Nice work.
I'm assuming that you recognize that there is a fair probability of the
Rossi device being gainful, in a non-chemical way and non-deceptive way ...
or else you would have remained at the higher comfort level of Physorg-style
reflexive tunnel-vision ... which most of those dinosaurs are
In the document you wrote:
For FUTURE WATER versions we need:
Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)
Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much
electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than that can go
into the machine.
I wrote:
No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more energy
than gasoline . . .
By volume or by weight, as far as I know.
Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.
Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says methane produces 50
MJ/kg. See:
At 01:34 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
In the document you wrote:
For FUTURE WATER versions we need:
Input electrical power (BETWEEN the control panel and the reactor)
Why does this matter? What difference can it make? We know how much
electricity goes into the box, and there is no way more than
At 01:46 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote:
I wrote:
No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more
energy than gasoline . . .
By volume or by weight, as far as I know.
Gasoline produces ~45 MJ/kg according to most sources.
Wikipedia, which is sometimes good for something, says
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
12 kW. The flames and ventilation holes are quite large, and you can
easily see the flames. I expect that a 130 kW reaction in a 1 L
volume would be incandescent, so if there were holes, you would notice.
To TEST it you'd either have to seal it, or at least run a smoke
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???=8-)
Hey, it's on line. Even on the Kindle. I think I have sold a dozen
copies on the Kindle in two years.
Nobody WEIGHED anything, so I have to use VOLUME.
They weighed the hydrogen tank, before and after. That's a crude method,
Book? I gotta read BOOKS ???=8-)
Hey, it's on line. Even on the Kindle. I think I have sold a dozen
copies on the Kindle in two years.
I'll google it.
I looked at the combustion wiki, but they only give energy by weight.
I'll stick with the energy density.
They weighed the hydrogen
Jed Rothwell
: That's what I say to you young wiper-snappers.
I haven't been called a whipper-snapper in ... what .. 40 years or more
!
I do admit to being more of a reformed physicist than a reformed
chemist.
My background :
B.Sc. -- Physics and Math (1963) One course in
chemistry!
B.Sc Hons --
On Mar 4, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
No common chemical and very few exotic chemicals can produce more
energy than gasoline . . .
By volume or by weight, as far as I know.
Even aluminum, silicon, and anthracite beat gasoline in MJ/liter. See:
10 matches
Mail list logo
