Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Craig Haynie]

On 05/17/2016 10:30 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:



Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of 
the customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility, 
and you should not believe a word he says.




I've got to object to this statement; not that I believe, or disbelieve 
Rossi. If you've seen data, that's a world different than anything I've 
seen.


However, if Rossi believed he had something real, then there were valid 
reasons not to allow IH to analyze their own data, or get too involved 
with the validation of the device, at the stage which occurred last year 
in the process, when the agreement was signed. The primary reason before 
the test, to prevent IH from doing their own evaluation, was that it was 
going to take a year to go through the validation process, and  Rossi 
may have wanted something more than an opt-out clause for anyone he was 
doing business with. So they set-up the method by which this device 
would be determined to be valid, or not. They both chose a third party 
to make this determination. This eliminated second guessing, and 
counter-claims by IH by which they could try to opt-out -- and now that 
IH is in violation of the agreement, there is no way I would let anyone 
near the equipment if I were Rossi. The courts will decide this case, 
and if the courts work as I think they do, then the case won't revolve 
around whether the device works. If Rossi were to let someone see the 
equipment, or do anything else at this point, to allow them to draw any 
of their own conclusions, then this could only hurt Rossi's case in court.


Why Darden signed that document, is beyond me. It makes him look like a 
fool.


Craig

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

If both parties are playing correctly, yes, that's what I mean. LHC has 2
independent detectors, ATLAS and CMS, with different methods for detection
and several different teams to treat the data. That's a way of reproducing
an experiment, without having to build new colliders.

As for the money, if 11 millions was given to Rossi with a short duration
test, 89 is no big deal for a year long test.

2016-05-18 0:26 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Do I take you are using this word-salad blather as justification for
> hiding the customer's machinery? Is that what you mean?
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

My views on this matter are the same as they were one month ago. Still
> waiting for new information. There is no new pattern here. There's nothing
>  that Rossi did in this test that he had not done before.
>

So, you have no problem with hiding the customer equipment? You would pay
$89 million without confirming there is industrial equipment back there
that uses 1 MW of process heat?

And you say this is nothing new? Do I have that right?



> What I think crazy it is that you are bashing Rossi with much more
> emphasis than in the other occasion.
>

I never had such clear-cut proof that Rossi is either stupid or fraudulent.
In previous tests, he did not allow anyone to take any data or look
closely. In this test, he could not prevent the I.H. people from looking,
although he did stop them from doing the most important test of all --
examining the customer's equipment.



> A blind test is important to avoid cheats. Like using a thermometer too
> close to the junction of hot water/close waterl. Steam quality and issues
> related to its measurement. Measuring AC currents and hiding extra power in
> the form of a DC form. Calibration of a IR camera and its lack of
> sensibility where sign is stronger. Changing powder in a rather dubious
> way. If both sides see each other as a black box, with arbiter agreed by
> both sides, Penon, to check if they are reading the same power
> output/input, the chance of cheating decreases, since neither won't be able
> to know how the change parameter in order to change reading.
>

Do I take you are using this word-salad blather as justification for hiding
the customer's machinery? Is that what you mean?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

*as anything other than getting thints straight

2016-05-18 0:23 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha :

> That the company was a shell was known to both parties. So, I cannot see
> this as anything as IH and Rossi trying to get things straight. The only
> way I see sense out of this it is that the shell company hired people in an
> attempt of doing a double party test. The hired people would not know that
> they were working for a third party issue and neither that it was a cold
> fusion experiment.
>
> 2016-05-18 0:16 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :
>
>>
>> Would it make sense for Penon to have had the ability to bar Leonardo's
>> access to the industrial installation of a shell company set up by Rossi's
>> lawyer to hide a genuine customer?
>>
>>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

That the company was a shell was known to both parties. So, I cannot see
this as anything as IH and Rossi trying to get things straight. The only
way I see sense out of this it is that the shell company hired people in an
attempt of doing a double party test. The hired people would not know that
they were working for a third party issue and neither that it was a cold
fusion experiment.

2016-05-18 0:16 GMT-03:00 Eric Walker :

>
> Would it make sense for Penon to have had the ability to bar Leonardo's
> access to the industrial installation of a shell company set up by Rossi's
> lawyer to hide a genuine customer?
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

That's your guess.
>

No, it is not my guess at all. You can ask Rossi. He will probably confirm
that he agrees with his puppet, and there is no need for anyone to see the
customer's machinery. Heck, people right here agree with that! Robert Dorr,
Axil Axil and others have said they agree. Mats Lewan raised no objection,
and asked no questions.

Even you agree with it, don't you? I don't recall your views on this
matter. How crazy are you? Are you blind true believer who goes along with
this final absurdity?



> IH agreed with the choice of Penon.
>

If they had known Penon would lock the customers door, I am pretty sure
they would not have agreed.



> That could well be IH avoiding Rossi to cheat.
>

Avoiding what? This sentence makes no sense.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

Yes, regrettably that is the case. As I said before, I heard they had
> disagreements, but I sincerely hoped they would iron out the problems and
> agree on the test results. But it is not possible to iron out this problem!
> If you are not allowed to do a thorough analysis of the customer's
> machinery . . .
>

I knew there were disagreements, but I had no idea things were that bad! I
would not have agreed to Lewan's symposium if I had known that Rossi was
blocking the door to the customer site.

I learned some time ago that the calorimetry was half-assed and godawful,
just as it was in previous Rossi tests. I was hoping the problems would be
fixed before the test ended. After all, if the thing actually produced
heat, it would be in Rossi's interest to fix the problems and convince I.H.
But unfortunately, on March 10, the I.H. press release said they had not
reached agreement, so I knew it was all over.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

That's your guess. IH agreed with the choice of Penon. That could well be
IH avoiding Rossi to cheat.

2016-05-17 23:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
> Penon is Rossi's puppet. It was Rossi's policy not to allow anyone into
> the customer site.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> I thought it was Penon who said there was no need for that.
>

Penon is Rossi's puppet. It was Rossi's policy not to allow anyone into the
customer site.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

David Roberson  wrote:

Jed,
>
> Do I understand that you have seen the actual test data and have
> determined that zero power in excess of the input is achieved?


Yes, as I have said several times, I have seen some data. Rossi's methods
are so bad, the data is a godawful mess, but there is no large excess heat.
1 MW is utterly ridiculous. Based on some common sense observations I doubt
there is any at all. People who have seen more data than me are sure there
is no heat.



>   This is a strong position that you are taking and should not be stated
> without absolute certainty.
>

Absolute certainty can only be established by examining the customer's
machinery, which Rossi did not allow. He did not allow other essential
observations and tests. Fortunately, I gather experts were finally able to
work around him and get the facts. I have not seen all the facts but I
trust those experts.

Now that you know Rossi explicitly refused to allow an inspection of the
customer's equipment, you should realize he has zero credibility, and you
should not believe a word he says.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

I thought it was Penon who said there was no need for that.

2016-05-17 23:03 GMT-03:00 David Roberson :

> Why should Rossi not allow the other parties to see how the heated water
> is used?

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

That's what "Jed says".

2016-05-17 22:32 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> You know that I have seen the data,
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[David Roberson]

I am in agreement with what you two are suggesting.  Why should Rossi not allow 
the other parties to see how the heated water is used?  This fact seems 
damning.  I would not accept this condition either.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 17, 2016 9:59 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test




Eric Walker  wrote:



It is a measure of Rossi's reality distortion field that people here are ok 
with Leonardo's and the ERV's having prevented access to IH to see the customer 
installation.  In any other context, it would be hard to imagine that this 
would have taken place or to assume that the ERV was impartial.



Yes. I am surprised that Rossi's supporters do not see this. I am especially 
surprised and disappointed in Lewan. He should have realized that not letting 
I.H. experts see the equipment is outrageous. It destroys Rossi and Penon's 
credibility.


 

It also shows how adversarial and calculating the relationship between Leonardo 
and IH had become by that point, as though two people were playing chess, 
without a mote of real trust between them.



Yes, regrettably that is the case. As I said before, I heard they had 
disagreements, but I sincerely hoped they would iron out the problems and agree 
on the test results. But it is not possible to iron out this problem! If you 
are not allowed to do a thorough analysis of the customer's machinery that is 
using the heat, it is game over. No one can evaluate a machine faced with that 
kind of intransigence.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[David Roberson]

Jed,

Do I understand that you have seen the actual test data and have determined 
that zero power in excess of the input is achieved?  This is a strong position 
that you are taking and should not be stated without absolute certainty.

I am waiting until I see the proof before drawing such a conclusion.  The 
evidence is looking bad for Rossi at the moment due to many of the facts you 
mention, but I need convincing.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, May 17, 2016 9:33 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test




Daniel Rocha  wrote:


I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the other 
people here.



You have no reason to doubt me. You know that I have seen the data, and that I 
am capable of doing ordinary, elementary calorimetry. You know that Rossi and 
Penon said they would not allow anyone to see the customer machinery, so 
obviously they are either world-class idiots or frauds. Anyone who say "I won't 
let you see the machinery that uses this heat" has zero credibility, to 5 
significant decimal places. People who believed Rossi before should instantly 
disbelieve him, based on that statement alone. You do not even need to see all 
the other idiotic mistakes he made.


You have no information from Rossi about the calorimetry, other than the 
statement that he says he will not let people see the most critical aspect of 
it, and the most obvious proof of his claim. You have no reason to believe 
anything he says.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Eric Walker  wrote:

It is a measure of Rossi's reality distortion field
>  that people here
> are ok with Leonardo's and the ERV's having prevented access to IH to see
> the customer installation.  In any other context, it would be hard to
> imagine that this would have taken place or to assume that the ERV was
> impartial.
>

Yes. I am surprised that Rossi's supporters do not see this. I am
especially surprised and disappointed in Lewan. He should have realized
that not letting I.H. experts see the equipment is outrageous. It destroys
Rossi and Penon's credibility.



> It also shows how adversarial and calculating the relationship between
> Leonardo and IH had become by that point, as though two people were playing
> chess, without a mote of real trust between them.
>

Yes, regrettably that is the case. As I said before, I heard they had
disagreements, but I sincerely hoped they would iron out the problems and
agree on the test results. But it is not possible to iron out this problem!
If you are not allowed to do a thorough analysis of the customer's
machinery that is using the heat, it is game over. No one can evaluate a
machine faced with that kind of intransigence.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the
> other people here.
>

You have no reason to doubt me. You know that I have seen the data, and
that I am capable of doing ordinary, elementary calorimetry. You know that
Rossi and Penon said they would not allow anyone to see the customer
machinery, so obviously they are either world-class idiots or frauds.
Anyone who say "I won't let you see the machinery that uses this heat" has
zero credibility, to 5 significant decimal places. People who believed
Rossi before should instantly disbelieve him, based on that statement
alone. You do not even need to see all the other idiotic mistakes he made.

You have no information from Rossi about the calorimetry, other than the
statement that he says he will not let people see the most critical aspect
of it, and the most obvious proof of his claim. You have no reason to
believe anything he says.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Well, CF is a nuclear reaction. The density, even in Pd/D is similar to
> that of a nuclear peable. It's just that it is tiny.
>

Yes, but this is not a cold fusion device. It is inert. No reaction is
occurring. As I said, if you put in sand instead of nickel powder, and air
instead of hydrogen, you would get the same result.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

I think it is pretty much obvious that I don't believe you. Or any of the
other people here.

2016-05-17 22:23 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> It does not produce any excess heat.
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

Well, CF is a nuclear reaction. The density, even in Pd/D is similar to
that of a nuclear peable. It's just that it is tiny.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

This is a problem. The design of a nuclea reactor is not quite the same as
> a boiler . . .
>

This is not a nuclear reactor. It does not produce any excess heat. The
nickel powder does nothing, any more than sand or rock would. The heat
balance shows there is only resistance heating.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

I common HVAC engineer might be able to measure an open circuit, but only a
> nuclear one would have an idea of how the internal parts would look like.
>

There is no need for anyone to know what the internal parts of the Rossi
reactor are like. They serve no purpose. Other than the resistance heaters,
the internal parts do nothing.

Any HVAC engineer can measure the heat balance. It is the same as the heat
balance you find with any conventional gas fired or electric boiler: there
is no excess heat. You do not need a nuclear engineer because there is no
nuclear reaction. There is only resistance heating. Any HVAC engineer can
confirm that in an hour.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

I common HVAC engineer might be able to measure an open circuit, but only a
nuclear one would have an idea of how the internal parts would look like.
Or maybe one that deals with cooling of powerful motors.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

This is a problem. The design of a nuclea reactor is not quite the same as
a boiler, you have to pass running water fast and/or use vast volume of
water. A boiler has such format to make sure pressure is well distributed,
but a nuclear rector needs fast cooling, not necessarily high pressure.
This is not the same thing as a common boiler. The closet thing is the
combustion chamber of a a combustion engine, which in the cases of racing
cars may achieve 100s KW within a volume of a few liters.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Internal_combustion_engine_pistons_of_partial_cross-sectional_view.jpg

2016-05-17 20:57 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Stefan Israelsson Tampe  wrote:
>
> To me the dispute between Rossi and IH is very simple to resolve. If there
>> is any weaknesses
>> in the test one need to agree on a fair rerun of the test for a day or
>> two. There is abolutely no
>> sane argument for not doing such a test.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
> I think that the test should be done by a licensed HVAC engineer rather
> than a scientist.
>
>
>
>> Rossi has no arguments against doing that.
>>
>
> You would be surprised what arguments he has! As you saw in the Lewan
> interview, he objected to allowing anyone into the customer site. The
> expert sent by I.H. said that access was vitally important but Rossi and
> Penon said it was not necessary. That is a large difference of opinion.
>
>
> Why on earth
>> must a judge decide what's science, better rule that science decide.
>>
>
> In cases like this they let engineering decide, not science. The judge
> does not decide what is science. Expert witnesses are summoned and they
> decide. They are licensed professionals and recognized authorities.
> Problems arise when the experts disagree with one another, or when there is
> no recognized professional qualification. In this case, there is a licensed
> category of experts: HVAC engineers. Based on what I know, I am confident
> that all of them will agree with I.H. I am also confident that none of them
> would agree with Penon that is not necessary to see the equipment in the
> customer site.
>
> I expect it will be an open and shut case. But lawyers can be clever and
> perhaps they can find an expert witness who goes along with Rossi, or they
> can sow doubt some other way.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Stefan Israelsson Tampe  wrote:

To me the dispute between Rossi and IH is very simple to resolve. If there
> is any weaknesses
> in the test one need to agree on a fair rerun of the test for a day or
> two. There is abolutely no
> sane argument for not doing such a test.
>

I agree.

I think that the test should be done by a licensed HVAC engineer rather
than a scientist.



> Rossi has no arguments against doing that.
>

You would be surprised what arguments he has! As you saw in the Lewan
interview, he objected to allowing anyone into the customer site. The
expert sent by I.H. said that access was vitally important but Rossi and
Penon said it was not necessary. That is a large difference of opinion.


Why on earth
> must a judge decide what's science, better rule that science decide.
>

In cases like this they let engineering decide, not science. The judge does
not decide what is science. Expert witnesses are summoned and they decide.
They are licensed professionals and recognized authorities. Problems arise
when the experts disagree with one another, or when there is no recognized
professional qualification. In this case, there is a licensed category of
experts: HVAC engineers. Based on what I know, I am confident that all of
them will agree with I.H. I am also confident that none of them would agree
with Penon that is not necessary to see the equipment in the customer site.

I expect it will be an open and shut case. But lawyers can be clever and
perhaps they can find an expert witness who goes along with Rossi, or they
can sow doubt some other way.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Stefan Israelsson Tampe]

To me the dispute between Rossi and IH is very simple to resolve. If there
is any weaknesses
in the test one need to agree on a fair rerun of the test for a day or two.
There is abolutely no
sane argument for not doing such a test. Rossi has no arguments against
doing that. It's
peanuts compared to running it for one year. So conclude that the result is
unbelievable and
that there is more things that needs to be checked, show a few things that
are fishy and then
IH could just ask the judge to order Rossi to comply with a good test or
loose. Why on earth
must a judge decide what's science, better rule that science decide.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:19 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Daniel Rocha,
> The melting temperature of most types of glass is around 550C and the
> specific heat is 0.7J/gC. The latent heat of glass is 10kJ/mol, and on
> average, it has 60g/mol, so we have 166J/g. 1.5*10^6g*530*0.7J +
> 166*1.5*10^6J per day, that around 880MJ/day. If the exposition work lasted
> 8 hours a day, we have ~20KW."
>
> A classic example of how someone without experience can get things so
> wrong.   You are confusing the softening point with the temperature
> required to fine the glass - that is to say remove the smallest bubbles.
> Ordinary furnaces used to operate @ ~1500C in my day but some are now are
> over 1600C.
> The many furnaces I'm familiar with typically used 4 -5 million BTU per
> ton.  Some used as much as 7 million BTU.  Smaller furnaces use more.  This
> particular furnace was very unusual in that it operated as a cold top
> electric furnace but glass was only used from it 8 hours a day.  Of course
> it had to keep working 24/7 or the throat would freeze and it would lose
> the batch blanket - a design feature that made it different.  I don't have
> the actual figures for it but would be surprised if it were less than 5
> million BTU/ton.  Most furnaces that size would use about 10 million BTU/ton
>
> In passing, being familiar with measuring high temperatures was why I
> wondered why they didn't use type S thermocouples.  We would even use type
> B in places where long life was required as the rhodium tends to migrate to
> the platinum leg.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:faith

[H LV]

Rossi seems to include a test faith with every demo. The "faithful" remain
calm and the "unfaithful" protest.
Both reactions signify a great deal.

Harry

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Harry-
>
> That reminds me of something from Shakespeare, his well known character of
> faith--"full of sound and fury." not unlike the character of some
> Vorts.  [image: Emoji]
>
> Bob Cook
>
> --
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 -0400
> From: hveeder...@gmail.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:faith
>
>
> Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
> seen.
> ​
> ​
> Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
>
> Harry​
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[a.ashfield]

Daniel Rocha,
The melting temperature of most types of glass is around 550C and the 
specific heat is 0.7J/gC. The latent heat of glass is 10kJ/mol, and on 
average, it has 60g/mol, so we have 166J/g. 1.5*10^6g*530*0.7J + 
166*1.5*10^6J per day, that around 880MJ/day. If the exposition work 
lasted 8 hours a day, we have ~20KW."


A classic example of how someone without experience can get things so 
wrong.   You are confusing the softening point with the temperature 
required to fine the glass - that is to say remove the smallest 
bubbles.  Ordinary furnaces used to operate @ ~1500C in my day but some 
are now are over 1600C.
The many furnaces I'm familiar with typically used 4 -5 million BTU per 
ton.  Some used as much as 7 million BTU.  Smaller furnaces use more.  
This particular furnace was very unusual in that it operated as a cold 
top electric furnace but glass was only used from it 8 hours a day.  Of 
course it had to keep working 24/7 or the throat would freeze and it 
would lose the batch blanket - a design feature that made it different.  
I don't have the actual figures for it but would be surprised if it were 
less than 5 million BTU/ton.  Most furnaces that size would use about 10 
million BTU/ton


In passing, being familiar with measuring high temperatures was why I 
wondered why they didn't use type S thermocouples.  We would even use 
type B in places where long life was required as the rhodium tends to 
migrate to the platinum leg.

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

Jed
>
> "So, I am not speculating. I may be wrong but I am not speculating."
>
> No comment needed.
>

A comment is needed. What the hell do you mean? I am clearly not
speculating here when I cite what people told me, what the lawsuit said,
and what a photo shows.

Let's look at the definition of speculate:

"form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence."

As you see, I am not forming a theory or conjecture; I am telling you
facts. At least, they are facts as far as I know.

I do have firm evidence. A photo showing Rossi standing in a machine
similar to the one shown in the drawing is good evidence that his machine
has multiple units.

You can't just make up a new definition of "speculate" and pin it on me.
Language does not work that way.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[a.ashfield]

Jed

"So, I am not speculating. I may be wrong but I am not speculating."

No comment needed.

RE: [Vo]:faith

[Bob Cook]

Harry-

That reminds me of something from Shakespeare, his well known character of 
faith--"full of sound and fury." not unlike the character of some Vorts.  

Bob Cook 

Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 13:55:02 -0400
From: hveeder...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:faith


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not 
seen.​​Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)
Harry​


  

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:


> And, please, provide the arguments that these HVAC people you talked to.
> Otherwise, it's only more hearsay!
>

As I recall --

A square shape has more surface area than a cylinder. The ideal boiler is a
large cylinder. These were small square boxes.

Because the boxes are small, there is little water between the heater and
the outside wall.

The nickel powder and electric heater are in contact with the bottom wall,
so heat will be conducted to the wall, whereas in the electric heater they
are usually thermally isolated some distance from the wall.

The path from the fluid inlet to the outlet should be as long as possible,
andconvoluted. With each box in this heater, the water goes in and comes
right out, in a short path. In a boiler the "fluid" is either the water you
want to heat, or in a fire tube boiler, it is the hot combustion product
gas. See:

http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-Tutorials/the-boiler-house/shell-boilers.aspx

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> I am pretty sure the configuration is two 1-m fans mounted in the ceiling
> above the shipping container.  That's what I have heard from people who saw
> it.
>

Perhaps I should add that observers also told me that fans were often
turned off, yet the room was not particularly hot.

That and much else indicates the device was producing roughly 20 kW, which
is the input power, with no excess.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Daniel Rocha]

The melting temperature of most types of glass is around 550C and the
specific heat is 0.7J/gC. The latent heat of glass is 10kJ/mol, and on
average, it has 60g/mol, so we have 166J/g. 1.5*10^6g*530*0.7J +
166*1.5*10^6J per day, that around 880MJ/day. If the exposition work lasted
8 hours a day, we have ~20KW.

Rossi worked within a 9*2.5*2.5m^3 ~56m^3. If the efficiency is 95%, and
the hot air is blow towards the inside the container instead of outside, he
had to deal with 50KW.

2016-05-17 14:25 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell :

>
>
> How much power did it use?
>
>
>

[Vo]:faith

[H LV]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not
seen.
​
​
Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)

Harry​

Re: [Vo]:Re: Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

Mark Jurich  wrote:

Folks, you send “water” through a hole in the wall, and back comes
> something.  You can’t assume it’s water.
>

Yes.



>   You have to analyze it.  Want me to give you a few dozen more examples
> of this, where you can’t assume? ... Knowing what the customer is doing
> with the water educates one in what to look for and what may be suspect in
> the test.
>

My point exactly. Plus, this is a direct reality check.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[Jed Rothwell]

a.ashfield  wrote:

>

> AA.  You don’t know that.  You are speculating.  The drawing is a CAD
> speculation by one of Rossi’s licensees and you have no idea what is in it
> . . .
>

1. I do have some idea of what is in it.

2. The lawsuit says there are 52 units.

3. I have seen a photo of Rossi standing in box with equipment very similar
to the drawing.

So, I am not speculating. I may be wrong but I am not speculating.



> Jed.  What is the unit "t"?
>
>
> AA. It produced 1.5 tons of melted glass a day.
>

How much power did it use?


It looks to me that the only way the 1 MW plant didn’t work was if the ERV,
> Rossi and several others cheated.
>

I suppose they did. Not letting anyone to the customer site looks like
cheating to me.


As you don’t have proof they did it is malicious speculation to say they
> did.
>

I think Rossi's statement that no one was allowed into the customer site is
proof. If I had additional proof I would not reveal it here yet.

- Jed

[Vo]:the world of LENR has changed irreversibly

[Peter Gluck]

but not everybody agrees or is enchanted some regret the glory of the past,
some simply want to destroy LENR- the situation is not simple...but it
never was
Please see:
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-17-2016-lenr-world-has-irreversibly.html

A good day/night!
peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Validity of E-Cat 1 MW plant test

[a.ashfield]

Jed."Yes, a woman did, during a public demonstration when one of the 
boxes was sitting on a table. I have a video of it somewhere. This was 
an older generation box but similar according to Rossi."


AA.What makes you think that was rated at 250 kW  I think they were 
different.  Not only that, the insulation for the plant may have been 
different.


Jed.That was an older version of one of the 13 units which are now put 
together to form the 250 kW unit. See the drawing and lawsuit.


AA.You don’t know that.You are speculating.The drawing is a CAD 
speculation by one of Rossi’s licensees and you have no idea what is in 
it or how different it is to what was in the 1 MW plant.You may infer 
that adjacent units shared heat to enhance the SSM and that would reduce 
heat escaping from the reactor, but details are not known.


Jed."Actually he told me that. Several people who have visited him 
confirmed it."(that Rossi did not use a computer)


AA.So you are saying someone else writes his emails not only on his blog 
but to Cook with whom he is collaborating?


Jed.I am saying he does not use computers. He uses manual log books. 
That's what he told me, and others have told me.


AA.That he made a manual log book is no proof he doesn’t use 
computers.The data from the plant was apparently recorded by computer 
too.Otherwise there would not be millions of readings to go 
through.Rossi obviously does use computers so you are wrong.


AA.I designed an all electric glass melter that produces 1.5 t/day that 
is about the size of your desk.


Jed.What is the unit "t"?


AA. It produced 1.5 tons of melted glass a day.I designed it for Simon 
Pearce who designs and makes art glassware.The furnace was located by 
his restaurant and shop so visitors could see the glassware being blown.


It was a long time ago and it may well still be operating, I don’t know.

This is an example of using a large amount of heat in a small space and 
the environment was cool enough to have it next to a restaurant and 
guests could visit it.


Jed."All factory equipment of this nature must list such specifications 
by law. You have to show electric power consumption,..."


AA.Not so.  Said furnace had no name plate at all.

Jed.Commercial equipment all has name plates.

AA.As I sad, this didn’t.So you are wrong.

Jed.Did you put this machine in a closed room, in a factory that no one 
is allowed into? Did it have 1 or 2 1-meter fans (at most) to cool it?


AA.See above.

Jed.If you put a 1 MW machine in an open bay like a truck being tested, 
or a kiln or blast furnace, then of course you can fit it into a small 
space. If you have intense ventilation such as in a ship engine room, 
you can put a 108,920 HP (81 MW) motor in an enclosed space with people 
working in close proximity. Like this:


AA.It was in a room next to a restaurant.It was warm but not hot.

It looks to me that the only way the 1 MW plant didn’t work was if the 
ERV,Rossi and several others cheated.As you don’t have proof they did it 
is malicious speculation to say they did.