Rossi a con artist? Only Rossi's investors know. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
I am afraid we need an engineer instead of scientist. Engineers get the task completed in a manner that is acceptable for production, at least eventually. Why not back a proven device? The others are no even in view for us to analyze. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations I hope Piantelli is like Conrad Roentgen. e worked for years in total secrecy and silency and did not tell a word o others. nd then he presented a scientific work and experiments that gave total roof. iantelli behaves like a real scientist until now. Lets hope for a surprise. e has announced it for spring 2012 so far I know. -)
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Am 03.11.2011 20:51, schrieb David Roberson: I am afraid we need an engineer instead of scientist. Engineers get the task completed in a manner that is acceptable for production, at least eventually. Think about this man at Fraunhofer (I dont remember his name) who invented MP3. He tried to get a patent on his ideas, but the patent was refused because the patent examiner said, this is impossible. High bandwidth music cannot been transmitted over a low bandwith channel, this is an eternal law and therefore this is impossible. ;-) Now, he made the alggorithm, proved that it worked and got his patent. Rossi can easily get a patent if he proves it works. No theory is necessary. If he proves it works, he gets a patent without question on his catalyzer. If he wants a patent he has to give prove. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Having the patent granted may not be such an important goal for him at this time. The longer he waits, the further into the future it extends. This reminds me of the submarine patents that come up far into the future when the most money is made. Rossi may be smart as a fox. Eventually it will be accepted. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 4:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Am 03.11.2011 20:51, schrieb David Roberson: I am afraid we need an engineer instead of scientist. Engineers get the task completed in a manner that is acceptable for production, at least eventually. Think about this man at Fraunhofer (I dont remember his name) who invented MP3. He tried to get a patent on his ideas, but the patent was refused because the patent examiner said, this is impossible. High bandwidth music cannot been transmitted over a low bandwith channel, this is an eternal law and therefore this is impossible. ;-) Now, he made the alggorithm, proved that it worked and got his patent. Rossi can easily get a patent if he proves it works. No theory is necessary. If he proves it works, he gets a patent without question on his catalyzer. If he wants a patent he has to give prove. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Am 03.11.2011 21:14, schrieb David Roberson: Having the patent granted may not be such an important goal for him at this time. The longer he waits, the further into the future it extends. This reminds me of the submarine patents that come up far into the future when the most money is made. Rossi may be smart as a fox. Eventually it will be accepted. So we should not disturb his plans and let him continue in secrecy as he wants. But: The region where I live in germany has decided to build 100 wind generators per year. This is a long term political decision because the green party has won the last elections here. This is a long time investition and it will not be modified if a crude engineer inventor says he has sold a crude 1 MW plant to an unkown customer. If Rossi gives evidence he can sell 100 plants per year and probably more.
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
But Rossi is selling them according to his statement. It is a shame that so much money is being wasted on the old technologies but political forces are difficult to overcome. Have you attempted to stop a steam liner alone? I think you have a better chance to do that than change Rossi's mind. Beg, plead, cry, or anything else that feels right. He does what he thinks is best. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Am 03.11.2011 21:14, schrieb David Roberson: Having the patent granted may not be such an important goal for him at this time. The longer he waits, the further into the future it extends. This reminds me of the submarine patents that come up far into the future when the most money is made. Rossi may be smart as a fox. Eventually it will be accepted. So we should not disturb his plans and let him continue in secrecy as he wants. But: The region where I live in germany has decided to build 100 wind generators per year. This is a long term political decision because the green party has won the last elections here. This is a long time investition and it will not be modified if a crude engineer inventor says he has sold a crude 1 MW plant to an unkown customer. If Rossi gives evidence he can sell 100 plants per year and probably more.
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I hope Piantelli is like Conrad Roentgen. He worked for years in total secrecy and silency and did not tell a word to others. And then he presented a scientific work and experiments that gave total proof. Piantelli behaves like a real scientist until now. Piantelli knows the history of CF. Fleischmann and Pons made a premature announcement in order to get the jump on Steve Jones. They should have perfected their process like Roentgen first. Then again, they were funding most of the work out of their pocket. T
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
I would have to say that I agree that it must be possible since the system is working. When all the questions have been answered, it will become clear that the ECAT is real. Let's proceed to make it a viable design. Dave -Original Message- From: peter.heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 2, 2011 8:19 am Subject: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. here is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air ressure at the other end of the pipe. n this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must ssume 2 bar for the pressure difference. o Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was easured, could be true. lso a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in his case. What do you think? Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Pipe diameter October 28 - new considerations
Hi Peter, It could only be a vacuum if they were pumping the water out of the heat dissipater and they'd need a pretty good pump to get a vacuum. Colin On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:17 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: Hi, I recalculated the pipe diameter needed for the 1MW plant. There is an important consideration that might have been missed by many: If all steam is condensed in the heatdissipator then we cannot assume air pressure at the other end of the pipe. In this case we must assume almost vacuum at the other side. If this is considered, we cannot use a steam pipe calculation for 1 bar. We must assume 2 bar for the pressure difference. So Rossis statement, almost airpressure at this point, where the temperature was measured, could be true. Also a inner pipe diameter of about 8.5 cm (as I have measured) could work in this case. What do you think? Best, Peter
