On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny
Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat
the water to
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother
with calibration
Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you have never
seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on that, because it might
fail you.
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and
On 11-09-20 02:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you
pressure in something open to the atmosphere. That should be your
experience.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe
Heffner
hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric
pressure. The steam is being created upon
On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I was done commenting on your posts, but I see you want me to comment
more.
Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you
have never seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on
that, because it might fail
how
long it takes to drain.
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Joe, could you please explain why the water is ejected at such a high
velocity
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do
you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea
yourself?
There is a
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out.
Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out. Since its open to the
atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the
bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the
On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that
there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and
enthalpy? Do
you discard it only because you were
: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the
water does not come dribbling out.
Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:
I think my conclusion was good: None of this indicates for sure
whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The
continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and
, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out.
Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows from
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water
to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
I am familiar with multivariate regression analysis.
It is of comparatively little use when there are missing
critical variables.
Therefore you must MEASURE the critical variables. ALL of them. This
much I require common sense.
Your approach
Am 20.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
But I have several times told to Horace if he bothered to look up the
report and see the data by himself, but he have refused to even look
the data available. This kind of attitude is very sad from him. –Jouni
Maybe not everybody has the time. I
They state there is an auxillary heater.
- Original Message -
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011
: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but the
water does not come dribbling out.
Of course it does. I didn't say dripping. The water flows
Really?
- Original Message -
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:
I think my conclusion was good: None of this indicates
Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:
They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see
whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue
control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they
Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly like
the September test. Why shouldn't they be?
- Original Message -
From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW
Am 20.09.2011 22:19, schrieb Joe Catania:
Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly
like the September test. Why shouldn't they be?
I dont want to convince anybody. I still have doubts myself.
Im just pointing to remarkable aspects that was mostly overseen in
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
Yes a sealed galon bottle may dribble if a hole is poked
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
wrote:
Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The
2011/9/20 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de:
I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a
secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80
kg box my doubts are even increased.
Least thing what Rossi wants in this phase that people
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
wrote:
Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
wrote:
Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water
To ay the matter to rest I was not the one to use the word dribble. It was
HH.
- Original Message -
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Horace:
The first
That wasn't me. I've never posted to that site. But so what? Is that the
best you can do?
- Original Message -
From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011
What are the 2 extra wires(22) for ?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:10:34 +0200
From: peter.heck...@arcor.de
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:
They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes but they examined
Am 20.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
2011/9/20 Peter Heckertpeter.heck...@arcor.de:
I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a
secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80
kg box my doubts are even increased.
Least thing
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes,the Essen reports states: At the end of the horizontal section
there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and
also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
[snip]
A proven COP of 2 is more important than a doubtful COP of 6.
[snip]
Best regards,
Peter
So very true.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Am 19.09.2011 05:28, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:
Peter wrote:
So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm.
A pipe diameter of 100cm is one heck of a big pipe!
I think you mean cross-sectional area?
Correction:
So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe cross sectional
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
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.
Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:
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
Terry sez:
I agree with you and Horace. If it can explode, it will explode, and
at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary).
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely
unproven source
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF
for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to
raise concerns,. . .
Please understand that most fences
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject
of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of
energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
- Original Message -
From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
Hi,
On 20-9-2011 0:11, Horace Heffner wrote:
It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there
is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
See end of:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
See end of:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking
about a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which
Rossi claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW!
So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic
scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies
science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental
controls. In the case of the E-cat it is clearly important to
calibrate any calorimetry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
See end of:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Best
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net:
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific
methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
overlooked.
That is the importance of using experimental controls.
Uh. No way it is important!
What is
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
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
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
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
