Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Horace Heffner


On Sep 28, 2011, at 12:20 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


Rizzi sez:

...


I think that the end of the hoax is approaching.


I doubt we are witnessing a hoax, though it's possible I am in error.

Another thought came to mind in regards to the megawatt reactor
design: Why for their first generation of products are they building
a 1 MW module? Many have stated many times that a smaller less
complicated configuration that generates a more modest amount of heat
of say 10 - 50 kilowatts of energy would be more than sufficient to
prove their point.

One theory as to why the 1 MW reactors is being designed for prime
time is to prove to prospective investors that the technology can be
scaled up immediately. That may be true, but perhaps a more subtle
point might be that by assembling a bunch of eCat cores under one hood
the engineers increase their chances that at least a decent number of
the individual reactors will work. Maybe there are far more individual
eCat cores than what ought to be necessary in order to generate 1 MW
of heat under the hood. Maye the engineers have discovered the fact
that statistically speaking only about 50% - 75% of the individually
assembled reactor cores work. I wonder if they have installed enough
additional reactor cores to more-or-less guarantee that the entire
module will, statistically speaking, generate at a minimum 1 Megawatts
of heat.

Just a thought... and I suspect it has already been raised by  
others here.


Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks





Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of  
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one of  
the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the container.   
There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no explosion for  
one E-cat, operating for one hour.The probability that all 52 E- 
cats perform successfully for a 24 hour test period is then 0.999^ 
(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a 71.3% chance of an explosion  
during a 24 hour test.


The fact it is more difficult to manually monitor 53 E-cats than a  
single E-cat also means the probability a single E-cat of the 53  
blows up in a given hour would be higher than it would be for that E- 
cat operated singly. It is not even clear facilities to monitor  
individual critical E-cat conditions, like internal pressure or flow,  
are present in the 1 MW E-cat.  If no individual monitoring is  
feasible then the probability of individual failure in a given hour  
should be much larger than when independently operated.


Then there is the feasibility of the 1 MW unit producing over a MW  
just from the huge thermal mass it has, even if all nuclear reactions  
are shut down.  A significant back pressure due to the seam vent pipe  
being too small could reduce input water flow resulting in suddenly  
increased boil off of the water in the E-cats resulting in a  
catastrophic feedback loop and multiple E-cat explosion.  The  
individual probabilities of failure can be made larger in a combined  
configuration due to additional shared parts.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Man on Bridges

Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of catastrophic 
failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one of the E-cats can 
blow up spreading steam throughout the container.  There is thus a 
0.999 probability of success, i.e. no explosion for one E-cat, 
operating for one hour.The probability that all 52 E-cats perform 
successfully for a 24 hour test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  
That means there is a 71.3% chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation is 
based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding is 
influenced by it's behaviour earlier, which of course is not true. 
Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of explosion at 
any given moment which does not change over time.
With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for the 
whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given moment of 1 
- (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance 
of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7 
per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result for 
52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any time.


Kind regards,

MoB



RE: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
From MoB:

...

 Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance
 of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7
 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result
 for
 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any
 time.

Ah! Understanding the mathematics of Probability can occasionally be a
useful talent to possess! ;-)

Thanks MoB

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Man on Bridges

Hi,

Oeps, the commas must be periods so this should of course be red as:

Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation is 
based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding is 
influenced by it's behaviour earlier, which of course is not true. 
Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of explosion at 
any given moment which does not change over time.
With your probability of 0.1% chance per hour this would result for the 
whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given moment of 1 
- (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance 
of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2.77e-7 
per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result for 
52 Ecats into 1-((2.77e-7)^52) =  0.134 or 0.00144% at any time.


Kind regards,

MoB


RE: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
Rizzi sez:

 Guys, the dream is over. It’s time to wake up.
 
It's been my experience that the harder I try to convince others as to the 
correctness of my opinion, the more obvious it becomes to others as to whom I'm 
really trying to convince.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Jed Rothwell
Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:


 Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of explosion at any
 given moment which does not change over time.


I believe that is incorrect. Boiler explosions are caused by the overall
temperatures and pressures of the machine. When a machine made up of several
different components -- such as tube boiler or a fission reactor -- the
components influence one another. The Fukushima reactor meltdown not caused
by one fuel rod uncovered that became too hot. It was caused by all of them
uncovered simultaneously. In the Rossi 1 MW reactor, the units are
connected. I think they are in series as well as in parallel, which means
that hot water or steam will go from one will go to the next, and one will
influence the next.

I think it would be extremely ill-advised to run this 1 MW unit without
first subjecting the individual units to thousands of hours of individual
testing at many different laboratories, in national laboratories and
corporations. Some experts have told me they feel this reactor as configured
is very dangerous. I see no point whatever to running it.

Ed Storms suggested to me that Rossi may be having some difficulty
coordinating individual reactors to make them work together as a group, and
that his purpose is to show that he can do this. If Storms is right, and
coordinating them is challenging, I think Rossi should leave this job to
someone else. I am certain that experts at corporations such as Mitsubishi
or General Electric can solve this problem. No matter how difficult it may
be, it is trivial compared to the original problem of inventing the reactor.
It is absurd for Rossi to spend his time solving a problem like this,
because this is merely a matter of engineering -- meaning many other
experts in the world can solve this.

What he is doing is similar to what the Wright brothers did from 1906 to
1908. They stopped flying airplanes, stopped designing new ones, and
concentrated mainly on building better internal combustion engines instead.
They were quite good at this. The engines they came up with were among the
best around for aviation, with high ratios of power to weight. But there
were thousands of experts of internal combustion engines who were better
qualified than Wrights, and who could have done a better job. They did do a
better job after 1908. In 1906, the Wrights knew *far* more about
aerodynamics and the physics of flight than anyone else in the world. They
should have concentrated on what they knew best, leaving other details to
other experts. It was a waste of time for them to work on engines at that
stage in the development.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread ecat builder
There is NO evidence that Rossi's newer generation E-Cats have ever or will
ever explode. Rossi has maintained that in the event that they melt down
that they simply stop producing heat.

If you happen to be on Rossi's invitation to see his 1MW plant, by all means
take whatever precautions you like to keep safe. But to suggest Rossi is an
idiot who might kill the top scientists witnessing his invention is just
plain silly. Pressure gauges are a few dollars, and I'm guessing Rossi knows
how to use one. He might even employ a burst disk or pressure relief valve!

Some of you believe there is no reaction, others believe that the reaction
is wildly unstable. Rossi says there is a reaction and he can extract at
least 6x COE. Seems like we need a good parimutuel betting website where we
can put our money next to our opinions.

Peace.
- Brad


Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
From ecat builder:

 There is NO evidence that Rossi's newer generation
 E-Cats have ever or will ever explode.

The concerns I've seen raised do not necessarily have anything to do
with Rossi's reactor cores - whether they work or don't, or are likely
to explode. The concerns I've seen raised have far more to do with
the delicate management of a whole lot of highly pressurized steam - a
megawatt's worth of steam.

Ladies and gentlemen, please don't try this at home!

Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Jed Rothwell
ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:

There is NO evidence that Rossi's newer generation E-Cats have ever or will
 ever explode.


Anything that produces steam can explode. Wet coal, for example, is very
dangerous.



 If you happen to be on Rossi's invitation to see his 1MW plant, by all
 means take whatever precautions you like to keep safe. But to suggest Rossi
 is an idiot who might kill the top scientists witnessing his invention is
 just plain silly.


No it is not silly. I know several experts in heaters who say that the
reactor is poorly designed. They say that even if the individual reactors
were fake with electric heaters in them it would be dangerous.

Heavy equipment of any type is inherently dangerous, even when it is
designed and operated by experts. Even when it has been run for
decades. Marine engines sometimes catch on fire and kill people -- that
happened a few weeks ago. Nuclear reactors at Three Mile Island, Fukushima
and elsewhere have gone out of control and self-destructed. Billions of
automobile engines have been manufactured and they are among the most
reliable machines ever made, but when one of them leaks fuel or goes out of
control it can easily kill you.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Man on Bridges

Hi,

On 29-9-2011 16:28, Jed Rothwell wrote:

Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com mailto:manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:

Statistically each Ecat has it's own independent chance of
explosion at any given moment which does not change over time.


I believe that is incorrect. Boiler explosions are caused by the 
overall temperatures and pressures of the machine. When a machine made 
up of several different components -- such as tube boiler or a fission 
reactor -- the components influence one another. The Fukushima reactor 
meltdown not caused by one fuel rod uncovered that became too hot. It 
was caused by all of them uncovered simultaneously. In the Rossi 1 MW 
reactor, the units are connected. I think they are in series as well 
as in parallel, which means that hot water or steam will go from one 
will go to the next, and one will influence the next.


This may be correct, but my point is that the chance of any mishap 
occurring at any given moment still remains the same.
The Ecats don't have in contrast to living beings like humans and 
animals any memory regarding to what happened in the previous moments to 
decide whether it is time to explode or not.


What he is doing is similar to what the Wright brothers did from 1906 
to 1908. They stopped flying airplanes, stopped designing new ones, 
and concentrated mainly on building better internal combustion engines 
instead. They were quite good at this. The engines they came up with 
were among the best around for aviation, with high ratios of power to 
weight. But there were thousands of experts of internal combustion 
engines who were better qualified than Wrights, and who could have 
done a better job. They did do a better job after 1908. In 1906, the 
Wrights knew _far_ more about aerodynamics and the physics of flight 
than anyone else in the world. They should have concentrated on what 
they knew best, leaving other details to other experts. It was a waste 
of time for them to work on engines at that stage in the development.


True, but you have to admit, those other engineers could have done a 
better job then the Wright brothers, but those other engineers didn't 
for whatever reason do it.
If we would have followed thread according your philosophy starting from 
the invention of the wheel we probably wouldn't have had any computers 
nowadays.
This is what it is all about with inventing anything at all, which makes 
Rossi with his peer persistence stand out of the crowd as a true inventor.


Kind regards,

MoB


Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Jed Rothwell

OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:


The concerns I've seen raised have far more to do with
the delicate management of a whole lot of highly pressurized steam - a
megawatt's worth of steam.

Ladies and gentlemen, please don't try this at home!


Exactly. That is what experts have been telling me. The problems have 
nothing to do with fusion per se. On the other hand, we don't know much 
about this form of fusion (or Mills' effect, or zero-point energy, or 
whatever it is), and no one has ever produced it on such a large scale, 
so that also should be a concern. It would be better to go step by step 
to larger devices. They should run 2 or 3 units together first before 
they try to coordinate 50 of them.


- Jed



Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Jed Rothwell
Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote:


 In 1906, the Wrights knew *far* more about aerodynamics and the physics of
 flight than anyone else in the world. They should have concentrated on what
 they knew best, leaving other details to other experts. It was a waste of
 time for them to work on engines at that stage in the development.


 True, but you have to admit, those other engineers could have done a better
 job then the Wright brothers, but those other engineers didn't for whatever
 reason do it.


I know the reason why. It was the same reason Rossi has not gotten
professional assistance. Experts offered to help, but the Wrights refused.
As Harry Combs said, it was a tragic waste of their time. I know experts
who have offered to help Rossi at no cost, with no strings attached. He has
turned them down. Combs described the situation in 1907. It sounds familiar:

The potential contracts were battered and bruised but obstinacy on both
sides -- the Wrights, and the men and groups with whom they were dealing.
The brothers seemed unable to come to an agreement with anyone, and even as
they stumbled from one collapsing deal to another in Europe, back in the
United States, through the continuing interest and efforts of Samuel Cabot
and his brother Godfrey, the capabilities of the rights flying machine were
brought directly to the attention of President Theodore Roosevelt . . .

(Roosevelt's intervention is what finally turned the situation around.)

Robert Goddard did the same thing, by the way. He spent years of his time
and lots of Guggenheim's money trying to solve engineering problems that the
people at the University of California could have easily solved. They told
him they could. He ignored them. Actually, I think he blew them off, which
is what Rossi has done.

There is an important lesson in this. People here who think that Rossi is
some sort of loser or fake because he acts strange or because he has a bad
temper should read history. Read about Goddard, the Wrights, Edison,
Harrison, Davy (and the way he treated Faraday), Oppenheimer's behavior in
his rental house in the Virgin Islands, or Einstein's sex life. You will see
that these people acted abominably. They were as flaky as Rossi is, or
worse. You may suspect that Rossi is a thief and a double-dealer, but you
can be sure that Edison was. You may suspect Rossi puts on a fake demos and
hides the weaknesses of his device. Maybe he does, and maybe he does not.
There is no question that Edison did that, often, with panache. You need to
stop trying to judge this discovery based on the personality or morality of
the discover. That never works.

I could give dozens more examples. The converse is also true. Upstanding,
honest, reliable, well-educated, highly recommended, top-notch mainstream
scientists -- the kind of people who are appointed to important boards and
high positions in academia -- often make stupid mistakes. In some cases
during their entire career they do not come up with a single important
breakthrough. Any number of such people have made idiotic assertions about
cold fusion. In 1907 dozens of them made similar idiotic assertions that
airplanes cannot exist. In 1879 many of them went on record in major
journals and top newspapers asserting that Edison could not possibly have a
subdivided incandescent light -- such a thing is inherently impossible. (No
expert disputed that incandescent lights are possible. They had been
demonstrated for 20 years.) These were considered the top experts. They
thought they were experts. Actually, they had no idea what they were talking
about, but the journals and newspapers thought they did, just as nowadays
reporters think that Robert Park knows something about cold fusion.

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Horace Heffner


On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:


Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of  
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one  
of the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the  
container.  There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no  
explosion for one E-cat, operating for one hour.The  
probability that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24 hour  
test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a  
71.3% chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation  
is based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding  
is influenced by it's behaviour earlier,


This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed to  
be independent. For there to be success there must be no failures for  
any time increment.  If there are T time increments, and the  
probability of failure in any time increment is p, the probability of  
success q=1-p in each time increment is independent of the other time  
increments, and the probability of success in all time increments is  
q^T (only possible if what happens in each time increment is  
independent event), and the probability of any failure having  
occurred is thus 1-(q^T).



which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own  
independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not  
change over time.


The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results  
in zero probability because lim t-0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=q=1 and  
positive t.  Therefore lim t-0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I provided an  
assumption of 0.001 percent probability of failure *per hour*.



With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for  
the whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given  
moment of 1 - (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat  
system, based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of an  
individual E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.  Your  
number 5% is right, but your interpretation of it representing an  
instantaneous moment is wrong.





Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion  
is 2,77e-7 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which  
would result for 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or  
0,00144% at any time.


The phrase at any time makes the above statement nonsensical.

An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events of  
1 second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1 second,  
and b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We have the  
given probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being 0.001, and the  
probability of success of one E-cat for one hour being q = 0.999.   
The probability of success (no failures) for the 3600 1 second  
independent time increments is


   q = 0.999 = b^3600

   b = q^(1/3600) = 0.999^(1/3600)

   a = 1 - 0.999^(1/3600) = 2.779x10^-7

Note that a is the probability of failure in one second, not at any  
time.  This is totally consistent with the probability of failure in  
one E-cat in one hour being 5%.  In other words, going backwards:


   p = 1-(1-a)^3600 = 1-(1-2.779x10^-7)^3600 = 1-0.999 = 0.001

My calculations are therefore self consistent.  The time intervals  
are all treated as independent events.  Your interpretation of  
moment is perhaps a conceptual problem.





Kind regards,

MoB



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Axil Axil
The failure of one module of the Rossi 1 MW reactor will not cause the
entire 1 MW reactor to fail. Its performance will only degrade gracefully.

When the core of the module overheats or melts, the surface of the nickel
nanopowder will fail before the nanopowder enclosure will fail since the
enclosure will be cooled by low temperature steam or water which would
remove heat, effectively cool the enclosure, and support its structural
strength.

The failure of the nanopowder will cause the individual module to cool and
be ineffective at generating thermal power.

It would be analogous to a failure of one pixel of your computer screen; if
one such pixel grows dark, your screen will not fail but its performance
would degrade. You would still be able to use the screen, just the picture
would not be as sharp.

So too with the Rossi reactor; it would still generate heat, but not so much
as before. Its capacity would be reduced until its performance would
eventually degrade below a certain predefined lower threshold.

When this low bound threshold is reached, the entire reactor is considered
to have failed.


On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote:


 On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:

 Hi,

 On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:

 Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of catastrophic
 failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one of the E-cats can blow
 up spreading steam throughout the container.  There is thus a 0.999
 probability of success, i.e. no explosion for one E-cat, operating for one
 hour.The probability that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24
 hour test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a 71.3%
 chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


 Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation is based
 upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding is influenced by
 it's behaviour earlier,


 This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed to be
 independent. For there to be success there must be no failures for any time
 increment.  If there are T time increments, and the probability of failure
 in any time increment is p, the probability of success q=1-p in each time
 increment is independent of the other time increments, and the probability
 of success in all time increments is q^T (only possible if what happens in
 each time increment is independent event), and the probability of any
 failure having occurred is thus 1-(q^T).



 which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own
 independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not change
 over time.


 The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results in zero
 probability because lim t-0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=q=1 and positive t.
  Therefore lim t-0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I provided an assumption of
 0.001 percent probability of failure *per hour*.



 With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for the
 whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given moment of 1 -
 (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


 No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat system,
 based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of an individual
 E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.  Your number 5% is right,
 but your interpretation of it representing an instantaneous moment is wrong.





 Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the chance of
 explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7 per
 second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result for 52
 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any time.


 The phrase at any time makes the above statement nonsensical.

 An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events of 1
 second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1 second, and
 b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We have the given
 probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being 0.001, and the probability
 of success of one E-cat for one hour being q = 0.999.  The probability of
 success (no failures) for the 3600 1 second independent time increments is

   q = 0.999 = b^3600

   b = q^(1/3600) = 0.999^(1/3600)

   a = 1 - 0.999^(1/3600) = 2.779x10^-7

 Note that a is the probability of failure in one second, not at any time.
  This is totally consistent with the probability of failure in one E-cat in
 one hour being 5%.  In other words, going backwards:

   p = 1-(1-a)^3600 = 1-(1-2.779x10^-7)^3600 = 1-0.999 = 0.001

 My calculations are therefore self consistent.  The time intervals are all
 treated as independent events.  Your interpretation of moment is perhaps a
 conceptual problem.



 Kind regards,

 MoB


 Best regards,

 Horace Heffner
 http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/







Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Horace Heffner
The sentence below: This is totally consistent with the probability  
of failure in one E-cat in one hour being 5%. should read: This is  
totally consistent with the probability of failure of at least one E- 
cat (of 52) in one hour being 5%.



On Sep 29, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:



On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:


Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of  
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one  
of the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the  
container.  There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no  
explosion for one E-cat, operating for one hour.The  
probability that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24 hour  
test period is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a  
71.3% chance of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation  
is based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding  
is influenced by it's behaviour earlier,


This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed  
to be independent. For there to be success there must be no  
failures for any time increment.  If there are T time increments,  
and the probability of failure in any time increment is p, the  
probability of success q=1-p in each time increment is independent  
of the other time increments, and the probability of success in all  
time increments is q^T (only possible if what happens in each time  
increment is independent event), and the probability of any failure  
having occurred is thus 1-(q^T).



which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own  
independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not  
change over time.


The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results  
in zero probability because lim t-0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=q=1  
and positive t.  Therefore lim t-0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I  
provided an assumption of 0.001 percent probability of failure *per  
hour*.



With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result  
for the whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any  
given moment of 1 - (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat  
system, based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of  
an individual E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.   
Your number 5% is right, but your interpretation of it representing  
an instantaneous moment is wrong.





Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion  
is 2,77e-7 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which  
would result for 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134  
or 0,00144% at any time.


The phrase at any time makes the above statement nonsensical.

An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events  
of 1 second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1  
second, and b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We  
have the given probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being  
0.001, and the probability of success of one E-cat for one hour  
being q = 0.999.  The probability of success (no failures) for the  
3600 1 second independent time increments is


   q = 0.999 = b^3600

   b = q^(1/3600) = 0.999^(1/3600)

   a = 1 - 0.999^(1/3600) = 2.779x10^-7

Note that a is the probability of failure in one second, not at  
any time.  This is totally consistent with the probability of  
failure in one E-cat in one hour being 5%.  In other words, going  
backwards:


   p = 1-(1-a)^3600 = 1-(1-2.779x10^-7)^3600 = 1-0.999 = 0.001

My calculations are therefore self consistent.  The time intervals  
are all treated as independent events.  Your interpretation of  
moment is perhaps a conceptual problem.





Kind regards,

MoB



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Horace Heffner
If  you look at my text you will see I wrote catastrophic failure  
not just failure.   This means an E-cat blows up spreading steam  
throughout the container, injuring anyone present, and preventing  
access to the container, causing the test to fail.  I think I was  
clear on this point.  I did not refer to anything bout an E-cat  
performance dropping.  The other side of the coin to increased  
probability of some E-cat working when multiple devices run together  
is the increased probability of  catastrophic failure.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/



On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Axil Axil wrote:

The failure of one module of the Rossi 1 MW reactor will not cause  
the entire 1 MW reactor to fail. Its performance will only degrade  
gracefully.


When the core of the module overheats or melts, the surface of the  
nickel nanopowder will fail before the nanopowder enclosure will  
fail since the enclosure will be cooled by low temperature steam or  
water which would remove heat, effectively cool the enclosure, and  
support its structural strength.


The failure of the nanopowder will cause the individual module to  
cool and be ineffective at generating thermal power.


It would be analogous to a failure of one pixel of your computer  
screen; if one such pixel grows dark, your screen will not fail but  
its performance would degrade. You would still be able to use the  
screen, just the picture would not be as sharp.


So too with the Rossi reactor; it would still generate heat, but  
not so much as before. Its capacity would be reduced until its  
performance would eventually degrade below a certain predefined  
lower threshold.


When this low bound threshold is reached, the entire reactor is  
considered to have failed.




On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Horace Heffner  
hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote:


On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:02 AM, Man on Bridges wrote:

Hi,

On 29-9-2011 8:27, Horace Heffner wrote:
Looking at the other side of the coin, the probability of  
catastrophic failure, suppose there is a 0.1% chance per hour one  
of the E-cats can blow up spreading steam throughout the  
container.  There is thus a 0.999 probability of success, i.e. no  
explosion for one E-cat, operating for one hour.The probability  
that all 52 E-cats perform successfully for a 24 hour test period  
is then 0.999^(52*24) = .287.  That means there is a 71.3% chance  
of an explosion during a 24 hour test.


Me thinks you are wrong. Your statistical probability calculation  
is based upon the fact that the chance of a single Ecat exploding  
is influenced by it's behaviour earlier,


This is false.  The probability in each time increment is assumed  
to be independent. For there to be success there must be no  
failures for any time increment.  If there are T time increments,  
and the probability of failure in any time increment is p, the  
probability of success q=1-p in each time increment is independent  
of the other time increments, and the probability of success in all  
time increments is q^T (only possible if what happens in each time  
increment is independent event), and the probability of any failure  
having occurred is thus 1-(q^T).




which of course is not true. Statistically each Ecat has it's own  
independent chance of explosion at any given moment which does not  
change over time.


The instantaneous probability of failure is zero. Zero time results  
in zero probability because lim t-0 q^t = 1 for for all  0=q=1  
and positive t.  Therefore lim t-0 1-(q^t) = 0.  Note that I  
provided an assumption of 0.001 percent probability of failure *per  
hour*.




With your probability of 0,1% chance per hour this would result for  
the whole of 52 Ecats then in a chance of explosion at any given  
moment of 1 - (0.999^52) = .05 or 5%.


No.  The probability of at least one E-cat failure in the 52 E-cat  
system, based on the assumption of 0.001 probability of failure of  
an individual E-cat in an hour is 1-(0.999)^52 = 0.506958 = 5%.   
Your number 5% is right, but your interpretation of it representing  
an instantaneous moment is wrong.





Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion  
is 2,77e-7 per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which  
would result for 52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or  
0,00144% at any time.


The phrase at any time makes the above statement nonsensical.

An hour represents 3600 seconds, which are 3600 independent events  
of 1 second duration.  Let a be the probability of failure in 1  
second, and b=(1-a) be the probability of success in 1 second.  We  
have the given probability p of failure for 3600 seconds being  
0.001, and the probability of success of one E-cat for one hour  
being q = 0.999.  The probability of success (no failures) for the  
3600 1 second independent time increments is


  q = 0.999 = 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-29 Thread Horace Heffner


On Sep 29, 2011, at 4:37 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


From MoB:

...

Looking even a bit more closer again this would mean that if the  
chance

of explosion is 0.1% per hour then the chance of explosion is 2,77e-7
per second at any given moment for a single Ecat, which would result
for
52 Ecats into 1-((2,77e-7)^52) =  0,134 or 0,00144% at any
time.


Ah! Understanding the mathematics of Probability can occasionally be a
useful talent to possess! ;-)


Yes. It would be nice if MoB had the above correct though, i.e.  
understood what the numbers mean.





Thanks MoB

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks



Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Re: [Vo]:Re: Regarding Rossi and NASA (+ some Piantelli news)

2011-09-28 Thread OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
Rizzi sez:

...

 I think that the end of the hoax is approaching.

I doubt we are witnessing a hoax, though it's possible I am in error.

Another thought came to mind in regards to the megawatt reactor
design: Why for their first generation of products are they building
a 1 MW module? Many have stated many times that a smaller less
complicated configuration that generates a more modest amount of heat
of say 10 - 50 kilowatts of energy would be more than sufficient to
prove their point.

One theory as to why the 1 MW reactors is being designed for prime
time is to prove to prospective investors that the technology can be
scaled up immediately. That may be true, but perhaps a more subtle
point might be that by assembling a bunch of eCat cores under one hood
the engineers increase their chances that at least a decent number of
the individual reactors will work. Maybe there are far more individual
eCat cores than what ought to be necessary in order to generate 1 MW
of heat under the hood. Maye the engineers have discovered the fact
that statistically speaking only about 50% - 75% of the individually
assembled reactor cores work. I wonder if they have installed enough
additional reactor cores to more-or-less guarantee that the entire
module will, statistically speaking, generate at a minimum 1 Megawatts
of heat.

Just a thought... and I suspect it has already been raised by others here.

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks