Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
I think its unlikely that semiconductors are inside. At the september demo the temperature was 120° and if 3 cores are in opereation I would expect more. A single case of overheating would damage the system and Rossi claims a maximum temp of abaout 450°. Also all these gamma and possibly neutron bursts that have been observed could degrade the semiconductors. - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 05:38 Betreff: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
Ok a good call. No micros inside. When Rossi's tech was getting ready to open the module, he wipes away a lot of white powder that was sitting on top of the top metal plate. Do you think the powder might have been powered Boric Acid placed all around the E-Cat as a neutron shield? AG On 11/10/2011 6:39 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I think its unlikely that semiconductors are inside. At the september demo the temperature was 120° and if 3 cores are in opereation I would expect more. A single case of overheating would damage the system and Rossi claims a maximum temp of abaout 450°. Also all these gamma and possibly neutron bursts that have been observed could degrade the semiconductors. - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 05:38 Betreff: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
Re: [Vo]:200 ft long engineered electrical arcs
Small world. One of the reasearchers mentioned was a friend of my sister's, the other was my thesis supervisor, and I did my M.Elec thesis in the building to the left in the pic. I won a solar powered car race in that car park. All looks to have survived the earthquake quite well. On 10 November 2011 02:45, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: High-voltage engineers create nearly 200-foot-long electrical arcs using less energy than before. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-extra-long-electrical-arcs-energy.html I wonder if they looked for neutrons from the exploding wires. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
I cannot say this. I dont even know wether the powder came from the inside or outside. Posiibly it comes from leaked and evaporated water? Rossi claimed 120° overheated steam @ air pressure. Thats a litle bit strange. If he used salty water with elevated boiling point, this could explain it. I dont know, if it is possible to rise the boiling point so much with salts. With glycol it is possible. - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 09:15 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box Ok a good call. No micros inside. When Rossi's tech was getting ready to open the module, he wipes away a lot of white powder that was sitting on top of the top metal plate. Do you think the powder might have been powered Boric Acid placed all around the E-Cat as a neutron shield? AG On 11/10/2011 6:39 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I think its unlikely that semiconductors are inside. At the september demo the temperature was 120° and if 3 cores are in opereation I would expect more. A single case of overheating would damage the system and Rossi claims a maximum temp of abaout 450°. Also all these gamma and possibly neutron bursts that have been observed could degrade the semiconductors. - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 05:38 Betreff: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
The white powder was between what looks like 2 sheets of lead directly on the top of the top pate of the reactor box. Start watching from 11:00 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5cFOsisAofeature=player_embedded#! AG On 11/10/2011 6:57 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I cannot say this. I dont even know wether the powder came from the inside or outside. Posiibly it comes from leaked and evaporated water? Rossi claimed 120° overheated steam @ air pressure. Thats a litle bit strange. If he used salty water with elevated boiling point, this could explain it. I dont know, if it is possible to rise the boiling point so much with salts. With glycol it is possible. - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 09:15 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box Ok a good call. No micros inside. When Rossi's tech was getting ready to open the module, he wipes away a lot of white powder that was sitting on top of the top metal plate. Do you think the powder might have been powered Boric Acid placed all around the E-Cat as a neutron shield? AG On 11/10/2011 6:39 PM, peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: I think its unlikely that semiconductors are inside. At the september demo the temperature was 120° and if 3 cores are in opereation I would expect more. A single case of overheating would damage the system and Rossi claims a maximum temp of abaout 450°. Also all these gamma and possibly neutron bursts that have been observed could degrade the semiconductors. - Original Nachricht Von: Aussie Guy E-Cataussieguy.e...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 10.11.2011 05:38 Betreff: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe running a power line comms system that delivers both power and 2 way data to the 3 cores. Easy to do today, especially if he has a micro inside to assist the core control and do data logging that can be later accessed for analysis. Having a solid lead slab structure would aid modular maintenance and module fuel replacement as all the the maintenance guys would need do is replace the lead slab with the 3 embedded reactor cores, which would then be returned to Rossi for replacement of the fuel. From the weight of the E-Cat module, there is more inside the boxes than just 3 door knob reactors, a bit of piping, fins, walls and a few nuts and bolts.
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
He's hosted here: http://stayhosted.com/, I expect they suspend if the site exceeds it's traffic volume. I've had my company site disappear from a hosting service because we exceed there CPU cap in a 2 minute interval. No warning, just wiped from their hosting service. It took a while to find a hosting service that would treat us like a customer they wanted to keep. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.comwrote: The Blog reader may have been responsible for that. But then his traffic volume data rate rate should not be that big and instead of suspending, it should have charged him for any excess data traffic. AG On 11/10/2011 5:13 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: I expect his traffic volume has gone up and he's gone foul of limits imposed by his web hosting service. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto: peter.gl...@gmail.com** wrote: It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com http://rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.ecat@gmail.**comaussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.comhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:JNP site down
Ha, how ironic, stay hosted can't keep his site up! On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Colin Hercus colinher...@gmail.comwrote: He's hosted here: http://stayhosted.com/, I expect they suspend if the site exceeds it's traffic volume. I've had my company site disappear from a hosting service because we exceed there CPU cap in a 2 minute interval. No warning, just wiped from their hosting service. It took a while to find a hosting service that would treat us like a customer they wanted to keep. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: The Blog reader may have been responsible for that. But then his traffic volume data rate rate should not be that big and instead of suspending, it should have charged him for any excess data traffic. AG On 11/10/2011 5:13 PM, Colin Hercus wrote: I expect his traffic volume has gone up and he's gone foul of limits imposed by his web hosting service. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.commailto: peter.gl...@gmail.com** wrote: It is not for the first time, it happens...for a few hours. Let's see... What's strange- the blog reader rossilivecat.com http://rossilivecat.com is also non-functional. Peter On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com mailto:aussieguy.ecat@gmail.**comaussieguy.e...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-**physics.comhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com Comes up account suspended. WTF? -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.**com http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- If we doubt we can hardly hope to Shine. Be Alive when you are alive! You can't BE later. Life is not important, significant, serious or weighty. Life is a dance to be enjoyed. It is You and I that are important, Living life is at stake! There is no someday. There is no right way. There is only now. Virtue or Vice, a moment of pain for a lifetime of pleasure, or a moment of pleasure for a lifetime of pain. Construction or destruction, it is just a matter of order in which you experience pain and joy, spirit and integrity or weakness of flesh. If you aren't making mistakes, you aren't doing enough. How you feel is feedback on what you are currently doing and not informing you of what to do, don't wait to feel like it. Do it and see how you feel.
[Vo]:How scientific fraud is like Ponzi Finance
This is a paper from the next issue of Informavore's Sunday: How Scientific Fraud Is Like Ponzi Finance: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/how-scientific-fraud-is-like-ponzi-finance/2478 85/ A good idea, however I think nuanced thinking has to be applied. A financial criminal can do a few honest deals, a scientific (technical) fraudster can be sometimes a good researcher and can do useful work too- nothing is 100% evil. There exists honest errors, dishonest errors, partial lies, bicolor lies, semi-truths and semi-lies, etc. no replacement material (for good intentions- good for whom?) was found for the pavement of the way to Hell. In a word- Complexity! Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
On 11-11-10 03:15 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Ok a good call. No micros inside. When Rossi's tech was getting ready to open the module, he wipes away a lot of white powder that was sitting on top of the top metal plate. Do you think the powder might have been powered Boric Acid placed all around the E-Cat as a neutron shield? Keeps roaches out of the inner box, as well. Just how thick a coat of white powder was there, anyway? For boric acid to block many neutrons you'd need just a bit more than what you need to block most roaches, I think.
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
The white powder was between 2 sheets of lead that were on the top of the top plate of the outer reactor box. Start watching from 11:00 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5cFOsisAofeature=player_embedded# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5cFOsisAofeature=player_embedded#! AG On 11/10/2011 11:52 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On 11-11-10 03:15 AM, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: Ok a good call. No micros inside. When Rossi's tech was getting ready to open the module, he wipes away a lot of white powder that was sitting on top of the top metal plate. Do you think the powder might have been powered Boric Acid placed all around the E-Cat as a neutron shield? Keeps roaches out of the inner box, as well. Just how thick a coat of white powder was there, anyway? For boric acid to block many neutrons you'd need just a bit more than what you need to block most roaches, I think.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Rossi has already exposed it by injecting the high frequencies. Any power meter used to check this would likely be subject to the same inaccuracy. I suggest a simple frquency meter with a lead touched to the dpf. - Original Message - From: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress 2011/11/10 Joe Catania zrosumg...@aol.com: requency generator inout? Is there any more info on that? I can tell you one thing- the power company is not going to be too happy with Rossi or whoever runs one of these things when they find out they are meter cheaters! I think too that the falsification of input energy measurements is most plausible way to do the cheat. However this cheat has a hole, because anyone of the guests could just plug a power meter to their iPad and then make a quick check of the calibration of ammeters. These kind of fakes that are based on input electricity, I think, are too easy to expose. –Jouni Ps. it was possible to check for guest also every else variable that was measurable. Including gamma radiation.
[Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote: But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. He says he has something to hide. He says his patent only applies to Italy. If he had viable patent protection everywhere then he would have nothing left to hid. A patent is only valid if it reveals everything about the discovery. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. Several people have suggested he try this approach. I do not think he trusts people enough to do this. He thinks he he would reveal the information to experts in they would steal it from him. He might be right about that. He has had many bad experiences in the past. The thing is, at some point you have to start trusting people. You cannot run a business like a castle with a moat around it filled with alligators. You have to welcome customers. You have to give a good impression with skilled public relations. He reminds me a great deal of John Harrison, the discoverer of the chronometer. Harrison had a difficult life. He was an outsider, was an uneven education who had trouble communicating. He should have won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for solving the longitude problem, but he was ridiculed, beat-up and betrayed by the scientific establishment over and over. This resulted in decades of delay introducing the technology. That was a tragedy because the chronometer improved navigation and saved thousands of lives and millions of pounds. Harrison's friends revealed some of his technical secrets in a effort to help him win the prize. Many years later he still resented them. When the king and many scientific officials finally agreed that he should be given a large sum of money he refused to cooperate. Lord Egmont, head of the Board of Longitude, scolded him: Sir . . . you are the strangest and most obstinate creature that I have ever met with, and, would you do what we want you to do, and which is in your power, I will give you my word to give you the money, if you will but do it! See the book Longitude by Dava Sobel. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. It seems desperate to me. I get a sense he is floundering around going from one failed business arrangement to the next. I do not know whether his falling out with Defkalion was his fault, their fault or some combination of the two, but a skilled businessman would try to avoid that outcome in the first place. A precipitate withdrawal from a contract at a critical phase in the development is a sign of management chaos. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
AG, I do not remember exactly where Rossi made the statement that the cores were now flat and planar or rectangular in shape. Seems like it was a question I asked him on his blog. I had suggested that he use this form factor many months ago because it had scaling advantages, but at the earlier time they answered that the cylindrical form worked better. I guess they reconsidered. Maybe someone else can help remember exactly when Rossi made the statement. I do not have any form of search for words to go through his archives to locate the exact place where the 600 C is mentioned. The exact temperature (600-1200) applied to the core has been bounced around frequently. You may have to do some digging. The RF leads question seems a little confusing for one main reason. A long cylinder was attached to the gas port at the time the RF device was mentioned. I have always assumed that this was the 'frequencies' device. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box Sure no CPU will survive inside or next to the core but next to the heat inks, easy to do. 140 deg C chips are available. Please share the data n the rectangular cores. Never read that before. Swedish reporter did ay RF leads measured 300ma. Doesn't sound like a sensor. Easy to do PLC Power Line Comms) to a CPU inside or he is using a 300ma current loop or his internal sensors due to too much interference from the cores. If the core is running at 600 deg C, so too must have the door knob arlier unit. It is hard to see now Rossi could keep that core at 600 eg C while the water was only a mm or so away. Where did you get the 00 deg C data from? I have never read that but then I have just started eading, reading...reading. AG n 11/10/2011 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical. I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600 C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature. Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work. One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device. He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not exhibit LENR. The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self sustaining. The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a microcontroller. 600 C I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency generating device is to mislead. The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores. Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time. It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper surface of the heat exchanger assembly and likely an identical assembly (why make it different) on the bottom. The lead slab with the embedded cores is then sandwiched inside and between the heat exchanger fin assemblies. I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. This adds additional weight to my belief that the RF Wires are actually multi core shielded cable or if not he maybe
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
Good points. History is littered with examples of this type of tragedy unfolding. Maybe before this chapter is finished and lost, our hero will change the plot, avoid ruin, and we will all live happily ever after. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote: But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it. He says he has something to hide. He says his patent only applies to Italy. If he had viable patent protection everywhere then he would have nothing left to hid. A patent is only valid if it reveals everything about the discovery. Think if everything was normal. Ross could arrange an independent demo(s) in front of reputable persons. From that he could explain what he does in a patent application and it would be granted. He would win the Nobel price and untold fortune. Several people have suggested he try this approach. I do not think he trusts people enough to do this. He thinks he he would reveal the information to experts in they would steal it from him. He might be right about that. He has had many bad experiences in the past. The thing is, at some point you have to start trusting people. You cannot run a business like a castle with a moat around it filled with alligators. You have to welcome customers. You have to give a good impression with skilled public relations. He reminds me a great deal of John Harrison, the discoverer of the chronometer. Harrison had a difficult life. He was an outsider, was an uneven education who had trouble communicating. He should have won the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for solving the longitude problem, but he was ridiculed, beat-up and betrayed by the scientific establishment over and over. This resulted in decades of delay introducing the technology. That was a tragedy because the chronometer improved navigation and saved thousands of lives and millions of pounds. Harrison's friends revealed some of his technical secrets in a effort to help him win the prize. Many years later he still resented them. When the king and many scientific officials finally agreed that he should be given a large sum of money he refused to cooperate. Lord Egmont, head of the Board of Longitude, scolded him: Sir . . . you are the strangest and most obstinate creature that I have ever met with, and, would you do what we want you to do, and which is in your power, I will give you my word to give you the money, if you will but do it! See the book Longitude by Dava Sobel. His current approach seems silly and I dont think he is a silly man. It seems desperate to me. I get a sense he is floundering around going from one failed business arrangement to the next. I do not know whether his falling out with Defkalion was his fault, their fault or some combination of the two, but a skilled businessman would try to avoid that outcome in the first place. A precipitate withdrawal from a contract at a critical phase in the development is a sign of management chaos. - Jed
[Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png I deleted the #3 version of this diagram. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
Nice diagram but, how do you know there are the bottom an top lead layers ? Under the radiator nobody could inspect in. I'd replace the lead label with a question mark. 2011/11/10 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png I deleted the #3 version of this diagram. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
Please note how far from the heat exchanger the Tin probe has been placed. Why didn't he place it closer like the Tout one ? 2011/11/10 Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com Nice diagram but, how do you know there are the bottom an top lead layers ? Under the radiator nobody could inspect in. I'd replace the lead label with a question mark. 2011/11/10 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png I deleted the #3 version of this diagram. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
In Rossis age I too would not want a Nobel price. Its not very much you get and for this you must travel around in the world, give boring interviews and so on. Better get some millions and become old in happiness and peace stay healthy and play piano, or tennis ;-) Am 10.11.2011 15:42, schrieb Jed Rothwell: In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote: But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it.
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
Oh I think he craves attention and recognition. Thus his web site and the time he spends answering questionsor at least responding to them. (And I hope this works out and he gets a nobel prize, attention, money and tennis. I guess I am an optimist but verify :) On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.dewrote: In Rossis age I too would not want a Nobel price. Its not very much you get and for this you must travel around in the world, give boring interviews and so on. Better get some millions and become old in happiness and peace stay healthy and play piano, or tennis ;-) Am 10.11.2011 15:42, schrieb Jed Rothwell: In a thread that has become unwieldy, Jeff Sutton wrote: But the only way to think that his process makes any business-first approach is that he has still something to hide. It could be he is missing something to do with control of the reaction, or he has no new art for his patent; someone else has beaten him to it.
Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
At 08:38 PM 11/9/2011, Aussie Guy E-Cat wrote: I also suggest as he said the 1 MW demo was only running on 1 core per module, he has a was to activate and deactivate the internal cores as desired. Rossi said (someone reported?) that they started the 1MW with a full load of hydrogen, but it started to run away. So they stopped it and lowered the hydrogen pressure -- resulting in the 1/2 MW self-sustained value. 3 cores, for sure. (Or it's an elaborate costume hoax, of course ... )
[Vo]:Food for thought?
Need a break from Rossi madness? Slow slide into crazy? Do you know about the Mental illness happy hour? Well those guys have learned that co-mingling wry humor (or rye humor, if after 5) with pathological science is a good place to start. To that end, here is an unauthorized episode. Start with a provocative science story, not quite pathological yet - and take it from there... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45230351/ns/technology_and_science-science/ The brain requires about 22 times as much energy to run as the equivalent in muscle tissue. The energy required ... comes from the food we eat. Human brains are three times larger than our closest living relative, the chimpanzee... but the two species have the same metabolic rateThis extra energy must be coming from somewhere. The so-called Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH) of the authors tries to answer that, but of course, you will not find LENR or any alternative energy hypothesis considered. After all, they have to protect their phongna-balogna jobs. (as recipients of liberal largess) However, moving further down the slow slide into pathology -- if one suspects that some version of f/H (fractional hydrogen) could be partially involved (in human evolution) to boost the energy level of a standard diet - whether it involves the Mills' hydrino or an alternative hypothesis, then there is a place to search for answers. Look at the role of chemicals in the brain which have been associated with gainful systems in alternative energy, and cross-compare that with evolution and diet of proto-humans. Kind of a positive feedback loop. In this category, a prime suspect would be potassium. And the best fit in the periodic table for a Mills catalyst that does not require a plasma or 3 body reaction, is molybdenum. Molybdenum cofactor is an enzyme intimately associated with neurochemistry. Can we connect the dots? Not really but, speaking of evolution in the context of splitting-off from the line of the aforementioned chimpanzee ... with the realization that a top dietary source of potassium is bananas. Bananas made apes what they are today, so to speak, but there were more choices on the horizon. Voila... we now have our pathological rationale for the 'out of Africa' migrations. They were not an effect of advancing mentality - but instead were partially the cause (dietary cause). A search for more and better f/H catalysts. Say James, when is the BBC going to revive Connections? Anyway, it could be coincidental but hominids really started to evolve rapidly, especially in the cultural context, when they learned about the other prime potassium sources: figs, dates, raisins, apricots, melons and wine. Generally these source thrive further north than ape country. Matter-of-fact: figs, dates, raisins, apricots, melons and wine ... sounds coincidentally like happy hour at a mid-Eastern restaurant, no? Is it five yet? Jones attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Inside the inner box
Mats Lewan told me that the cylinder was not attached to the gas inlet (it just looked that way in some photos) and its purpose was a radiation sensor (probably a gamma scintillator). Mats said the frequency device was behind the eCat - so I keep looking for glimpses of it in the videos. Regards, Bob Higgins From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box AG, I do not remember exactly where Rossi made the statement that the cores were now flat and planar or rectangular in shape. Seems like it was a question I asked him on his blog. I had suggested that he use this form factor many months ago because it had scaling advantages, but at the earlier time they answered that the cylindrical form worked better. I guess they reconsidered. Maybe someone else can help remember exactly when Rossi made the statement. I do not have any form of search for words to go through his archives to locate the exact place where the 600 C is mentioned. The exact temperature (600-1200) applied to the core has been bounced around frequently. You may have to do some digging. The RF leads question seems a little confusing for one main reason. A long cylinder was attached to the gas port at the time the RF device was mentioned. I have always assumed that this was the 'frequencies' device. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:12 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Inside the inner box Sure no CPU will survive inside or next to the core but next to the heat sinks, easy to do. 140 deg C chips are available. Please share the data on the rectangular cores. Never read that before. Swedish reporter did say RF leads measured 300ma. Doesn't sound like a sensor. Easy to do PLC (Power Line Comms) to a CPU inside or he is using a 300ma current loop for his internal sensors due to too much interference from the cores. If the core is running at 600 deg C, so too must have the door knob earlier unit. It is hard to see now Rossi could keep that core at 600 deg C while the water was only a mm or so away. Where did you get the 600 deg C data from? I have never read that but then I have just started reading, reading...reading. AG On 11/10/2011 4:01 PM, David Roberson wrote: The three cores are now in a rectangular shape instead of cylindrical. I would suggest that there is a thermal resistance(insulator of some sort) desired between the cores and the heat sink. This would act as a thermal matching system so that the cores can operate at nearly 600 C while the heat sink is at a far lower temperature. Time response data demonstrates that two time constants are at work. One long one related to heat release and a shorter one associated with the conduction of heat away from the heat sink and heating device. He could easily disable a core by putting in material that does not exhibit LENR. The 1 MW unit must have operated with 3 cores present. One core only produces 3.4 kW of output power in the driven mode, less in self sustaining. The core operates at a temperature that would destroy a microcontroller. 600 C I suspect that the two extra wires are actually for sensor reading. A controlled driven unit would need to measure liquid level and temperature to function well. I really suspect that the frequency generating device is to mislead. The test conducted on October 6 was using one core. The thermal environment in this case would not be the same as using 3 cores. Additional positive feedback of heat would occur due to the two additional cores if they were active. I suspect that Rossi has performed a delicate balance of thermal impedance when 3 cores are present. This would suggest that the 1 core test should loose output power at a faster rate. That would explain why the self sustaining mode for the 1 MW test ran for such a long time. It has been apparent that Rossi has made a serious effort to disguise the real data by his actions. I suspect he wants to keep doubt alive so that the 'war' does not start until the last moment. Dave -Original Message- From: Aussie Guy E-Cat aussieguy.e...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Nov 9, 2011 11:41 pm Subject: [Vo]:Inside the inner box I have been thinking about what should be inside the inner box as the heat transfer from the reactor core to the fluid is no longer done inside the door knob like reactor. Rossi says there are 3 cores inside each module and that is all he says. I would suggest he may have encased all the cores inside a solid lead slab like structure with a thermal interface compound applied to the top and bottom surfaces so as to thermally transfer the heat into the upper and assumed lower fin assemblies. What we see with the bolts is the upper
Re: [Vo]:Food for thought?
Jones, Is this paving the way to a new kind of doping in sports? To be seen at next Olympic Games! ;-) mic Il giorno 10/nov/2011 17:54, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net ha scritto: Need a break from Rossi madness? Slow slide into crazy? Do you know about the Mental illness happy hour? Well those guys have learned that co-mingling wry humor (or rye humor, if after 5) with pathological science is a good place to start. To that end, here is an unauthorized episode. Start with a provocative science story, not quite pathological yet - and take it from there... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45230351/ns/technology_and_science-science/ The brain requires about 22 times as much energy to run as the equivalent in muscle tissue. The energy required ... comes from the food we eat. Human brains are three times larger than our closest living relative, the chimpanzee... but the two species have the same metabolic rateThis extra energy must be coming from somewhere. The so-called Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH) of the authors tries to answer that, but of course, you will not find LENR or any alternative energy hypothesis considered. After all, they have to protect their phongna-balogna jobs. (as recipients of liberal largess) However, moving further down the slow slide into pathology -- if one suspects that some version of f/H (fractional hydrogen) could be partially involved (in human evolution) to boost the energy level of a standard diet - whether it involves the Mills' hydrino or an alternative hypothesis, then there is a place to search for answers. Look at the role of chemicals in the brain which have been associated with gainful systems in alternative energy, and cross-compare that with evolution and diet of proto-humans. Kind of a positive feedback loop. In this category, a prime suspect would be potassium. And the best fit in the periodic table for a Mills catalyst that does not require a plasma or 3 body reaction, is molybdenum. Molybdenum cofactor is an enzyme intimately associated with neurochemistry. Can we connect the dots? Not really but, speaking of evolution in the context of splitting-off from the line of the aforementioned chimpanzee ... with the realization that a top dietary source of potassium is bananas. Bananas made apes what they are today, so to speak, but there were more choices on the horizon. Voila... we now have our pathological rationale for the 'out of Africa' migrations. They were not an effect of advancing mentality - but instead were partially the cause (dietary cause). A search for more and better f/H catalysts. Say James, when is the BBC going to revive Connections? Anyway, it could be coincidental but hominids really started to evolve rapidly, especially in the cultural context, when they learned about the other prime potassium sources: figs, dates, raisins, apricots, melons and wine. Generally these source thrive further north than ape country. Matter-of-fact: figs, dates, raisins, apricots, melons and wine ... sounds coincidentally like happy hour at a mid-Eastern restaurant, no? Is it five yet? Jones
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
On 11-11-10 10:34 AM, Andrea Selva wrote: Please note how far from the heat exchanger the Tin probe has been placed. Why didn't he place it closer like the Tout one ? This should be obvious, I would think, and doesn't seem especially strange. You want the Tin probe relatively far from the heat source, so you get a true reading of the inflow temperature. Conversely, you want the Tout probe right up against the effluent exit port, to avoid losing any heat due to radiation/conduction from the outlet hose between the place it leaves the exchanger and the location of the probe. There may be problems with the placement of Tout due to other factors but the basic notion of putting it hard up against the heat exchanger seems totally innocent. 2011/11/10 Andrea Selvaandreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com Nice diagram but, how do you know there are the bottom an top lead layers ? Under the radiator nobody could inspect in. I'd replace the lead label with a question mark. 2011/11/10 Jed Rothwelljedrothw...@gmail.com See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png I deleted the #3 version of this diagram. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: See http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Higgins%20Oct%206%2027kWreactorDiagram4.png a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins? Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly in the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a ?) Unless see comment c) b) Lead should surely surround the wafer. c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers. d) There IS a 3-bar pressure relief valve at the hot input to the heat exchanger. The 1-bar should be marked ?
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
The more I consider Horace’s model of a scam ECAT device, the more I warm up to the idea. We are all aware of the fact that any excess energy produced by the core modules will propagate toward the water coolant and result in higher temperature and increased output power. If there is no excess energy generated as Horace’s model is simulating, then we will see a reasonably clear indication to that effect. The main issue that he and we face is to ensure that the heat losses and actual output power calculations are accurate. This is where I think we need to concentrate our efforts to guarantee that a true picture arises. I concluded that the output power delivered to the heat exchanger is somewhat lower than was originally assumed by calculations of the thermocouple readings. Mats Lewan’s figures suggested that there was a discrepancy to resolve. He assumed total vaporization of the .9 grams/second water output flow to calculate that approximately 2 kW of power was delivered. This of course would be the maximum possible and it could be lower depending upon the quality of the steam released. He also used the thermocouple readings to arrive at a figure of approximately 3 kW of power. Something must be in error for these two techniques to differ by this amount. The power delivered to the heat exchanger, using my assumptions at that point in time, was only 692 watts. I am not sure that the low power calculation will hold up under very careful analysis, but it is a good start. I predict that the true power output was between my estimate of 692 watts and the 2 kW calculation of Mats. For Horace’s simulation to be accurate, he needs to include the power escaping from the other two mechanisms as well. There is apparently water leakage from the gasket material amounting to . grams/second which steals heat away with it. If this flow is assumed to be water and no vapor then approximately 215.9 watts leaves the system via this path. The last escape source for heat generated by the LENR process is through the insulated casing of the ECAT. We are in serious need of assistance if we are to get a good handle upon this factor. I casually chose a leakage power of 500 watts for this process due to my ignorance of this form of heat loss. It is my hope that someone with more experience and knowledge of radiation, conduction and convection would help to arrive at a reasonable estimate. The total of these three sources of heat loss from the system equals 692 + 215.9 + 500 = 1408 (rounded) watts. If Horace can show that it is possible for stored energy to supply output power that fulfills all of these losses throughout the entire period of operation of the ECAT test, then I would be very interested in seeing his results. He can accurately calculate the energy stored within the core by analyzing the input power curve. The stored energy is merely the total input energy throughout the process less energy that escapes through heat loss. Of course, Horace is aware that the power output must follow some form of exponential decay where it is substantially higher at the beginning of the self sustaining operation and finally ends at the 1408 watt level. And at the end of the operation, an explanation for the deactivate delay period preceding the fast slope of temperature at T2 needs to exist. Finally, the actual fast slope after that delay has to have an explanation that makes logical sense. I request that Horace includes the factors which I have outlined above within his simulation. He should be able to demonstrate that stored energy is not capable of matching the real life measurements if the ECAT works as advertised. This is not an easy task, so Horace needs encouragement. He has convinced me that his intentions are pure and that he wants to know the truth without a hidden agenda. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Food for thought?
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Start with a provocative science story, not quite pathological yet - and take it from there... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45230351/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Not to mention a provocative picture with a provocative caption. Ana's organ measurements appear to be comprehensive. Journalistic joke? Run your brain on hydrinos if you please. I prefer positron thinking. T
[Vo]:1MW sold out ? $160 M to $500 M sales ?
Andrea Rossi November 10th, 2011 at 11:11 AM Dear Wladimir Guglinski: So far we are manufacturing 1 MW plants, and our next 2 years capacity of production has been already saturated. For the small units we need at least 1-2 years for the approvals. Warm Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi October 31st, 2011 at 11:20 AM Dear GP: 1- we are ready for 30-100 units per year 30*2yrs*E2M = E120M/$163M to 100*2yrs*E2M = E400M/$544 M sales ? (lenr.qumbu.com -- analyzing the Rossi/Focardi eCat -- Hi, google!)
RE: [Vo]:Food for thought?
Potassium doping in the Olympics? … well, “Special K” humor aside, it’s remotely possible. Not sure what sports would benefit from a slight mental advantage, but now that they have badminton and ping-pong, who knows what is next? I never thought that “doping” would be such a big issue in cycling, but apparently every small advantage helps at the top level in any sport. Hmmm… might take a few hundred generations for dietary brain nutrients to demonstrate any advantage, but one thing is for sure. You can’t say “potassium” without saying “pot” … g From: Michele Comitini Jones, Is this paving the way to a new kind of doping in sports? To be seen at next Olympic Games! ;-) mic Il giorno 10/nov/2011 17:54, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net ha scritto: Need a break from Rossi madness? Slow slide into crazy? Do you know about the Mental illness happy hour? Well those guys have learned that co-mingling wry humor (or rye humor, if after 5) with pathological science is a good place to start.
[Vo]:Mr. Rossi appears to be busy for the foreseeable future.
Either his customers are convinced or he is playing a very complex game. There are applications for raw heat in winter that might be worth putting up with leaky gaskets to get. His interactions with the public on his blog are getting shorter, and more like: please go away, I'm very busy. Blog post: Dear Wladimir Guglinski: So far we are manufacturing 1 MW plants, and our next 2 years capacity of production has been already saturated. For the small units we need at least 1-2 years for the approvals. Your suggestion, anyway, are good, among the infinite possibilities of employ, those are surely possible too. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Rossi appears to be busy for the foreseeable future.
Is this credible to anyone? If so, why and how? Rossi can't rely on anyone else at all to help make the wondrous machines? If he's afraid of reverse engineering, he'd better not sell any at all! How does he know what his customers will do with them? Or maybe he's relying on that self-destruct mechanism he once claimed? How would that work? Couldn't any capable modern high tech shop get past it? Certainly government labs could. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Sean True sean.t...@gmail.com wrote [quoting Rossi]: So far we are manufacturing 1 MW plants, and our next 2 years capacity of production has been already saturated. For the small units we need at least 1-2 years for the approvals.
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Rossi appears to be busy for the foreseeable future.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Is this credible to anyone? If so, why and how? Welcome to Vortex, MY! T
Re: [Vo]:Food for thought?
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Potassium doping in the Olympics? … well, “Special K” humor aside, it’s remotely possible. I'd believe anything after learning a caterpillar fungus helped set Olympic records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_sinensis The Western world was largely unaware of Ophiocordyceps prior to 1993. The fungus dramatically caught the world's eyes due to the performance of three female Chinese athletes, Wang Junxia, Qu Yunxia, and Zhang Linli. These athletes broke 5 world records for 1,500, 3,000 and 10,000 meters at the National Games in Beijing, China. T
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
In the older small (but allegedly powerful) E-cats, the main (largest and probably most powerful) heater has always heated the cooling water! This is evident because it's wrapped around the *exterior* of the E-cat. This never made sense, by the way, unless the objective was to use electricity to heat water and make steam.In the diagram the heater is shown to be internal. Rossi has never revealed enough about the larger devices to be sure that the image really shows how the heater is configured. If the heater is entirely internal to the water circuit, it's a departure from his previous layout. I see no reason to assume such a departure. Also, the whole drawing is pretty fanciful because nobody really knows what Rossi puts into the E-cats he has shown much less what was in the ones that were contained in his megawatt plant. If the secret is only in the catalyst sauce, I don't understand why Rossi doesn't do a complete disassembly after a test. What secrets could be revealed by seeing some metal powder? Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. What's he hiding?
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Rossi appears to be busy for the foreseeable future.
Welcome to Vortex, MY! Thank you.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
At 10:12 AM 11/10/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: Hi MY ... you're all over the web !!! In the older small (but allegedly powerful) E-cats, the main (largest and probably most powerful) heater has always heated the cooling water! This is evident because it's wrapped around the *exterior* of the E-cat. The older tube eCats have always had two heaters ... one main heater clamped around the rector bulge, and an auxiliary tube heater inserted into the inlet tube. http://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-b-Img+2+ECAT_explained.jpg (original on nyteknik, I think) This never made sense, by the way, unless the objective was to use electricity to heat water and make steam.In the diagram the heater is shown to be internal. Rossi has never revealed enough about the larger devices to be sure that the image really shows how the heater is configured. If the heater is entirely internal to the water circuit, it's a departure from his previous layout. I see no reason to assume such a departure. Also, the whole drawing is pretty fanciful because nobody really knows what Rossi puts into the E-cats he has shown much less what was in the ones that were contained in his megawatt plant. If the secret is only in the catalyst sauce, I don't understand why Rossi doesn't do a complete disassembly after a test. What secrets could be revealed by seeing some metal powder? Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. What's he hiding? Is it loose powder? Nanotubes? Crystals on a surface?Lots of stuff I wouldn't want to show, so I don't blame him.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: . . . much less what was in the ones that were contained in his megawatt plant. You need not put things in quotation marks every time. We know that you do not believe this. If the secret is only in the catalyst sauce, I don't understand why Rossi doesn't do a complete disassembly after a test. What secrets could be revealed by seeing some metal powder? I am sure this would contaminate the powder, and wreck it. Since you cannot learn much by looking at the powder, it would be a shame to destroy it just so that people can see it. There is not enough room in the cell for enough conventional fuel to explain this much heat, so there is no doubt this is anomalous. Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. He did that, several times. Even with the big reactor people say they could see the whole thing, under the cell. You can't see much in the photos, but you can in person. It would be a pain in the butt to remove the cell, and there is no point, because we know by displacement that there is nothing else in the vessel. What's he hiding? The powder. That's what he says, and it is obviously the case. He is not hiding anything else. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
I originally surmised heat exchanger fins on the bottom, but several vorts insisted that there is no evidence for heat fins on the bottom and that the reactor cell is bolted to the bottom (but I didn't show bolts). So I removed the fins on the bottom. Your comment about the internal water flow is interesting. I will consider how to represent that input. I presume when you say hot input you are referring to the top T fitting that is the water/steam outlet. Where is the evidence that it IS 3 bar? Have you identified the part used? The operating steam temperatures are more consistent with operation at ~1 bar gauge. I thought it sufficient to simply mark it as ~1, but if there is evidence that it could be as much as 3 bar (gauge or absolute?) then the figure will need to be revised. I don't really have a problem with adding the ? though. If the internal pressure really is 3 bar gauge, then the reactor must be operating full of water and it is probably superheated liquid water that exits the hot outlet and flashes to steam as it exits into lower pressure, cooling some of the water around it and causing a water/steam mix in the output. Bob Higgins At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins? Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly in the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a ?) Unless see comment c) b) Lead should surely surround the wafer. c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers. d) There IS a 3-bar pressure relief valve at the hot input to the heat exchanger. The 1-bar should be marked ?
Re: [Vo]:Food for thought?
Energy is primarly the stuff of dreams, and dreams are not limited by the laws of nature. Harry On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Need a break from Rossi madness? Slow slide into crazy? Do you know about the Mental illness happy hour? Well those guys have learned that co-mingling wry humor (or rye humor, if after 5) with pathological science is a good place to start. To that end, here is an unauthorized episode. Start with a provocative science story, not quite pathological yet - and take it from there... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45230351/ns/technology_and_science-science/ The brain requires about 22 times as much energy to run as the equivalent in muscle tissue. The energy required ... comes from the food we eat. Human brains are three times larger than our closest living relative, the chimpanzee... but the two species have the same metabolic rateThis extra energy must be coming from somewhere. The so-called Expensive Tissue Hypothesis (ETH) of the authors tries to answer that, but of course, you will not find LENR or any alternative energy hypothesis considered. After all, they have to protect their phongna-balogna jobs. (as recipients of liberal largess) However, moving further down the slow slide into pathology -- if one suspects that some version of f/H (fractional hydrogen) could be partially involved (in human evolution) to boost the energy level of a standard diet - whether it involves the Mills' hydrino or an alternative hypothesis, then there is a place to search for answers. Look at the role of chemicals in the brain which have been associated with gainful systems in alternative energy, and cross-compare that with evolution and diet of proto-humans. Kind of a positive feedback loop. In this category, a prime suspect would be potassium. And the best fit in the periodic table for a Mills catalyst that does not require a plasma or 3 body reaction, is molybdenum. Molybdenum cofactor is an enzyme intimately associated with neurochemistry. Can we connect the dots? Not really but, speaking of evolution in the context of splitting-off from the line of the aforementioned chimpanzee ... with the realization that a top dietary source of potassium is bananas. Bananas made apes what they are today, so to speak, but there were more choices on the horizon. Voila... we now have our pathological rationale for the 'out of Africa' migrations. They were not an effect of advancing mentality - but instead were partially the cause (dietary cause). A search for more and better f/H catalysts. Say James, when is the BBC going to revive Connections? Anyway, it could be coincidental but hominids really started to evolve rapidly, especially in the cultural context, when they learned about the other prime potassium sources: figs, dates, raisins, apricots, melons and wine. Generally these source thrive further north than ape country. Matter-of-fact: figs, dates, raisins, apricots, melons and wine ... sounds coincidentally like happy hour at a mid-Eastern restaurant, no? Is it five yet? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
Am 10.11.2011 17:43, schrieb Jeff Sutton: Oh I think he craves attention and recognition. Thus his web site and the time he spends answering questionsor at least responding to them. You can see from his answers, he does not crave for recognition of others. His answers are absolutely authoritative and he has no need to answer it is only pure generousity why he does this, dedicating his invaluable time to answer all these naive questions. (And I hope this works out and he gets a nobel prize, attention, money and tennis. I guess I am an optimist but verify :) I dont think he is dependant from prices given from corrupt mainstream scientists. He is more the type who would make his own Rossi foundation and give a Rossi-Price to other LENR researchers, he can now do this.
RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
At 10:28 AM 11/10/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote: I presume when you say hot input you are referring to the top T fitting that is the water/steam outlet. Where is the evidence that it IS 3 bar? Have you identified the part used? The operating steam temperatures are more consistent with operation at ~1 bar gauge. I thought it sufficient to simply mark it as ~1, but if there is evidence that it could be as much as 3 bar (gauge or absolute?) then the figure will need to be revised. I don't really have a problem with adding the ? though. If the internal pressure really is 3 bar gauge, then the reactor must be operating full of water and it is probably superheated liquid water that exits the hot outlet and flashes to steam as it exits into lower pressure, cooling some of the water around it and causing a water/steam mix in the output. Bob Higgins It's the red button http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3295954.ece/BINARY/w468/kall_fusion_rossi_ensam_468_320.jpg From my personal spy collection : http://lenr.qumbu.com/111010_pics/10_3bar_pressure_relief_valve_w800.jpg As I commented elsewhere ... those gaskets and/or fatcats are gonna blow LONG before you get to 3 bars.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. He did that, several times. Even with the big reactor people say they could see the whole thing, under the cell. You can't see much in the photos, but you can in person. It would be a pain in the butt to remove the cell, and there is no point, because we know by displacement that there is nothing else in the vessel. He disassembled it all the way to the core?I have not seen any photos except one of a partially but not totally uncovered large box with some finned device inside. I think Lewan took that. Far as I know, nobody saw inside or even around the finned device. I never saw anything remotely resembling a complete disassembly down to revealing the exterior of a core. The finned device was reported but not proven to be a heat exchanger and presumably was not the core. Are there better images of the interior that maybe I missed? Or a written report from a first person experience I can read somewhere? I am skeptical that anyone really got a good look at fine interior details and, in this day of tiny easily handled digital cameras, it is surprising that nobody stuck one out at arm's length and took a clear picture of the interior if it was indeed fully exposed. I think Rossi may have been hiding some things in the device he used in the October 6 demonstration but I can't prove it and I can't know what those things may have been. As for disassembly being a pain in the butt, that would worry me more if the stakes were not so high. Apparently it's also a pain in the butt to run a blank which would verify the entire measurement method, to calibrate instruments, to (as Jed noted) insert a memory card in an instrument, and most of all to run a nuclear reactor (said to be capable of six months of unattended operation) for more than a paltry few hours. And it's a pain in the butt to show instrument readings to all the scientists and reporters Rossi assembled at his October 28 reveal. And most of all, it seems to be a serious problem for Rossi to get an E-cat to one of the two universities he promised them too. I wish Rossi's butt were somehow a bit more resistant to pain.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
Am 10.11.2011 20:23, schrieb Mary Yugo: Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. He did that, several times. Even with the big reactor people say they could see the whole thing, under the cell. You can't see much in the photos, but you can in person. It would be a pain in the butt to remove the cell, and there is no point, because we know by displacement that there is nothing else in the vessel. He disassembled it all the way to the core?I have not seen any photos except one of a partially but not totally uncovered large box with some finned device inside. Yes, these fins could help to suck the water out, if there is a vacuum in the output hose. This gives a lot of extra energy. He is really skilled.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
At 11:23 AM 11/10/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: Are there better images of the interior that maybe I missed? Or a written report from a first person experience I can read somewhere? I am skeptical that anyone really got a good look at fine interior details and, in this day of tiny easily handled digital cameras, it is surprising that nobody stuck one out at arm's length and took a clear picture of the interior if it was indeed fully exposed. In the videos Rossi says NO PHOTOS of the insides. We're lucky that Mats Lewan ignored that -- otherwise we'd have no photos. My personal spy reported that they were allowed to look inside, and confirmed that there are fins under the reactor. And most of all, it seems to be a serious problem for Rossi to get an E-cat to one of the two universities he promised them too. I wish Rossi's butt were somehow a bit more resistant to pain. He ran out of money and couldn't pay Bologna. If he really collected E2M he should be able to pay them soon. If so, it will show up on their official site.
[Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source. According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: He ran out of money and couldn't pay Bologna. If he really collected E2M he should be able to pay them soon. If so, it will show up on their official site. Using Windows, you can make the Euro symbol by holding down the alt key and pressing 0128 on the numerical keyboard. € T
RE: [Vo]:Minor progress
I generously considered that the insulation value was R6 in my analysis (an input in the spreadsheet), but much of that insulation may have been lost when the water leaked into the insulation. If you presume R6, and calculate the outside area of the eCat, the calculation of the heat loss is simple but it must be calculated as a function of temp difference between T2 inside the reactor and ambient temperature and thus is not constant (easy in the spreadsheet). Wet insulation being less than R6 would cause the convection losses to be underestimated. Mat Lewan put his hand on the top foil over the insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C. That information might be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will not be as simple as presuming R6 to get a rough order of magnitude. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] The last escape source for heat generated by the LENR process is through the insulated casing of the ECAT. We are in serious need of assistance if we are to get a good handle upon this factor. I casually chose a leakage power of 500 watts for this process due to my ignorance of this form of heat loss. It is my hope that someone with more experience and knowledge of radiation, conduction and convection would help to arrive at a reasonable estimate.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
And most of all, it seems to be a serious problem for Rossi to get an E-cat to one of the two universities he promised them too. I wish Rossi's butt were somehow a bit more resistant to pain. He ran out of money and couldn't pay Bologna. If he really collected E2M he should be able to pay them soon. If so, it will show up on their official site. I understand that an extensive research effort to determine the mechanism by which the device purportedly works would be expensive and time consuming. The estimate of $500,000 and a year is entirely reasonable. But how long would it take to reproduce Dr. Levi's excellent but undocumented and uncalibrated experiment of last February in which one of the small E-cats was run using only liquid coolant and making no steam? And how nice would it be if that experiment ran several days and nights under the supervision of a university physics department using all their external equipment, power source and coolant? That would go a long way, maybe the whole way, towards proving that the technology is real. That sort of test could be done in a few weeks. I don't understand why it would cost anything. Jed wrote that he knows some reliable and credible scientists who would do it for free. I bet U of Bologna would do it free just for the acclaim and attention it would bring if it worked. And there would be no security issues. There would be no need to take the E-cat apart if a small one ran for days. Universities routinely do classified research on such things as nuclear weapons. Surely one can be trusted with an E-cat for a few days. All they would need to reveal was how they tested and if it worked -- not any trade secrets even if they discovered some. If normal security measures were not enough for Rossi, I'm sure they wouldn't mind him or someone representing his interests putting up a tent and camping in front of the experimental setup the whole time. The only thing holding up something like that is Rossi's unwillingness to let the universities have the device. I wonder why he won't! He's been talking about doing it for months.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
That sounds about right! SCAM! Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source. According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
RE: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Any idea if anyone has received the entire NASA LENR presentation? I've been checking their website (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/research.htm) for some time, and it looked promising: Tests conducted at NASA Glenn Research Center in 1989 and elsewhere consistently showed evidence of anomalous heat during gaseous loading and unloading deuterium into bulk palladium. At one time called “cold fusion,” now called “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR), such effects are now published in peer-reviewed journals and are gaining attention and mainstream respectability. The instrumentation expertise of NASA GRC is applied to improve the diagnostics for investigating the anomalous heat in LENR. But, you can see that they haven't posted the presentation from the 2011 colloquium, leaving only this placeholder: Relevant Presentation: Download presentation given at a LENR Workshop at NASA GRC in 2011 [available soon]. Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:41:58 -0800 From: maryyu...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical reactions could not be ruled out. But it's interesting that they didn't point out other problems, such vapor problems and energy COP. The question is: they just didn't bother trying to figure that out because it was an obviously chemical reactions or they couldn't find other issues? 2011/11/10 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
My interpretation of his motive is that even with his secret discovery the underlying mechanism still remains a mystery. This is reflected in his journal of physics which gathers ideas and comments from around the world and also his arrangement with the University of Bologna, He seems a man who is desperate for answers. He wants to leverage his engineering head start into a winner take all scenario by using his profits to purchase the answers he still needs to garner a patent. His progress is putting unbelievable pressure on all the other researchers to stake their claims. Recent gains by Miley and Piantelli make it clear this race isn't over Fran -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert [mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 2:03 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy Am 10.11.2011 17:43, schrieb Jeff Sutton: Oh I think he craves attention and recognition. Thus his web site and the time he spends answering questionsor at least responding to them. You can see from his answers, he does not crave for recognition of others. His answers are absolutely authoritative and he has no need to answer it is only pure generousity why he does this, dedicating his invaluable time to answer all these naive questions. (And I hope this works out and he gets a nobel prize, attention, money and tennis. I guess I am an optimist but verify :) I dont think he is dependant from prices given from corrupt mainstream scientists. He is more the type who would make his own Rossi foundation and give a Rossi-Price to other LENR researchers, he can now do this.
Re: [Vo]:Food for thought?
I do not know about this hypothesis, but it is well-established that the human brain takes enormous amounts of energy, and this has had a major impact on human evolution. Having a large brain is a tremendous burden. That is probably why there are few other highly intelligent species. During the evolution of the brain, humans discovered various ways to acquire much more nutrition than they had previously. If they had not, the burden of the energy drain would probably have cut off this line of development. The increased nutrition is generally thought to have come from two developments, both the consequence of increased intelligence. First, people began making cutting tools not much different from the tools that modern chimpanzees use. These tools were probably used to crack bones to eat the marrow. Some paleontologists believe that these bones were mainly scavenged from large predators. That is to say, a lion would kill an animal, and after it left the carcass, humans would come and crack the bones with stones to eat the marrow. As intelligence increased, these tools improved and could be used for much more complicated food gathering activities such as hunting or stripping meat off the bone. Second, people discovered fire and cooking. This gives an enormous boost in nutrition. You get much more nutrition out of the foods you eat when you cook them. Many species, including people, prefer cooked food to raw food. When you feed rats a diet of cooked food rather than a natural diet, they tend to get fat. If we did not have cooking I do not think we would have survived with such large brains. Once we developed cooking, the survival of the species was assured, despite the large energy cost of a large brain. See Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by R. Wrangham. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
2011/11/10 Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com: Mats Lewan put his hand on the top foil over the insulation and said that he thought it was about 60C. That information might be useful to back onto a better guess at insulation value, but it will not be as simple as presuming R6 to get a rough order of magnitude. We can calculate that the heat loss was around 400-700 watts for 5 to 7 hours. In addition to that, heating brick E-Cat to 100 °C would consume ca. 20 MJ energy. Heat loss would consume 7-17 MJ energy. That means that initial heating and heat loss together eliminated 27-37 MJ energy that never did not even get to the heat exchanger, to produce change in ΔT. Electrical input energy that was 32MJ ± 15 MJ (frequencies may cause up to 50 % error in measurements) Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into reactor. For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. And to speculate, Horace is too much depended on Krivit's opinions which are based as he has said, he was experienced very unconvincing personal »demonstration» that lasted for 25 min in June. –Jouni PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all demonstrations have been too short, including these private demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. This is very annoying fact, that it is telling, that all five fat cat demonstrations follow the same pattern. That never exceeded eight hour operation. However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat would depend on incompetent observers.
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Rossi appears to be busy for the foreseeable future.
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: Rossi can't rely on anyone else at all to help make the wondrous machines? If he's afraid of reverse engineering, he'd better not sell any at all! How does he know what his customers will do with them? I believe he thinks it is easy to keep track of a few large customers rather than many small ones. Also it is true that he cannot get a license for kilowatt scale home units for several years. Or maybe he's relying on that self-destruct mechanism he once claimed? How would that work? I doubt that mechanism exists. I do not think anyone knows how it would work. Any cold fusion cathode work harder will self-destruct to some extent merely by being exposed to air, and especially to carbon. I would open the cell in a glovebox in nitrogen. Actually, I might open it the first time by remote control. Couldn't any capable modern high tech shop get past it? Certainly government labs could. If there is a mechanism, I expect it could be overcome. As I remarked here a few days ago, if you buy a reactor with 100 cells in it, you might trigger the self-destruct mechanism in the first two or three cells you open, but after that it is likely you will find a way to open a cell without damaging it. You could then reverse engineer it. Ed Storms and others think that merely examining the powder in detail might not yield enough information to reverse engineer it. You would still not know how to fabricate the stuff. Perhaps that is true, but I'm sure that knowing the exact formula and the characteristics of the powder, such as particle size, would be a great help. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Win the Nobel strategy
Am 10.11.2011 21:00, schrieb Roarty, Francis X: His progress is putting unbelievable pressure on all the other researchers to stake their claims. Recent gains by Miley and Piantelli make it clear this race isn't over Yes, Piantelli's attorney says Rossi is using his patents and Rossi works together with Focardi. This brings Piantelli and Krivit into a difficult situation. Their seriousity and credibility of earlier research will be measured from Rossis honesty and acceptance. I think Miley should think twice before he refers to Rossi. He should better himself do a convincing public (peer to peer) demo. Still waiting. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Mr. Rossi appears to be busy for the foreseeable future.
I wrote: Any cold fusion cathode work harder will self-destruct to some extent merely by being exposed to air . . . That was supposed to say, any cold fusion cathode or powder will self-destruct . . . They all self-destruct over time from internal contamination. The powder stops working because the particles stick together, reducing surface area, and because the surface becomes contaminated. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
I have always felt that the internal heater of the old cats was the main one. Rossi has always used misdirection and apparently Mary fell for it. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor At 10:12 AM 11/10/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: i MY ... you're all over the web !!! In the older small (but allegedly powerful) E-cats, the main (largest and probably most powerful) heater has always heated the cooling water! This is evident because it's wrapped around the *exterior* of the E-cat. The older tube eCats have always had two heaters ... one main eater clamped around the rector bulge, and an auxiliary tube eater inserted into the inlet tube. ttp://lenr.qumbu.com/110406-b-Img+2+ECAT_explained.jpg (original on yteknik, I think) This never made sense, by the way, unless the objective was to use electricity to heat water and make steam.In the diagram the heater is shown to be internal. Rossi has never revealed enough about the larger devices to be sure that the image really shows how the heater is configured. If the heater is entirely internal to the water circuit, it's a departure from his previous layout. I see no reason to assume such a departure. Also, the whole drawing is pretty fanciful because nobody really knows what Rossi puts into the E-cats he has shown much less what was in the ones that were contained in his megawatt plant. If the secret is only in the catalyst sauce, I don't understand why Rossi doesn't do a complete disassembly after a test. What secrets could be revealed by seeing some metal powder? Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. What's he hiding? Is it loose powder? Nanotubes? Crystals on a surface?Lots of tuff I wouldn't want to show, so I don't blame him.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
Bob, I think you have generated an excellent diagram. It is highly unlikely that the 3 core modules are actually in series. That would be very difficult to control and Rossi has a pretty poor controller as far as I have seen. This would not be his first statement that is intended to misdirect or maybe just a slip of his tongue. The pressure release valve is most likely a check valve. That would work as a pressure release valve in the current configuration. It operates at around 116 C. (1.7 bars absolute) Dave -Original Message- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:35 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor I originally surmised heat exchanger fins on the bottom, but several vorts insisted that there is no evidence for heat fins on the bottom and that the reactor cell is bolted to the bottom (but I didn’t show bolts). So I removed the fins on the bottom. Your comment about the internal water flow is interesting. I will consider how to represent that input. I presume when you say “hot input” you are referring to the top T fitting that is the water/steam outlet. Where is the evidence that it “IS” 3 bar? Have you identified the part used? The operating steam temperatures are more consistent with operation at ~1 bar gauge. I thought it sufficient to simply mark it as “~1”, but if there is evidence that it could be as much as 3 bar (gauge or absolute?) then the figure will need to be revised. I don’t really have a problem with adding the ? though. If the internal pressure really is 3 bar gauge, then the reactor must be operating full of water and it is probably superheated liquid water that exits the hot outlet and flashes to steam as it exits into lower pressure, cooling some of the water around it and causing a water/steam mix in the output. Bob Higgins At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins? Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly in the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a ?) Unless see comment c) b) Lead should surely surround the wafer. c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers. d) There IS a 3-bar pressure relief valve at the hot input to the heat exchanger. The 1-bar should be marked ?
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than they got from Piantelli. And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained reactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi. Do they possibly play a secret service type fudge-obscure-confuse-spread rumours game to protect their currently ongoing actual research? Im happy to support them ;-) Am 10.11.2011 20:41, schrieb Mary Yugo: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
On 11-11-10 03:41 PM, Peter Heckert wrote: It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than they got from Piantelli. And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained reactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi. It's not at all hard to understand. Rossi claims multiple orders of magnitude higher output than anybody else can get out of a LENR system. And that is why NASA, and everybody else, needs him (assume his claims are correct).
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum. Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into reactor. I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that. There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the parable here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you? SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry, and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet. ME: Okay, but it is way up there. SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be on the ground. Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the one they are critiquing. For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or anyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff. PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all demonstrations have been too short, including these private demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
For the 1MW demo Rossi wrote explicitely in his forum, the reactors where in parallel. So far I remember, he gave differing statements for the other demos. One should understand, it is not important for Rossi to give precise information. He gives unclear information by purpose. It is not his goal to explain. His goal is to confuse and make rumours spread. The more rumours, the more it is discussed. The more discussed the more the news are spread. It is important that never a clear conclusion arises and that the discussion never ends. This strategy was always successful. We should support him, oh what do I say, this is what's happening just now ;-) Am 10.11.2011 21:40, schrieb David Roberson: Bob, I think you have generated an excellent diagram. It is highly unlikely that the 3 core modules are actually in series. That would be very difficult to control and Rossi has a pretty poor controller as far as I have seen. This would not be his first statement that is intended to misdirect or maybe just a slip of his tongue. The pressure release valve is most likely a check valve. That would work as a pressure release valve in the current configuration. It operates at around 116 C. (1.7 bars absolute) Dave -Original Message- From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 1:35 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor I originally surmised heat exchanger fins on the bottom, but several vorts insisted that there is no evidence for heat fins on the bottom and that the reactor cell is bolted to the bottom (but I didn’t show bolts). So I removed the fins on the bottom. Your comment about the internal water flow is interesting. I will consider how to represent that input. I presume when you say “hot input” you are referring to the top T fitting that is the water/steam outlet. Where is the evidence that it “IS” 3 bar? Have you identified the part used? The operating steam temperatures are more consistent with operation at ~1 bar gauge. I thought it sufficient to simply mark it as “~1”, but if there is evidence that it could be as much as 3 bar (gauge or absolute?) then the figure will need to be revised. I don’t really have a problem with adding the ? though. If the internal pressure really is 3 bar gauge, then the reactor must be operating full of water and it is probably superheated liquid water that exits the hot outlet and flashes to steam as it exits into lower pressure, cooling some of the water around it and causing a water/steam mix in the output. Bob Higgins At 07:16 AM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: a) Why no bottom heat exchanger fins? Rossi said a long time ago that the Gamma thermalization was partly in the lead shielding. In the original tubular ecats the lead was probably in contact with the copper pipe. I would expect the bottom lead to need fins. (I'd put them back, with a ?) Unless see comment c) b) Lead should surely surround the wafer. c) Rossi has said that the 3 cores are in SERIES, and then the fat-cats are connected in parallel. This would imply that water is injected into the wafer, not the tank, and then goes through three wafers. d) There IS a 3-bar pressure relief valve at the hot input to the heat exchanger. The 1-bar should be marked ?
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. Therefore bad calorimetry is not likely source for the cheat, because that cheat would depend on incompetent observers. Rossi does seem to choose his observers with some care and they tend not to be the most careful. And look what happened when he chose Krivit! And according to Krivit, NASA and one other big company sent representatives in September and the device did not work those days. That could be true or it could be simply be convenient. Maybe Rossi won't run his machine in front of people who ask the right questions, and are equipped and determined to test it properly. I've always been surprised at the softball questions asked to Rossi during post demo press interviews, for example in the October 28 run. Nobody asked him why they couldn't see instrument readings, and about the other issues I mention below. Rossi's guests have been too polite! Jed says they asked but Rossi didn't answer. Some people may have asked Rossi difficult questions but not in any published interview or demo that I've seen. When Rossi is asked tough stuff on his blog, he either refuses to publish it or he gives a tangential and uninformative response, usually that it's secret. The main problem with the calorimetry, in my estimation, is the lack of blank runs. Because an electrical heater is part of the system, it would extremely easy, almost trivial to do. A blank run, in one swoop, would remove all the issues and concerns about losses, thermocouple placements, incomplete vaporization of water to steam, and many others. It is so obvious a requirement, it's sort of telling that it has not been done. Yes it doubles the run time of the experiment. But so what? If Rossi had done things right once, he wouldn't have to do any additional tests in public. Jed maintains that HVAC and boiler engineers don't run blanks but those people don't have to prove that a new, almost incredibly powerful technology really exists! The other tell is, as you and NASA's scientist note, the short run. It boggles the imagination that a device supposedly designed to run six months without refueling was stopped after 4 or even 8 hours for some purported convenience. It makes absolutely no sense. Most people would be willing to baby sit an E-cat for days or weeks if necessary in shifts. The excuses just don't wash.
RE: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
I think the effort of disassembly of the internal cell is being grossly under-estimated by those wishing for/expecting a viewing of the guts. In Rossi's big eCat, the cover seal was leaking water at 15 psi of pressure (maybe less). The cell is far more difficult to seal. Inside is initially ~150 PSI (10 bar) of hydrogen at room temperature. If the catalyst and internal hydrogen is heated to 500-600C, the pressure will probably double to 300 PSI (20 bar). Note that not all of the hydrogen in the cell will be at this temperature, so it doesn't go up by 3x. Hydrogen wants to leak out of anything because the molecule is so small. The point is that this is a high pressure, high temperature hydrogen seal which is extremely difficult to make and maintain. It is not something you casually take apart for a viewing. Further, the catalyst probably requires hydrogen conditioning to be activated. Opening to the air would de-activate the catalyst. In fact, highly activated nickel powders (Raney nickel for example) are pyrophoric - they will spontaneously combust on exposure to air. That could be Rossi's self-destruct mechanism. It wouldn't be very effective protection against a skilled chemist who would open it in a glove box with argon. Am 10.11.2011 20:23, schrieb Mary Yugo: Even if he's concerned about that, he could disassemble all the way to the final core and stop there. He did that, several times. Even with the big reactor people say they could see the whole thing, under the cell. You can't see much in the photos, but you can in person. It would be a pain in the butt to remove the cell, and there is no point, because we know by displacement that there is nothing else in the vessel. He disassembled it all the way to the core?I have not seen any photos except one of a partially but not totally uncovered large box with some finned device inside. Yes, these fins could help to suck the water out, if there is a vacuum in the output hose. This gives a lot of extra energy. He is really skilled.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that NASA believes that a chemical process might be used within Rossi's device. They are merely pointing out that it would take a very long time to absolutely rule out that possibility. Dave -Original Message- From: Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim That is quite a hit at Rossi's claims, since NASA believes that chemical reactions could not be ruled out. But it's interesting that they didn't point out other problems, such vapor problems and energy COP. The question is: they just didn't bother trying to figure that out because it was an obviously chemical reactions or they couldn't find other issues? 2011/11/10 Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven. I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules out hidden methods to power the device. But if Rossi made a much longer than what you believe to be strictly necessary (with proper controls and continuous total input power metering including the RF device) it would help a lot. In that, I agree with NASA's scientist.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
At 11:49 AM 11/10/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Using Windows, you can make the Euro symbol by holding down the alt key and pressing 0128 on the numerical keyboard. The Euro's going away so soon that I don't need to remember that trick. How do I get a Deutsche mark, Lira or Drachma?
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
At 11:41 AM 11/10/2011, Mary Yugo wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction. According to Nelson, it would take three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat So they don't have the Oct 6 Open Ottoman / Fatcat wafer size -- are they're using the total volume. That reminds me, I need to plug that into my calculator. and several months for a 1 MW plant. The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a single eCat at the same power. A single slide with no supporting information? What chemical ? Eh? I'm getting not to trust those NASA engineers. Are you sure they didn't mix Imperial and Metric units? (I haven't read the other responses, so I may be duplicating stuff).
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: However calorimatric criticism is not relevant, because Rossi has never forbid for observers to do accurate calorimetry and check all the necessary calibrations with their own instruments. I do not know who wrote that, but it is incorrect. Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on some occasions. Jed maintains that HVAC and boiler engineers don't run blanks but those people don't have to prove that a new, almost incredibly powerful technology really exists! Does anyone seriously doubt that if Fioravanti is telling the truth, there can be any doubt the 1 MW reactor is real? Are you seriously suggesting that a measurement using standard industrial techniques, performed by an expert, showing 66 kWh input and 2,635 kWh might be in error?!? You can't be serous. If that is the last remaining argument you have against cold fusion, you have jumped the shark. That measurement is *far more* reliable and the results more certain than any laboratory technique. Ten-thousand blank experiments followed by ten thousand laboratory scale tests would not hold a candle to it. To say you need a blank in an industrial measurement on this scale is absurd. This is a lot like suggesting that on July 16,1945 they should have fired off a blank nuclear bomb with a copper core instead of plutonium, and since they did not do that, we cannot be sure the plutonium bomb really worked. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Am 10.11.2011 21:55, schrieb David Roberson: It is not reasonable to draw the conclusion that NASA believes that a chemical process might be used within Rossi's device. They are merely pointing out that it would take a very long time to absolutely rule out that possibility. One must always think logical. Getting no conclusion is without purpose. Always look which conclusions do /really/ arise and from this formulate further questions. It is reasonable to draw the conclusion, they have not seen evidency or positive results and they know nothing. From this the question arises, why do they continue to speak about this why do they waste their valuable time? Might be their motivation is neither technical nor scientifical but political? A serious motivation could be to protect their own knowledge and research.
Re: [Vo]:New diagram of Rossi reactor
On 11-11-10 03:58 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 11:49 AM 11/10/2011, Terry Blanton wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Using Windows, you can make the Euro symbol by holding down the alt key and pressing 0128 on the numerical keyboard. € The Euro's going away so soon that I don't need to remember that trick. How do I get a Deutsche mark, Lira or Drachma? Right now, you go to a coin collector.
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
I may be incorrect, but I suspect that Rossi has never conducted a long term experiment in public because he does not have a controller that functions well. Everything that has been observed during the public demonstrations has been manually controlled. The self sustaining mode is merely a way to eliminate the need for a controller. The driven mode would require feedback operation where the duty cycle of the power input waveform was controlled and/or the water input flow rate would need to be under electronic valve control. To use feedback effectively, several sensors would need to be accessed. Dave -Original Message- From: Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim It should be noted, that Rossi has shown them (NASA) more evidency than hey got from Piantelli. And if they really had success with own experiments in sustained eactions, then it is not understandable why they need Piantelli Rossi. Do they possibly play a secret service type fudge-obscure-confuse-spread rumours game to protect their currently ngoing actual research? Im happy to support them ;-) Am 10.11.2011 20:41, schrieb Mary Yugo: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
-- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/10 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on some occasions. - Jed He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring you any bell ?
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
/snip/ Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. /snip/ Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. As for the internal volume of water, Rossi was quoted as saying 20 liters, and some approximations have exceeded 30 liters. Using the measurements at the secondary, we may be able to deduce how much time it took to fill, back-calcuate the flow rate, and then use the September test to approximate how much the pump output slowed in the presence of the increased pressure. To further complcate things, if the assumpitions of a check valve are correct, the heat at the secondary does not demonstrated overflow, but merely that some steam generation has produced enough pressure to compress the check-valve spring, and the heat exchanger is seeing heat for the first time (this could happen with a half-full E-Cat). In short, we cannot make any reasonable assumptions of the input flow rate. The ONLY meaurements were those taken at the drain, and they certainly contradict Rossi's proclaimed flow rate. All of this was discussed ad nauseum, and in frustration, YOU claimed that the input flow rate didn't matter at all, and that even if the flow rate is zero, there's still evidence of anomalous heat. Please don't ascribe your own silly assertions of zero flow rates to other people. Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum. Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as heat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into reactor. I was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, saying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that it might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that might have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been dry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the vessel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate that explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was replaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, as Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that. There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may reduce the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any weakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that the entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the parable here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you? SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry, and I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet. ME: Okay, but it is way up there. SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot error! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it could be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be on the ground. Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the one they are critiquing. For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or anyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they would have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff. PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all demonstrations have been too short, including these private demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of the observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing they did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with flowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits of chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year or 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Mary Yugo wrote: It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven. I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules out hidden methods to power the device. Hidden methods are an entirely different issue. Please do not confuse the two. I am saying that given the mass of the device and the size of the core, a 4-hour run is long enough to rule out chemistry. Obviously, it does not rule out chemistry if someone finds a hidden tube of gasoline leading into the device, or hidden wires, or something like that. Obviously I mean it rules out a chemical source of fuel inside the reactor core. I think you understood that is what I meant. Please do not be argumentative. Please do not use straw man arguments. I am confident there are no hidden wires or tubes going into the reactor. If you are not confident of that, fair enough, but please do not bring up that issue when we are talking about sources of energy isolated inside the reactor. If you do think an isolated source of chemical fuel in the reactor vessel might explain this, please list what sort of chemical device you have in mind. How big is it? How much fuel, and how is that fuel reacted? Please do say there was something else hidden in the vessel other than the cell, and this other object magically defies Archimedes' law. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Alan J Fletcher wrote: The entire empty volume of a shipping container? Since the energy produced is N * the number of modules, the TIME should be the SAME as a single eCat at the same power. Well said. Eh? I'm getting not to trust those NASA engineers. Are you sure they didn't mix Imperial and Metric units? I wouldn't put it past them. That's how they whacked into Mars instead of landing there. They will never live that down. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing through the ECAT? That would be totally unbelievable. Maybe I was assuming that he was seeking the truth, but if he is neglecting such important issues, then I have been mistaken. Horace, you need to defend against these allegations if you are to generate anything that can be believed. What use would it be to waste your time simulating something that is so far away from reality that everyone can immediately toss the conclusions out? I was making suggestions of some of the issues that will need to be considered to satisfy my curiosity. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress Jouni Valkonen wrote: Therefore Horaces analysis is not only wrong, but it is utterly against the normal thermodynamics and cannot explain anything. I agree, and so do all of the scientists I have asked outside of this forum. Because it does not consider at all normal thermodynamical principles such as eat loss and ignores totally 60 kg of cool water that was injected into eactor. was going to mention that. I believe Heffner disputes that amount, aying it was not actually 60 kg. Perhaps it is reasonable to say that t might been less than 60 kg, but it is absurd to then conclude that ight have been zero. If that been the case, the vessel would have been ry long before the four-hour test ended, since more than 30 L left the essel. The vessel was still full at the end of the run. Any flow rate hat explain that means that the entire volume of the vessel was eplaced with tap water at least once. It was probably replaced twice, s Rossi claims, but even if it was only once, Heffner cannot explain that. There is a tendency among skeptics to cite a potential weakness that may educe the claim somewhat, say 10%, and to say that reduces it 100%. Any eakness at all -- even an imaginary weakness! -- is taken as proof that he entire claim is wrong. This is the point I was trying to make in the arable here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg53437.html ME: Look, an airplane! It must be 1,000 feet up! What did I tell you? SKEPTIC: It is *not* 1,000 feet up! No way. I am an expert in trigonometry, nd I assure you, it is no more than 635 feet. ME: Okay, but it is way up there. SKEPTIC: Look, you just made an error of more than 300 feet. A 300 foot rror! That's 635 feet plus or minus 300 feet, so as far as you know, it ould be only 335 feet high. Make another error like that, and it could be n the ground. Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it ight be zero. That is preposterous. Skeptics do not see that their own claims have more weaknesses than the ne they are critiquing. For me it seems that the quality of criticism is decreasing. I agree. This is proof that the claims are irrefutable. If Heffner or nyone else could have found a viable reason to doubt these things they ould have by now. Instead they come up with impossible stuff. PS. I think that the strongest criticism so far is that all demonstrations have been too short, including these private demonstrations that were held for Stremmenos and Nasa. As far as I know, in all cases the tests were stopped at the request of he observers. They want to look inside the reactor. It is a good thing hey did look inside the reactor. In any case the 18 hour test with lowing water, and the four-hour heat after death event exceeded limits f chemistry by such a large margin, they might as well of been a year r 10 years. It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than hemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The oint is already proven. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Andrea Selva wrote: Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on some occasions. - Jed He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring you any bell ? He would not let me bring instruments, which is why I did not go. However, I have talked to people who were allowed to use their own instruments. In same cases the thing worked. In other cases it failed. In all cases, Rossi's instruments and the observers' instruments have agreed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Why did Krivit only release one slide? What did the others slides say? I requested a nasa FOIA request for the all of the slides. But if anyone knows Michael Larsen's and can request the slides, that might be faster. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
Wait a moment before making this statement. I recall Mats Lewan bringing his amp meter to the test. Am I mistaken? Dave -Original Message- From: Andrea Selva andreagiuseppe.se...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Nov 10, 2011 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress -- Forwarded message -- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Date: 2011/11/10 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Minor progress To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Rossi does not usually let people use their own instruments. He has on some occasions. - Jed He doesn't even want people to bring their own. Jed, does this ring you any bell ?
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
On 11-11-10 04:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Mary Yugo wrote: It is irrational to demand 1,000 times more energy than chemistry can produce when you have already seen 10 times more. The point is already proven. I think many responsible and capable people don't believe that. The only absolutely determinative test is an independent one that rules out hidden methods to power the device. Hidden methods are an entirely different issue. Please do not confuse the two. I am saying that given the mass of the device and the size of the core, a 4-hour run is long enough to rule out chemistry. Obviously, it does not rule out chemistry if someone finds a hidden tube of gasoline leading into the device, or hidden wires, What hidden? The thing was connected to a live monster-size genset through the whole test.
[Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
Robert Leguillon wrote: /snip/ Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. /snip/ Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. THERE is where you are wrong. You go too far. No idea is an absurd overstatement. We have some idea. We know that the the vessel would have been empty if there had been no water flowing in. We can make a rough estimate of the lowest flow rate it might have been. A rough estimate is not the same as hand waving or guessing. I do not understand why modern people are so unwilling to make a rough estimate, or a reality check. To go from the assertion that the flow rate was not at its max (perhaps . . .) to saying we have no idea is a ridiculous leap. It violates common sense, and natural science observational techniques. You can always make a reasonable estimate based on observable and irrefutable facts. There was definitely water coming out. It was measured often enough and observed and filmed often enough that we know approximately what the outgoing flow rate was. There was definitely water left in the vessel after the test. That can only be explained by additional tap water flowing in, unless you think water spontaneously appears out of nowhere, or mass is not conserved. As I said in my parable, just because you do not know whether the airplane is at 600 feet or 1000 feet, that does not mean you have proved it is on the ground. Honestly, how do you think people managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years before numbers and instruments and modern science were developed?!? Do you think they had no clue what was going on in the world around them? No idea whether water was flowing in a stream, no clue at all whether an object was too hot to touch or stone cold? Visual observations of natural events and first principles are a valid way of doing science, even with no instruments at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Minor progress
David Roberson wrote: Jed, are you sure that Horace assumes that there is no water flowing through the ECAT? That would be totally unbelievable. I believe he said that previously. Actually I think he said something like we do not know what the flow rate is so it might be zero. Ask him. While you are at it, ask Robert Leguillon what he meant by saying we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. Does no idea mean there could be no flow at all? See the thread I just started. What I am saying here is that if you assert the that 60 L was not added, okay, fair enough. Maybe you are right. Yeah, it sure would have helped if Rossi had used a proper flowmeter. But if that is what you say, how much water do you think _was_ added? What is the minimum? 30 L? 10 L? You have to pick some reasonable number. You can't say zero. If it was 10 L (which is unreasonable, in my opinion), how does that impact your stored energy hypothesis? Jouni Valkonen has it completely right when he says that Heffner is ignoring all factors that work against his hypothesis, such as heat losses from the reactor, and the energy needed to bring the tap water up to boiling temperatures. He is also ignoring observations such as the person who was burned by the reactor several hours into the self-sustaining event. He is carefully slicing and dicing the evidence, looking for a few stray facts that -- taken in isolation -- might be seen as lending support to his hypothesis. Actually, they are more easily explained by other means. This is not how to do science. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
Maybe I'd overlooked this, when did they measure and film the outpouring water? I thought that it was twice during the entire demo - once while it was running, and once during quenching, no? Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Leguillon wrote: /snip/ Heffner is saying that since the flow rate may not be 60 L in 4 hours it might be zero. That is preposterous. /snip/ Because the flow rate was not at its max (it was sped up during quenching) and it decreases with back pressure (as demonstrated in the September test), we have no idea what the flow rate actually was. THERE is where you are wrong. You go too far. No idea is an absurd overstatement. We have some idea. We know that the the vessel would have been empty if there had been no water flowing in. We can make a rough estimate of the lowest flow rate it might have been. A rough estimate is not the same as hand waving or guessing. I do not understand why modern people are so unwilling to make a rough estimate, or a reality check. To go from the assertion that the flow rate was not at its max (perhaps . . .) to saying we have no idea is a ridiculous leap. It violates common sense, and natural science observational techniques. You can always make a reasonable estimate based on observable and irrefutable facts. There was definitely water coming out. It was measured often enough and observed and filmed often enough that we know approximately what the outgoing flow rate was. There was definitely water left in the vessel after the test. That can only be explained by additional tap water flowing in, unless you think water spontaneously appears out of nowhere, or mass is not conserved. As I said in my parable, just because you do not know whether the airplane is at 600 feet or 1000 feet, that does not mean you have proved it is on the ground. Honestly, how do you think people managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years before numbers and instruments and modern science were developed?!? Do you think they had no clue what was going on in the world around them? No idea whether water was flowing in a stream, no clue at all whether an object was too hot to touch or stone cold? Visual observations of natural events and first principles are a valid way of doing science, even with no instruments at all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Sterling Allan: Arm-in-Arm with Andrea Rossi http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/sterling-allan-arm-in-arm-with-andrea-rossi/ and others The Big Lie Technique of Scammers, Courtesy of Adolf Hitler http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/the-big-lie-technique-of-scammers-courtesy-of-adolf-hitler/ [ Godwin's LAW ... shut down the discussion ] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/
Re: [Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: Maybe I'd overlooked this, when did they measure and film the outpouring water? Yes, many people saw the water and bubbles moving through the hose. FURTHERMORE, we know with certainty that there was steam or hot water coming out of the reactor into the heat exchanger, because if there had not been, the temperature sensors would have fallen to tap water temperature. We saw that during the first two hours of the test. Nothing came out of the reactor, and both cooling loop thermocouples registered tap water temperature. Something had to be coming out of the reactor the entire time. It had to be coming out at a flow rate large enough to deliver lots of heat to those thermocouples. Some people say the thermocouples were poorly placed. I do not think this made any significant difference but suppose it did. We still know that those thermocouples were registering a real temperature rise, and -- to reiterate -- we saw in the first two hours they would have registered nothing only tap water temperatures if flow rate had dropped to zero. I believe I mentioned this a couple of times. This is the kind of observation people should bear in mind. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
On 11-11-10 04:32 PM, ecat builder wrote: Why did Krivit only release one slide? Personally I wouldn't trust Krivit as far as I could throw Rossi. My immediate jump-to suspicion is that he released exactly as much as would support his case, and nothing more. What did the others slides say? I requested a nasa FOIA request for the all of the slides. But if anyone knows Michael Larsen's and can request the slides, that might be faster. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
Hi, On 10-11-2011 20:59, Dusty wrote: That sounds about right! SCAM! While cleaning up my SPAM folder I stumbled across the following email of a month ago. It seems that spammers have found Rossi as a way to earn money as well. Kind regards, MoB == Return-Path: @unicredit.org Received: from mail.ecs-car.it (81-208-36-50.ip.fastwebnet.it [81.208.36.50]) Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:00:07 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from @unicredit.org) Received: from User (unknown [41.223.66.247]) by mail.ecs-car.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AB93F6C1627; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:25:06 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: marino.ross...@yahoo.com From: Rossi.@unicredit.org Subject: GOOD DAY, Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 09:27:01 -0700 Good Day My Partner, Firstly, I apologize for sending you this sensitive information via E-mail. In my banking department we discovered an abandoned sum of 13,000,000.00 EUR (Thirteen Million Euros Only) in an account that belongs to one of our Foreign customers who unfortunately lost his life with his entire family on his way to the Airport of Bologna. Since we got information about his death, we have been expecting his next of kin or relatives to come over and claim his funds because we cannot release it unless somebody applies for it as Next of kin or relation to the deceased as indicated in our banking guidelines. We want you to come in as the Next Of Kin, all needed cooperation to make the claims will be given to you by us. If you are interested kindly let us have the below information and I will give you more details. 1. Full name 2: Your private telephone and Fax numbers. 3. Occupations and Nationality. 4. Date of Birth 5, Present Location We are offering 30% of the total sum to you as our partner. We will discuss much in details when I receive your response. Thanks and good luck to us. Best regards, Mr. Marino.Ross
Re: [Vo]:Yes we darn well do know approximately what the flow rate was!
I wrote: Something had to be coming out of the reactor the entire time. It had to be coming out at a flow rate large enough to deliver lots of heat to those thermocouples. We also know from Lewan's log that he measured the flow rate at the time when the flow rate was lowest. He measured 0.9 ml/s. It had to be higher for the entire rest of the run. We know this because it was delivering the lowest amount of heat to the thermocouples at that time. He just happened to measure it when the power was down to around 3 kW nominally, which was the lowest it got during the self-sustaining event. However badly placed the thermocouples were, they reflected the actual temperature in a linear fashion. They had to; the temperature of the fluid coming into the heat exchanger hardly varied. It was ~103°C, plus or minus a tad. A fixed bias will not produce random variations. When the outlet thermocouple temperature rose, that definitely meant the temperature rose; the only thing disputed is how much it actually rose. There is no doubt it was a the lowest point right when Lewan measured 0.9 ml/s. Since the temperature was stable at ~103°C, that means pressure did not vary much. Steam from boiling water does not get any hotter at one pressure setting. As the power goes up you get more coming out of the reactor. The flow rate increases. That's the only way the cooling loop output thermocouple could get hotter. So the flow was greater than 0.9 ml/s the whole time. I suppose it was ~8 ml/s on average, as Rossi claimed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:NASA officially responds to an FOIA request that Rossi has never proved his claim
- On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Dusty wrote: That sounds about right! SCAM! Mary Yugo maryyu...@gmail.com wrote: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/nasa-engineer-explains-why-rossi-demos-failed/ According to a slide presentation given by NASA engineer Michael A. Nelson, which New Energy Times obtained under a FOIA request, “Energy Catalyzer” inventor Andrea Rossi failed to conclusively show that his device produced excess heat from a nuclear energy source.According to Nelson, a NASA engineer who investigates low-energy nuclear reactions and space applications, Rossi did not run his demonstration long enough to prove his extraordinary claim.At the Sept. 22, 2011 LENR Workshop at NASA Glenn Research Center, Nelson explained that Rossi “would need to run [his experiment] for eight hours or more with a small E-Cat and much longer for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] to rule out a chemical reaction.” According to Nelson, it would take “three or more days for a small E-Cat, two or more weeks for an Ottoman [Fat-Cat] E-Cat and several months for a 1 MW plant.” The slide and more at the link.
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
The lady (Krivit:) doth protest too much, methinks to quote Shakespeareor maybe he was a fraud too? On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msnbc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction? Here is a similar loaded question: Q: Why does Obama refuse to show his birth certificate? A: He did show his birth certificate. This question incorporates a falsehood. Q: Why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction? A: It *has* been run long enough to eliminate this possibility, by a wide margin. Also, you have no reason to think this particular machine can be run for 6 months between charges. Rossi never said that. Your question incorporates two falsehoods. Perhaps the tests Nelson observed did not last long enough, but the 18-hour test in Feb. and Oct. 6 test did. Rossi ran for 4 hours. Anyone glancing at the data can see that the reactor should have fallen to room temperature in 45 min. Anyone can see the heat balance was zero going into the self-sustaining event. There was no stored heat. It is ridiculous to claim there might be some hidden source of chemical fuel that can produce this effect. Even if Rossi were to run the thing for 40 hours or 40 days, I am certain you would demand more. You would still be finding excuses not to believe it. People who are not convinced by this duration will not be convinced by any longer duration or higher power. You will have to wait for some major customer to buy a reactor and then go public. Probably you will not even believe that. You will say that General Electric is conspiring with Rossi to defraud the public. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away which he would control by increasing the cooling flow rate or by reducing the hydrogen pressure. We have not seen any demonstration of automated equipment to do this, so I suspect Rossi is the control mechanism. It would be hard for him to run a continuous test for days (when would he sleep?). OR, he would have to divulge the control technique and train a couple of assistants to man the machine (which I think he also doesn't want to do). -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msn bc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
[Vo]:Rossi in the magnetmotor business?
Here is Rossi together with Adolf Schneider: http://peswiki.com/images/d/d9/Schneiders-Rossi-Meeting-Foto-280711_300.jpg For those who dont know Schneider, he is a switzer engineer and a competent magnet motor expert in german spoken countries. He has an own german magazine NET Journal where he advertised Mike Brady's magnet motors and of course many other phantastic free energy devices. Of course only serious stuff that is verifed to work by important entities or university professors. Its the german spoken parallel to Sterling Allan, so got Rossi interested in magnet motor business? This should be the right channel for european distribution of the 1 MW plant! Does he want to learn from those phantasic Perendev motors that deliver 300 kW without any conventional input energy? Maybe Schneider knows the secret how to achieve continuous sustained mode?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Bob wrote One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. Agreed. I think all logic points to this. I suspect some of the complicated claims to how Rossi is scamming people are beginning to rivalcold fusion itself. Soon Occam's razor will suggest the cold fusion is the simpler solution. On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away which he would control by increasing the cooling flow rate or by reducing the hydrogen pressure. We have not seen any demonstration of automated equipment to do this, so I suspect Rossi is the control mechanism. It would be hard for him to run a continuous test for days (when would he sleep?). OR, he would have to divulge the control technique and train a couple of assistants to man the machine (which I think he also doesn't want to do). -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek [mailto:vorl@antichef.com] Rossi Source for Fox and MSNBC: Obama Teleported to Mars http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/11/10/rossis-source-for-fox-and-msn bc-says-obama-teleported-to-mars/ I am beginning to like Krivit; that one was pretty funny. And he had the brains and initiative to make the FOIA request to NASA. It is hard not to think Rossi is a conman or massively self-deluded - Nelson's comments just put the cap on what has been asked so often: why does Rossi's six-month-between-charges e-cat never self-sustain long enough to eliminate the possibility of the heat coming from a chemical reaction?
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Regarding Rossi, there are obviously many answered questions that remain that could either scientifically verify or refute his extraordinary claims. I don't know whether Rossi is a SCAM artist or whether he is the real deal. Let me repeat that: I DON'T KNOW!!! Granted, I have my suspicions... I suspect Rossi's mysterious eCat technology, flawed it may be, is authentic... this based primarily on the opinions I've read from competent observers who know a few things more than I. Nevertheless, my suspicions could turn out to be wrong. Under the circumstances, the best approach that I can take is simply to wait and see. Keep watching. What concerns me about what Krivit continues to blog about is that I perceive absolutely no wiggle room in the opinion he has arrive at. It would seem that from Krivit's POV, without a shadow of doubt, Rossi is a scam artist extraordinaire. I am not the only individual who has noticed this about how Krivit has been handling the Rossi affair. For Krivit, it would seem that this whole affair is turning into an outright campaign against Rossi and all the rest of the people on the planet he perceives as lining up behind Rossi. It's as if Krivit is saying: It's ME against the rest of the world. It is best to watch from a safe distance. PS: I hope Obama got a token Mars Candy Bar out of the trip. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com wrote: One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode, then it may be in greater danger of thermal run-away . . . This is what Rossi has said on many occasions. He says he cannot leave the thing, especially in self-sustaining mode. They left it alone for many hours during the 18 hour test in February. It was not self-sustaining. When they first turned on during that test, it briefly went up to much higher power levels, with the output thermocouple registering 40°C. Rossi was reportedly frightened by this. You would have to be crazy not to be frightened by this. I think it was going out of control. In my opinion, back in February Rossi had little control over this reaction. I sure hope he now knows much more about it now. This is one of the reasons I was afraid the thing might explode during the 1 MW reactor test. In the patent, Rossi claims that a large reactor ran for many months unattended in Italy. He listed the address. Several Italian say they saw this machine running, so I suppose it is true. I believe there was considerable input power in this case. Apparently when the input-output ratio is low, the reaction is stable. I have no idea why that should be. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Physorg comments : new Krivit Crusade
At 02:48 PM 11/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote: Here is a similar loaded question: Q: Why does Obama refuse to show his birth certificate? A: He did show his birth certificate. This question incorporates a falsehood. I finally have convergence between my OTHER Conspiracy Theory (with hard-coded google search buttons) and the eCAT !!! AND Krivit invoked Godwin's Law .
