Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 19.09.2011 05:28, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint: Peter wrote: So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm. A pipe diameter of 100cm is one heck of a big pipe! I think you mean cross-sectional area? Correction: So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe cross sectional area is 100 cm^2. Yes, I was a little bit in hurry and I am not used to do such calculations. I can do but oviously need to practise more ;-). Sorry Peter
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Peter, As far as I can see Naudin has never tried an experiment that did not work for him. His MAHG power measurements are in error (which has been pointed out to him). His write ups are beautifully presented but in my opinion generally unreliable. Ron --On Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:01 AM +0200 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm I think, this is easy to debunk. They say, they have a toroidal magnet. An ideal toroidal magnet has no external field and so there can be no back electromagnetic force. Now this is untrue. In this magical moment, where the permanent magnet passes by at the toroidal magnet, the ferrite core is momentary driven into saturation. Because -obviously- the total magnetic field is not toroidal -in this magic moment-, the saturation will not be toroidal. The saturation will be strong where the magnetic field is strong. Obviously the magnetic field is strongest near to the permanent magnet. So, -in this magic moment- the ferrite core is saturated near to the permanent magnet and is less saturated at the opposite side of the toroidal core. Therefore -in this magic moment- we have a situation where the toroid looks like a toroid, but it doesnt work like a toroid. In this magic moment the toroid will act like an electro-horseshoe magnet. and we get a back-emf for a short moment. I think this is easy to understand and to debunk. Im disappointed that Naudin apparently tries to support this rubbish instead debunking it and this makes me very critical about his other experiments. Can he be trusted? He supports and tries all kinds of obvious crap experiments. Possibly he does it for money, creating faked overunity orgasms for his undisclosed customers. Of course, I cannot accuse him that. Maybe he does it just for fun ;-) Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
Am 16.09.2011 21:26, schrieb Alan J Fletcher: At 11:57 AM 9/16/2011, Peter Heckert wrote: The important information is: There is no superheated steam because inside the ecat is everything almost at boiling temperature. For superheated steam you need an extra heater that heats the steam and there is none. Because the temperature inside the e-cat is above 100 degrees the boiling temperature inside must be above 100 degrees and therefore the pressure inside the ecat must be above 1 bar. I still think that the 2-chamber design explains more than the 1-chamber 3-bar design. The core could easily be engineered with a water-efficient heat exchanger in one chamber, and a steam-efficient heat exchanger in the other. Someone had the idea Rossi might have multiple small e-cats in this big box. Possibly he uses one for superheating and possibly this did not work as intended. This would explain his claims superheated steam, water comes from condensation. He told us what he believed, but he was in error he didnt understand what was going on. Apparently he doesnt know that the purpose of superheated steam is to avoid condensation. If there is superheated steam and the hose is isolated then it is always hotter than 100 centigrade inside and there is no condensation and no water erosion. This is the reason why they superheat steam in industrial machines. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Why are you guys referring to really old JLN stuff in 2011!? http://pesn.com/2011/09/14/9501914_Steorn_Drops_Four_Bombshell_Documents_Validating_Orbo/ September 14, 2011Steorn Drops Four Bombshell Documents Validating Orbo *The Dublin based, Irish free energy company Steorn, has allowed PESN to view and report on four documents written by third party scientists and engineers that appear to validate the Orbo overunity technology.* by Hank Mills http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hank_Mills for *Pure Energy Systems News* PESN has been given the opportunity by Sean McCarthy, the CEO of Steornhttp://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Steorn_Free_Energy, to review four documents that provide confirmation of their overunity magnetic technology, named Orbo. The first three documents cover tests performed on permanent magnet based systems, and the final document discusses a test of a solid state Orbo in a calorimeter. The significance of these documents is that they seem to validate Steorn's technology, and prove the Orbo technology works as Steorn has claimed. *Orbo's Back Story * Steorn is the Irish based company that in August of 2006 announced -- via a full page advertisement in The Economist -- they had developed a technology that offered free, clean, and constant energy. Around this same time, they opened a public forum (now closed) on their website, on which the CEO of the company, Sean McCarthy, frequently posted and contributed to discussions. This public forum evolved, and lead to the creation of a private forum for those willing to sign non-disclosure agreements. This private forum eventually became what is today called the Steorn Knowledge Development Base http://www.steorn.com/skdb/ or SKDB. Between 2006 and present day, Steorn has been rapidly developing their technology, which is all based on magnetism. Originally, in 2006, their technology utilized only permanent magnets interacting with other magnets in very specific ways. These original configurations utilized the concept of magnetic viscosity (the delay of a magnetic material to move on the BH curvehttp://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/electromagnetism/magnetic-hysteresis.html or respond magnetically, when exposed to the field of another magnet) to produce gains or losses of energy. In a rotary system utilizing such a setup, if the rotor moved in one direction there would be a loss of energy, and if it moved in the other direction there would be a gain of energy. Over the course of time, Steorn enhanced their permanent-magnet-only configurations to include the use of soft (not having a permanent magnetic field of their own) magnetic materials -- such as ferrite -- and geometric relationships that allowed for greater amounts of OU. As their configurations evolved, so did their understanding of what was taking place to produce the gains/losses of energy. They came to the realization that the manipulation of the BH curve was at the heart of all their configurations. At some point Steorn developed a design for an electric pulse motor -- named E-Orbo - that did not produce back EMF (also known as counter EMF), and hence produced overunity gains of energy. Back EMF is the enemy of free energy in electric motors, because it is the signature of energy transfer between the circuit that powers the electromagnets (input) that are pulsed, and the rotor (output). If you can avoid producing back EMF, you simply will not be transferring energy from the input to the output. The concept is that the torque gained by the rotor will be thermodynamically free. Hence, the efficiency of such a setup will be infinite, since none of the input is actually consumed. During late 2009 and early 2010, Steorn held a series of demonstrations of the E-Orbo at the Waterways Center in Dublin, Ireland. These demonstrations were streamed live onto the internet, and were posted to YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/SteornOfficial . With high end oscilloscopes, current probes, inductance meters, and other equipment, Steorn was able to clearly show the E-Orbo systems present were producing overunity, and not producing back EMF (within the measurement capability of the equipment present). In fact, in addition to producing a gain of energy in the form of torque on the rotor, the coils being pulsed experienced an induction gain. Many individuals replicated the E-Orbo, and posted videos of their systems on the internet. In the recent past, the patent for E-Orbo has been published. It documents the system down to the smallest detail. Steorn is first and foremost an intellectual property company that desires to accumulate a stock of patented, novel technologies they can license to developers. Their primary goal is not to develop products themselves, but to allow their licensees to do so. This drive to accumulate as much intellectual property as possible, is probably what drove them to pursue a solid state (no moving parts) version of their Orbo technology. The following
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 19.09.2011 17:10, schrieb Ron Wormus: Peter, As far as I can see Naudin has never tried an experiment that did not work for him. His MAHG power measurements are in error (which has been pointed out to him). I did not analyze his power measurements. It is clear to me that an error with pulsating currents is easy to do for beginners, but not for trained an experienced persons. Also he measured it with an digital 2 channel osilloscope. This should be able to do the calculation. I think the curren is repetitive and periodic and only a complete ignorat or a careless person can do errors of 2000% or more with that. (He claims COP of 20 and more) His write ups are beautifully presented but in my opinion generally unreliable. I found his electrostatic (Biefield Brown) experiments pointless. There is a large leakage current and therefore no overunity and a lot of ion-wind. He claims there is no ion wind. I have done such experiments myself, therefore this was clear to me when I studied his reports and videos.. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam could be released inside the container. Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a great deal about heating plants of this nature. They say this design is dangerous and likely to explode. I do not know enough about engineering to judge. I can say looks extremely complicated with all those pipes and control wires. This is not a good first step for this technology. Rossi should begin by demonstrating much simpler machines. I would be very nervous about going to see a demonstration of this machine. I would not want to go close to it unless it had been run for thousands of hours. Obviously it will not be run that long in a month or two. I think there is little chance this machine in its present state will be ready for a demonstration by the end of next month. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 19.09.2011 19:30, schrieb Esa Ruoho: The next step for Steorn may be when a client licenses one of their technologies and produces a working product. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
At 05:52 PM 9/18/2011, Colin Hercus wrote: Woops, sorry Alan. I should be more careful. Good grief ... no problem!! The superheater chamber idea was directly from Lewan's report (and the literature).. All I added was direct overflow (which may or may not be true).
RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
My Two Cents-- I must confess that I'm unfamiliar with the effect of electromagnetism on conductive heating. I thought that I'd throw out a few questions regarding the observations of the 4th paper, hoping to learn: Background for the questions: Alternating current (dependent on the frequency) can produce a more prominent skin effect on conductors than standard direct current. This skin effect can cause the vast bulk of current to flow down only the outer surface of a conductor. Q1) Does this uneven current flow translate to potentially uneven heating - even at equilibrium? Q2) Could the nickel core be cooler in the middle with more heat being concentrated, and subsequently shed, on the surface? Q3) Could the surface of the inductor wires appear hotter, though the entire conductor is dissipating the same amount of total heat? Donating to the World, Two Cents at a Time, R.L. Documents 1-3 were quite interesting - compelling, really. I'm going to have to read up more on Steorn. Document #4 - It's getting hot in here, turn off that Orbo! The fourth report that we were allowed to examine is unique from the others in that it is about a solid state version of Steorn's technology. It is also the most recent of the documents, being written in March, 2011. A solid state Orbo offers the potential of having no moving parts, having no need for bearings (as in permanent manget (PM) or E-Orbo configurations), being simpler to build, and potentially being simpler to test. Other advantages of solid state Orbo include fewer parts to wear out, and perhaps more potential to evolve quickly -- in a similar manner to the way computers evolved during the past twenty years. In this paper the author describes a very simple configuration that involves a coil wrapped around a nickel core (that is both magnetic and conductive) acting as an inductor. The coil and core is placed in a calorimeter composed of a vacuum chamber. Two thermocouples measure the temperature of the coil itself, and the temperature of the air in the room. A metered power supply provides the input power to the coil, and an oscilloscope monitors the current, voltage, and can also calculate total input power by using a math function of the scope. The purpose of the test is to determine if the coil fed with a quantity of AC power, can produce more heat than the same coil fed with the same quantity of DC power. In the paper, the formula needed to calculate the total AC power is presented. The AC input and DC input is configured to be as identical as possible. Actually, the power input during the AC run was .9 (point nine) watts, and in the DC run it was 1 (one) watt. The fact that the input power during the AC run was slightly less than in the DC run actually biases the test against the AC run. This makes the results of the test even more significant. In the first test, 1 watt of DC power is fed into the coil wound around the nickel core. The temperature of the coil increases until it reaches an equilibrium point of 36.1 degrees. This is the point at which the power lost by the coil via heat dissipation matches the electrical input power. Even if the input power stayed on for hours longer, the temperature of the coil would not increase above this temperature. In the second test, .9 watts is fed into the same coil wound around the same exact nickel core. Obviously, this test took place a period of time after the first one, after the temperature of the coil has dropped back to its original value. The result of AC being fed into the coil is that it rises to an equilibrium temperature of 41.1 degrees. This means that in the AC test, the temperature of the coil reached a temperature five degrees higher than in the DC test. The higher equilibrium temperature obtained when the coil was powered with AC, indicates an anomalous gain of energy. The gain of energy is unexplainable, because the input power in both tests were almost identical -- actually slightly less when AC was utilized. As the paper continues, the author indicates that resistive heating cannot be the case for the increased temperature in the AC test run. Here is the conclusion found at the end of the paper. The extra heating effect under the application of an AC signal is not explained simply by the transfer of input power to the coil. Consideration of the energy input to the system does not account for the energy output -- as evidenced by the steady state temperature; there is an extra effect which needs to be isolated and identified. This investigation has not been able to suggest a reason for the energy output from the AC case. While it has been demonstrated and verified, and the DC case shows resistive heating as expected, there is no such simple explanation for the behavior of the coil under AC heating. The conclusion must be that this is an energy output which is higher than would be expected from the power
Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: At min 4:24 John Maddox Editor of Nature magazine says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox meant to say? I believe that was taken from a BBC interview. I do not think that Maddox talked to us directly. That comment mystified Mallove and me. It was a distinctly odd thing to say. It mystified some of our British friends too, so it was not some British turn of phrase. There is no way to know what Maddox meant because he is dead. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 19.09.2011 20:21, schrieb Robert Leguillon: My Two Cents-- I must confess that I'm unfamiliar with the effect of electromagnetism on conductive heating. I thought that I'd throw out a few questions regarding the observations of the 4th paper, hoping to learn: You must first kow, it is always possible to make a complicated system out of nonlinear effects, introduce a lot of crossspeak and backcoupling effects that the system is impossible to calculate and almost impossible to measure precisely. Then you can claim overunity effects and nobody is able to disprove it. Thats not the way of science. The way of science is to isolate a singular effect that is measurable, repeatable and possibly can be calculated. Most known natural laws are derived from the principle of energy conservation. Quite often this is the only way to proof them. All known natural laws are mathemathically compatible with energy conservation. Therefore it is impossibly to find overunity effects mathematically. The only way to find overunity is to find a new energy source such as LENR or ZPE and this is something that Steorn has not done yet. If a customer tries to verificate their technology without theory and without energy source, they should not demand license fees, they should pay the customer for doing what he does. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam could be released inside the container. Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a great deal about heating plants of this nature. They say this design is dangerous and likely to explode. I do not know enough about engineering to judge. I can say looks extremely complicated with all those pipes and control wires. This is not a good first step for this technology. Rossi should begin by demonstrating much simpler machines. I would be very nervous about going to see a demonstration of this machine. I would not want to go close to it unless it had been run for thousands of hours. Obviously it will not be run that long in a month or two. I think there is little chance this machine in its present state will be ready for a demonstration by the end of next month. I agree with you and Horace. If it can explode, it will explode, and at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary). This device needs to be properly engineered with feedback and controls to help stabilize the reaction. Hopefully, the engineers at GE, or whoever AR has signed in the US, will disallow the demonstration until it has been properly redesigned. Otherwise, this has the potential to set back CF years if it kills someone. And keep Feynman away from it. http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Joseph_Papp's_Noble_Gas_Engine T
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Terry sez: I agree with you and Horace. If it can explode, it will explode, and at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary). It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a fly. Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to raise concerns, such that Rossi's CF technology in its current undeveloped state has the potential to kill innocent bystanders due to the lack of proper controls and engineering. How ironic the division of perception is! It will be interesting to see how this all eventually plays out. Mr. Feyman! Pay no attention to the extension cord! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than DC. I've done these types of calculations before and I can tell you they are not simple. A sawtooth wave can generate some extremely high harmonics which have a large skin effect. I'd need to see the formula used to evaluate them. - Original Message - From: Robert Leguillon To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:21 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo My Two Cents-- I must confess that I'm unfamiliar with the effect of electromagnetism on conductive heating. I thought that I'd throw out a few questions regarding the observations of the 4th paper, hoping to learn: Background for the questions: Alternating current (dependent on the frequency) can produce a more prominent skin effect on conductors than standard direct current. This skin effect can cause the vast bulk of current to flow down only the outer surface of a conductor. Q1) Does this uneven current flow translate to potentially uneven heating - even at equilibrium? Q2) Could the nickel core be cooler in the middle with more heat being concentrated, and subsequently shed, on the surface? Q3) Could the surface of the inductor wires appear hotter, though the entire conductor is dissipating the same amount of total heat? Donating to the World, Two Cents at a Time, R.L. Documents 1-3 were quite interesting - compelling, really. I'm going to have to read up more on Steorn. Document #4 - It's getting hot in here, turn off that Orbo! The fourth report that we were allowed to examine is unique from the others in that it is about a solid state version of Steorn's technology. It is also the most recent of the documents, being written in March, 2011. A solid state Orbo offers the potential of having no moving parts, having no need for bearings (as in permanent manget (PM) or E-Orbo configurations), being simpler to build, and potentially being simpler to test. Other advantages of solid state Orbo include fewer parts to wear out, and perhaps more potential to evolve quickly -- in a similar manner to the way computers evolved during the past twenty years. In this paper the author describes a very simple configuration that involves a coil wrapped around a nickel core (that is both magnetic and conductive) acting as an inductor. The coil and core is placed in a calorimeter composed of a vacuum chamber. Two thermocouples measure the temperature of the coil itself, and the temperature of the air in the room. A metered power supply provides the input power to the coil, and an oscilloscope monitors the current, voltage, and can also calculate total input power by using a math function of the scope. The purpose of the test is to determine if the coil fed with a quantity of AC power, can produce more heat than the same coil fed with the same quantity of DC power. In the paper, the formula needed to calculate the total AC power is presented. The AC input and DC input is configured to be as identical as possible. Actually, the power input during the AC run was .9 (point nine) watts, and in the DC run it was 1 (one) watt. The fact that the input power during the AC run was slightly less than in the DC run actually biases the test against the AC run. This makes the results of the test even more significant. In the first test, 1 watt of DC power is fed into the coil wound around the nickel core. The temperature of the coil increases until it reaches an equilibrium point of 36.1 degrees. This is the point at which the power lost by the coil via heat dissipation matches the electrical input power. Even if the input power stayed on for hours longer, the temperature of the coil would not increase above this temperature. In the second test, .9 watts is fed into the same coil wound around the same exact nickel core. Obviously, this test took place a period of time after the first one, after the temperature of the coil has dropped back to its original value. The result of AC being fed into the coil is that it rises to an equilibrium temperature of 41.1 degrees. This means that in the AC test, the temperature of the coil reached a temperature five degrees higher than in the DC test. The higher equilibrium temperature obtained when the coil was powered with AC, indicates an anomalous gain of energy. The gain of energy is unexplainable, because the input power in both tests were almost identical -- actually slightly less when AC was utilized. As the paper continues, the author indicates that resistive heating cannot be the case for the increased temperature in the AC test run. Here is the conclusion found at the end of the paper. The extra heating effect under the application of an AC signal is not explained simply by the transfer of input power to the coil. Consideration of the energy input to the system does
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
On Sep 19, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 19.09.2011 19:30, schrieb Esa Ruoho: The next step for Steorn may be when a client licenses one of their technologies and produces a working product. ;-) I was going to quote that line, but you saved me the trouble. 8^) The next step, given a COP of 20, is obviously to create a self- running device. Should be no problem, true? A little bit more of time and effort and a trillion dollar asset is formed. Your smiley I take it is a smile at the many many people who have made claims, backed by experts, that some free energy principals were sound, and thus the technology itself was worth licensing just to do the actual difficult, expensive, and risky work of developing a working product. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
For some context see 1:45 of this video posted by Steven Krivit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:30:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989 Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: At min 4:24 John Maddox Editor of Nature magazine says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox meant to say? I believe that was taken from a BBC interview. I do not think that Maddox talked to us directly. That comment mystified Mallove and me. It was a distinctly odd thing to say. It mystified some of our British friends too, so it was not some British turn of phrase. There is no way to know what Maddox meant because he is dead. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 19.09.2011 22:22, schrieb Joe Catania: I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than DC. I've done these types of calculations before and I can tell you they are not simple. It is simple. The simplest way to calculate such problems is to use the law of enery conservation ;-) A sawtooth wave can generate some extremely high harmonics which have a large skin effect. I'd need to see the formula used to evaluate them. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less convincing than Steorn. - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:22, schrieb Joe Catania: I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than DC. I've done these types of calculations before and I can tell you they are not simple. It is simple. The simplest way to calculate such problems is to use the law of enery conservation ;-) A sawtooth wave can generate some extremely high harmonics which have a large skin effect. I'd need to see the formula used to evaluate them. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to raise concerns,. . . Please understand that most fences are quite an uncomfortable roost. Hence, while staying nearby, one must often rest one's backside. T
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Am 19.09.2011 22:33, schrieb Joe Catania: Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less convincing than Steorn. Let me explain. All known rules about electricity and magnetism are compatible with energy conservation. It is therefore impossible to derive an extra energy mathematically, basing on /known/ electromagnetic effects like skin effect. There must be an energy source. I dont say that the effect is untrue. If it is true then it is not an electromagnetic effect. Possibly the Nickel core contains spurious Hydrogen atoms. Nickel is magnetostrictive. Possibly the AC induces magnetostrictive vibrations in the core or current in microscopic superconductive spots and triggers hydrogen Nickel fusion. The next locical thing to do would be to measure the frequency depency of the effect. Why didnt they do this? Or might they have done? Should I buy the paper? Tell me the price. Best, Peter - Original Message - *From:* Peter Heckert mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2011 4:29 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:22, schrieb Joe Catania: I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than DC. I've done these types of calculations before and I can tell you they are not simple. It is simple. The simplest way to calculate such problems is to use the law of enery conservation ;-) A sawtooth wave can generate some extremely high harmonics which have a large skin effect. I'd need to see the formula used to evaluate them. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a fly. If it is fake, presumably those are electric heaters. Fake or real, it will produce a great deal of steam -- presumably about a megawatt, or it will not fool anyone. He could hardly get away with dry ice instead of steam. 1 MW of anything is dangerous: steam, hot water, hot air, electricity . . . Very dangerous! I have always been enchanted by heavy equipment such as railroad locomotives, airplanes, and factory tools. I guess it runs in the family since my father worked in the engine room of a ship. He was almost killed by a deck engine. His arm was crushed. One of my earliest memories is the smell, noise, and heat of a locomotive arriving at a station, and my father saying: stand back, those things are dangerous. See The Secret of the Machines: Do you wish to make the mountains bare their head And lay their new-cut forests at your feet ? Do you want to turn a river in its bed, Or plant a barren wilderness with wheat ? . . . . . . It is easy! Give us dynamite and drills! Watch the iron-shouldered rocks lie down and quake, As the thirsty desert-level floods and fills, And the valley we have dammed becomes a lake. But remember, please, the Law by which we live, We are not built to comprehend a lie, We can neither love nor pity nor forgive. If you make a slip in handling us you die! http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_secretmachines.htm - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Okay.. Two More Cents: Just for clarification, references to the skin effect were made as an effort to explain the temperature difference without a magical violation of CoE. I was proposing a circumstance where misinterpretation of observations are the root cause of the apparent power. The effort was to point out that DC may be heating the coil more uniformly. Hence, a 36.1 degree temperature seen with 1 watt DC and a 41.1 degree temperature seen with 0.9 watt AC, even assuming a good-and-proper root mean square, could be perfectly true with nothing magical occurring. Not from net power gain, but from the limitations of the observer. - Using a DC current, the heat may be more evenly dispersed throughout the coil and core. - Using an AC current (depending on frequency), the skin effect could be pronounced enough to cause substantially more heating loss on the surface of the wire, and less in the core. This would result in a higher temperature being recorded outside of the coil, with the same net power dissipation. An anxious observer could conclude that there is a net power gain, only because there is no tiny observer in the material core to say it's colder inside than with DC. I profess again that I'm not an expert on conductive heating, but I would first try to explain the current observations first using conventional physics. Only when such observations cannot be explained using our current theories, should we be entertaining something more exotic. The easiest explanation is usually the right one. Thus the original question set: Q1) Does this uneven current flow (skin effect) translate to potentially uneven heating - even at equilibrium**? Q2) Could the nickel core be cooler in the middle with more heat being concentrated, and subsequently shed, on the surface? Q3) Could the surface of the inductor wires appear hotter, though the entire conductor is dissipating the same amount of total heat? **Do not confuse equilibrium and enthalpy** Donating to the World, Two Cents at a Time, R.L. Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:21:10 +0200 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:33, schrieb Joe Catania: Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less convincing than Steorn. Let me explain. All known rules about electricity and magnetism are compatible with energy conservation. It is therefore impossible to derive an extra energy mathematically, basing on /known/ electromagnetic effects like skin effect. There must be an energy source. I dont say that the effect is untrue. If it is true then it is not an electromagnetic effect. Possibly the Nickel core contains spurious Hydrogen atoms. Nickel is magnetostrictive. Possibly the AC induces magnetostrictive vibrations in the core or current in microscopic superconductive spots and triggers hydrogen Nickel fusion. The next locical thing to do would be to measure the frequency depency of the effect. Why didnt they do this? Or might they have done? Should I buy the paper? Tell me the price. Best, Peter
[Vo]:A letter from a DoE official about cold fusion
[This just in, sent by a friend. I don't write to the DoE. I wouldn't bother.] Monday, September 19, 2011 Dear Mr. Owens: This is in response to your e-mail message to Secretary Chu dated September 13, 2011 in which you asked to know where the Department of Energy stands on “cold fusion.” In 1989, a review panel that had been charged by the Department concluded that reports of the experimental results of excess heat from calorimetric cells did not present convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from the phenomena attributed to “cold fusion.” To quote the panel, “Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion.” In 2004, the Department organized a second review of the field and that review reached essentially the same conclusion as the 1989 review. The Department’s Office of Sciences does not provide any funding support for “cold fusion” research. Al Opdenaker Fusion Energy Sciences Office of Science US Department of Energy 301-903-4941 albert.opdena...@science.doe.gov
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a fly. It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a steel heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible thermal mass Mt given by: Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K At 200°C, or delta T = 100°C above boiling, this is an energy storage of 196 MJ. This is enough to produce 196 MW seconds of boiling energy if the water being recycled back into the E-cat from a condenser is at 100°C. It is thus critical to know where the heating element is located in the E-cat, and the general geometry of the device, to determine the device safety even if no excess energy is produced. Earlier I estimated the flow rate out the E-cat pipe to be 223 m/s, or 803 km/hr, at 1 MW output with 100°C water recycled. This is over 6 times a reasonable flow rate limit for the pipe size. Each of the new E-cats, if like the one demonstrated briefly, can utilize 2500 W electric input, for a total of 130 kW. If the E-cat is operating at a COP of 6 then it will produce 0.78 MW of thermal output. However, if the thermal mass is heated to a mean temperature of 200°C, the device can periodically produce over a MW of steam without any excess energy input at all ever. This demonstrates why it is important to measure each test run total energy balance vs momentary powers. Instabilities can develop in the water condense cycle flow rate, especially if the condenser capacity can be overrun. If the condenser capacity is overrun an explosion can result due to pressure build up. High pressure steam can drive water within and from the condenser into the E-cat, and then steam as well, creating a momentary feedback loop. If the steam momentarily cannot be condensed at an adequate rate, say due to water slugs in the line, then the input water flow rate is momentarily low and the water entering will end up superheated steam, allowing the thermal mass to overheat. This kind of flow instability then can be the source cause for a periodically over 1 MW feedback loop oscillating condition to form, even without excess energy. This demonstrates the need to control the flow of water into each E-cat independent of the flow rate out of the condenser and dependent on the mean thermal energy stored in the overall device. The new 80 kg E-cat, one 52nd of the 1 MW E-cat, when tested alone, looked like it might have had some unusual transient properties. For example, it is strange the device at the end was under so much pressure, yet steam was not pouring forth from the thermometer well, around the probe. The hose itself should have been able to take much of the pressure off the device. It looked as if possibly some thermostatically controlled orifice closed or the output flow was momentarily blocked for some reason (pure speculation of course.) If true, that a dangerous situation was suddenly perceived by the operators, then this one wild speculation would account for the abrupt lack of will to carry on the experiment through the night, or the next day. The huge thermal mass provided by 80 kg of mostly steel could bring instabilities not only to a 1 MW E-cat made of 52 of them, but internal instabilities to the small E-cats by themselves. There is no way of knowing if this is true without detailed knowledge of the structure of the device. Such knowledge is not required to determine true COP, provided total test run energy balances are accurately determined. Such knowledge is required, however, to make any estimate of the device safety. If a single E-cat catastrophically fails, it will be difficult to enter the container to perform any emergency operation of the remaining devices. Hopefully complete operation can be performed remotely. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
Ok, Peter. What I'm saying is I've run into this kind of thing before. There was an electrical engineering professor on TheEEStory.com blog who thought a patent was invalid and falsified because it showed a fuse blowing at a current that (if it were DC) would be insufficient to melt the fuse. I still haven't convinced him that skin effect is the reason it blew. He says that skin effect in the case of this fuse would be negligible but he does not calculate it correctly, One must take into account all the Fourier components in the pulse to get the proper effect. He only traets the fundamental and is thus mislead. But a sawtooth wave has harmonics that stretch theoretically to infinity. Although the amplitudes of these harmonics decrease as their frequency increases there is always the same net contribution to skin effect for each frequency decade. In theory the upper limit of frequency should only be limited by the electron plasma frequency. In other words, if there were no such limitation the series would diverge. This is a known property of the harmonic series (1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4...) which also diverges and is related tothe sawtooth Fourier components. Where is the paper mentioned? - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:33, schrieb Joe Catania: Now you are asking me to take it on faith from you. I find you less convincing than Steorn. Let me explain. All known rules about electricity and magnetism are compatible with energy conservation. It is therefore impossible to derive an extra energy mathematically, basing on /known/ electromagnetic effects like skin effect. There must be an energy source. I dont say that the effect is untrue. If it is true then it is not an electromagnetic effect. Possibly the Nickel core contains spurious Hydrogen atoms. Nickel is magnetostrictive. Possibly the AC induces magnetostrictive vibrations in the core or current in microscopic superconductive spots and triggers hydrogen Nickel fusion. The next locical thing to do would be to measure the frequency depency of the effect. Why didnt they do this? Or might they have done? Should I buy the paper? Tell me the price. Best, Peter - Original Message - From: Peter Heckert To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo Am 19.09.2011 22:22, schrieb Joe Catania: I'm not going to take it on faith about the AC power being less than DC. I've done these types of calculations before and I can tell you they are not simple. It is simple. The simplest way to calculate such problems is to use the law of enery conservation ;-) A sawtooth wave can generate some extremely high harmonics which have a large skin effect. I'd need to see the formula used to evaluate them. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Why do you think the device is under pressure? - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a fly. It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a steel heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible thermal mass Mt given by: Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K At 200°C, or delta T = 100°C above boiling, this is an energy storage of 196 MJ. This is enough to produce 196 MW seconds of boiling energy if the water being recycled back into the E-cat from a condenser is at 100°C. It is thus critical to know where the heating element is located in the E-cat, and the general geometry of the device, to determine the device safety even if no excess energy is produced. Earlier I estimated the flow rate out the E-cat pipe to be 223 m/s, or 803 km/hr, at 1 MW output with 100°C water recycled. This is over 6 times a reasonable flow rate limit for the pipe size. Each of the new E-cats, if like the one demonstrated briefly, can utilize 2500 W electric input, for a total of 130 kW. If the E-cat is operating at a COP of 6 then it will produce 0.78 MW of thermal output. However, if the thermal mass is heated to a mean temperature of 200°C, the device can periodically produce over a MW of steam without any excess energy input at all ever. This demonstrates why it is important to measure each test run total energy balance vs momentary powers. Instabilities can develop in the water condense cycle flow rate, especially if the condenser capacity can be overrun. If the condenser capacity is overrun an explosion can result due to pressure build up. High pressure steam can drive water within and from the condenser into the E-cat, and then steam as well, creating a momentary feedback loop. If the steam momentarily cannot be condensed at an adequate rate, say due to water slugs in the line, then the input water flow rate is momentarily low and the water entering will end up superheated steam, allowing the thermal mass to overheat. This kind of flow instability then can be the source cause for a periodically over 1 MW feedback loop oscillating condition to form, even without excess energy. This demonstrates the need to control the flow of water into each E-cat independent of the flow rate out of the condenser and dependent on the mean thermal energy stored in the overall device. The new 80 kg E-cat, one 52nd of the 1 MW E-cat, when tested alone, looked like it might have had some unusual transient properties. For example, it is strange the device at the end was under so much pressure, yet steam was not pouring forth from the thermometer well, around the probe. The hose itself should have been able to take much of the pressure off the device. It looked as if possibly some thermostatically controlled orifice closed or the output flow was momentarily blocked for some reason (pure speculation of course.) If true, that a dangerous situation was suddenly perceived by the operators, then this one wild speculation would account for the abrupt lack of will to carry on the experiment through the night, or the next day. The huge thermal mass provided by 80 kg of mostly steel could bring instabilities not only to a 1 MW E-cat made of 52 of them, but internal instabilities to the small E-cats by themselves. There is no way of knowing if this is true without detailed knowledge of the structure of the device. Such knowledge is not required to determine true COP, provided total test run energy balances are accurately determined. Such knowledge is required, however, to make any estimate of the device safety. If a single E-cat catastrophically fails, it will be difficult to enter the container to perform any emergency operation of the remaining devices. Hopefully complete operation can be performed remotely. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Jeds Letter from the DoE ...Business as Usual ( we don t want any progress)
Greetings Vortex-L Re: Jed s letter from the DoE on non-funding of CF It appears the Opdenaker is in the Office of Fusion Sciences...hmm. I guess that the great promises of Hot Fusion are near, perhaps the perinnial 5 years from now. A Zeno s Paradox time frame. This letter is merely another letter on: What s Wrong with Washington. Jeds post..always..on-topic. Respectfully, Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Hi, On 20-9-2011 0:11, Horace Heffner wrote: It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous thermal mass. With a steel heat capacity of 0.49 J/(gm K), the 1 MW E-cat has a possible thermal mass Mt given by: Mt = (0.49 J/(gm K))(4 tons)(1x10^6 gm/ton) = 1.96x10^6 J/K On 19-9-2011 23:47, Jed Rothwell wrote: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus completely unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW demonstration couldn't possibly harm a fly. If it is fake, presumably those are electric heaters. Fake or real, it will produce a great deal of steam -- presumably about a megawatt, or it will not fool anyone. He could hardly get away with dry ice instead of steam. 1 MW of anything is dangerous: steam, hot water, hot air, electricity . . . Very dangerous! It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking about a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which Rossi claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW! So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be dangerous, don't get me wrong that can still be very dangerous. But if you are a true skeptic than the calculations should be based also upon this fake amount of 167 kW i.s.o. 1 MW, because everyone can see the amount of energy that is put in it! Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam : New version
I've updated my Sept ecat analysis http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_sep11_e.php No radical new conclusions, but I shifted the analysis point from 130C to 118C, when the output fluid measurement was made, and interleaved the calculations with the explanatory text. (And the pressure calculations are now embedded in the document). I included a copy of Akira Shirakawa's temperature plot -- I edited out the blank 17:00 to 18:00 section (no objection, I hope). http://lenr.qumbu.com/steampics/110919_AS_lU42G_b.png Without any of the missing data that's about the best that can be made of it, I think. Nothing proven, nothing disproved !
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote: Why do you think the device is under pressure? See end of: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote: Why do you think the device is under pressure? See end of: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Man on Bridges wrote: It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking about a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which Rossi claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW! So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be dangerous, don't get me wrong that can still be very dangerous. But if you are a true skeptic than the calculations should be based also upon this fake amount of 167 kW i.s.o. 1 MW, because everyone can see the amount of energy that is put in it! Kind regards, MoB There is no justification to call anything a fake. No one has actually measured total energy in and total energy out for any E-cat device and made it public. Momentary power measurements are useless. The problem is the calorimetry applied is so poor as to learn almost nothing at all about a hidden device of not fully known structure and function. Everything is speculation. It is easy to get a MW out for a while, even periodically, even if the only input has been 167 kW. The thermal mass is huge. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Les Case, what where is he?
Hi Vortex-l eskimo's, Anyone knows what happened with Les Case's energy catalyzer? It seems to work in a similar way as Rossi's. Why did he not build the 1MW plant he was planning? Is he still working on this? Anyone knows where? (what lab/company?) Thanks, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Les Case, what where is he?
He passed: LENR Researcher Les Case Dies From SeacoastOnline NEWFIELDS, [N.H.] - Leslie C. Case, 79, died Thursday, July 15, 2010, at his home in Newfields. He was born Sept. 11, 1930, in Tulsa, Okla., the son of Leslie and Julia (Catron) Case. Mr. Case received his doctorate of science degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Private services were provided by the Kent Pelczar Funeral Home, Newmarket. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/36/3613announcements.shtml Half way down on the page. T On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Vortex-l eskimo's, Anyone knows what happened with Les Case's energy catalyzer? It seems to work in a similar way as Rossi's. Why did he not build the 1MW plant he was planning? Is he still working on this? Anyone knows where? (what lab/company?) Thanks, Bastiaan.
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental controls. In the case of the E-cat it is clearly important to calibrate any calorimetry done using a preliminary control experiment or series of experiments, i.e without any catalyst or hydrogen present, or a least no hydrogen present. It should be feasible to use a kWh meter to measure energy in and exactly match that energy via total heat out measurement. After control runs and calorimetry calibration is achieved, then a live run made exactly the same way should show any added effect from the catalyst and hydrogen. In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass and is highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of being a means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and emergency procedures. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote: The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal. That is an assumption, not a measurement. When the valve is opened it looks to me the device is under significant pressure. That is an assumption on my part, but based on observation and experience. It should not be under that much pressure. The other end should be open to the atmosphere via the hose. Steam should be flying out the hole around the thermometer if that much pressure is present. It would obviously be useful to continuously measure the flow and pressure of the supply water (since we know for sure that is variable), and, for safety sake, the pressure just inside the relief valve. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant. On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote: Why do you think the device is under pressure? See end of: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net: It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental controls. Uh. No way it is important! What is required is that someone, who knows how to measure the enthalpy tests the device in an over night run to exclude chemical power sources. You are doing science here by the book, but it is even more important to understand in what context methods from scientists' guide book should be applied. Control experiment would be necessary in the case where we do not know the cause and effect very well. This would be the case e.g. with traditional palladium-deuterium cold fusion experiment, where we do not have clear understanding what is happening. Here however, we do not need to study how electric heater works, because we have plenty of theoretical knowledge about electric heaters. Therefore, we can just calculate electric heater effect when we have measured the input, and we do not need to use experimental setup to find out how electricity heats the system. I think that you are mixing here the need for control experiment, because there was not made adequate calorimetry. But if you do make calorimetry for the device (easiest way is to measure the pressure inside), of course there is no need to make control experiment, because electric input is known and controlled. If electric heating power would be also unknown, then of course control experiment would be necessary. Rossi has several times ridiculed this demand for control experiments as it would be same thing as testing well known internal combustion engine by using sand instead of oil as a lubrication agent in the control experiment. (this metaphor was not Rossi's, but you get the picture.) In the case of the MW E-cat, which has an enormous thermal mass and is highly complex, a control experiment has the added importance of being a means to develop confidence in safe operating procedures and emergency procedures. I am sure that for the last 24 months and last 4 months with the new version, Rossi has done nothing but test runs! –Jouni
RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo
From: Robert Leguillon [mailto:robert.leguil...@hotmail.com] Subject: RE: [Vo]:Debunking Steorn Orbo [deleted] Thus the original question set: Q1) Does this uneven current flow (skin effect) translate to potentially uneven heating - even at equilibrium**? [deleted] R.L. From everything that I've read and experienced, the skin effect doesn't become significant until you are well into the kilohertz frequencies; certainly above Mhz. At the 50 or 60 Hz that is all modern AC power, I highly doubt that ANY skin effect is happening. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989
Thanks, Harry, Jed, Its clear now what his opinion was at least. Never liked Nature anyway :-). On Sep 19, 2011 1:29 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote: For some context see 1:45 of this video posted by Steven Krivit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Jp9L_6-BI Harry From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 2:30:59 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:John Maddox, editor Nature magazine around 1989 Bastiaan Bergman bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com wrote: At min 4:24 John Maddox Editor of Nature magazine says: It [cold fusion] will remain dead for a long long time This to me means that it is not dead for forever, or 'temporarily dead' be it for a long time. Does anyone know what Mr. Maddox meant to say? I believe that was taken from a BBC interview. I do not think that Maddox talked to us directly. That comment mystified Mallove and me. It was a distinctly odd thing to say. It mystified some of our British friends too, so it was not some British turn of phrase. There is no way to know what Maddox meant because he is dead. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Thoughts on the eCat and 130C steam
2011/9/19 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de . Someone had the idea Rossi might have multiple small e-cats in this big box. Peter Me too. I don't know why but I haave a strong feeling that inside the fat-cat there are the 4 well known e-kittyes that Rossi showed us in the past demos plus an hot water reservoir. Just a feeling indeed.
