[Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
In the category of clear water-based liquids which burn cleanly enough to be used indoors, and which could be confused with water in a testing arrangement (since it would be so unexpected as the 'trick' used to pull-off the deception) - there are several choices. These are miscible and with 40-50% water and the resultant blend would be combustible at that dilution level - would go undetected by a group of observers who assumed that it was water. All of these ingredients would be expected to be legitimately found in any company which produces or evaluates alternative fuels - and if the ruse was discovered prematurely . oops, Igor, you brought in the wrong container, or else yes, our municipal water is very polluted here. A form of alcohol, called Sterno, or 'canned heat' is made from jellied alcohol and burned directly from its can. The food service industry uses it for buffet heating and chafing, and it produces little smell and no monoxide; however, it would need to be used with less gel and no added color - to resemble water. The primary exhaust product is steam (~2/3). The gel keeps alcohol volatility under control and acts to denature it, as it is toxic to ingest. The heat content is about 18 MJ/l - or half of gasoline. Hydrogen peroxide produces only steam. HOOH is more viscous than water, but appears colorless in solution. It is both an oxidant an a propellant. When used in a blend, it would provide free oxygen and steam, so that air is not needed to combust the other ingredients (or less is needed). Ethylene glycol is an automotive antifreeze. In its pure form, it is an odorless, colorless, sweet-tasting liquid and toxic to consume. As antifreeze is denatured to discourage pets from ingesting and color is added. In pure form, it can serve as the gel for the other ingredients. A mix of these with water should be adequate to produce a combustible non-volatile, odorless liquid whose primary exhaust product is steam, with no remnant smell and with a heat content sufficient to convert all of the liquid to steam using a common catalyst. This hypothetical liquid would be more viscous than water, and with a peristaltic pump, it would be expected to produce more of an abnormal sloshing noise than would be expected of water. In summary - the heat content of this water-like liquid would be under 10 MJ/l and the net effect of the deception will be to convert all of it into steam so there is absolutely no argument that a chemical, non-nuclear reaction is not sufficient to produce the steam which is documented. There will be pure CO2 present in the exhaust, but it would go unnoticed, as it is odorless and colorless.
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: In the category of clear water-based liquids which burn cleanly enough to be used indoors, and which could be confused with water in a testing arrangement (since it would be so unexpected as the ‘trick’ used to pull-off the deception) - there are several choices. How much would it cost to make 54 tons of it? That's how much they would need for the 18-hour test. Might be hard to hide. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance .. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: In the category of clear water-based liquids which burn cleanly enough to be used indoors, and which could be confused with water in a testing arrangement (since it would be so unexpected as the 'trick' used to pull-off the deception) - there are several choices. How much would it cost to make 54 tons of it?
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
BTW - calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with peroxide blends, which produce cold steam with less energy than seems physically possible . Check out the video of a brave German - crossing the English channel by air - using a few kilos of peroxide http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN_hgt4InyI From: Jones Beene Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance .. From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: In the category of clear water-based liquids which burn cleanly enough to be used indoors, and which could be confused with water in a testing arrangement (since it would be so unexpected as the 'trick' used to pull-off the deception) - there are several choices. How much would it cost to make 54 tons of it?
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance …. Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. BTW – calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with peroxide blends, which produce cold steam with less energy than seems physically possible … What is cold steam? This stuff boils at 150°C, it seems. The Rossi device steam is 101°C, if you believe thermometers work. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
First, dont get me wrong. I thought the Bologna demo was robust and legitimate at the time, and still think it could have been strongly OU but less so than appearances might indicate. However, there is no real proof of any huge gain until better controls are implemented. I agree fully with Horace that the demo was shoddy. However, all of us must realize by now, that any further public testing CANNOT HELP Rossi. Deals are signed and he has nothing to gain till he gets the megawatt device ready. A scenario which can answer a lot of questions would be this: 1)Focardi, Piantelli and many others have built Ni-H experiments for years that showed modest gain 2)Mills has built Ni-H systems that purportedly show much higher gain 3)Rossi teamed with Focardi circa 2006, and they were able to get a system up to say COP of 4 by using nanopowder and Mills catalysts maybe less, but reliable. 4)Focardi is in ill-health and recently asks for a public demo while he can still enjoy it 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 6)Rossi decides to do the Bologna demo for the benefit of his old friend and mentor 7)Then flash Rossi decides he can enhance the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the apparent COP up to maybe 30. 8)He would already know about this blend, since the Chinese have been promoting it for a year or so. 9)Then the demo in Bologna and the positive PR. 10) The Greeks see this demo, are very impressed, fear competition - and sign the check in January for more than they wanted to. 11) Of course a part of the funds are in escrow, but remember, Rossi can still build reactors that are OU, so he can pull off something impressive in the end, even without the peroxide boost and get the full payment. 12) Thus he has worded the contract in such a way that in the end a showing of strong overunity is the criterion not the full 30-1 gain 13) ERGO even without the enhancement he used in the demo he can be successful on the contract clauses and claim his fee, but it might require 700 reactors to get to the megawatt instead of 100. 14) Even with 700 it still makes economic sense but at 3 cents per kW-hr instead of 1 cent. 15) In the mean time Rossi thinks that by using U of Bologna, the Swedes and others - to figure out the underlying details that he realizes he does not know, he might actually get the device into a more robust range than his fall-back gain (COP = ~4) 16) Everyone lives happily ever after From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance . Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. BTW calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with peroxide blends, which produce cold steam with less energy than seems physically possible What is cold steam? This stuff boils at 150°C, it seems. The Rossi device steam is 101°C, if you believe thermometers work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance …. Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. Maybe Rossi is using ice-nine.
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no up-front cash. Don't think that the scenario is consistent with first-hand information... 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 7)Then flash Rossi decides he can enhance the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the apparent COP up to maybe 30. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible First, dont get me wrong. I thought the Bologna demo was robust and legitimate at the time, and still think it could have been strongly OU but less so than appearances might indicate. However, there is no real proof of any huge gain until better controls are implemented. I agree fully with Horace that the demo was shoddy. However, all of us must realize by now, that any further public testing CANNOT HELP Rossi. Deals are signed and he has nothing to gain till he gets the megawatt device ready. A scenario which can answer a lot of questions would be this: 1)Focardi, Piantelli and many others have built Ni-H experiments for years that showed modest gain 2)Mills has built Ni-H systems that purportedly show much higher gain 3)Rossi teamed with Focardi circa 2006, and they were able to get a system up to say COP of 4 by using nanopowder and Mills catalysts maybe less, but reliable. 4)Focardi is in ill-health and recently asks for a public demo while he can still enjoy it 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 6)Rossi decides to do the Bologna demo for the benefit of his old friend and mentor 7)Then flash Rossi decides he can enhance the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the apparent COP up to maybe 30. 8)He would already know about this blend, since the Chinese have been promoting it for a year or so. 9)Then the demo in Bologna and the positive PR. 10) The Greeks see this demo, are very impressed, fear competition - and sign the check in January for more than they wanted to. 11) Of course a part of the funds are in escrow, but remember, Rossi can still build reactors that are OU, so he can pull off something impressive in the end, even without the peroxide boost and get the full payment. 12) Thus he has worded the contract in such a way that in the end a showing of strong overunity is the criterion not the full 30-1 gain 13) ERGO even without the enhancement he used in the demo he can be successful on the contract clauses and claim his fee, but it might require 700 reactors to get to the megawatt instead of 100. 14) Even with 700 it still makes economic sense but at 3 cents per kW-hr instead of 1 cent. 15) In the mean time Rossi thinks that by using U of Bologna, the Swedes and others - to figure out the underlying details that he realizes he does not know, he might actually get the device into a more robust range than his fall-back gain (COP = ~4) 16) Everyone lives happily ever after From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance . Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. BTW calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with peroxide blends, which produce cold steam with less energy than seems physically possible What is cold steam? This stuff boils at 150°C, it seems. The Rossi device steam is 101°C, if you believe thermometers work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no up-front cash. Don't think that the scenario is consistent with first-hand information... My impression is that Jones Beene made up this scenario, as a hypothetical. It is another Just So Story. As such, it is harmless. In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing, and units will probably be delivered to universities in Sweden. Obviously, any tricks would be revealed by these tests. Rossi is not going to install 50-ton tanks of chemicals in these universities. None of the tricks listed by Alan Fletcher would survive these tests either. Most of them would be detected in a few minutes by any half-awake person. Some of them are interesting mind-experiments, but in real life we can rule them out. Fletcher's speculation is harmless too, but it causes a minor annoyance: some of the skeptics take these ideas seriously. The Wikipedia article on the E-Cat now has a pointer to them. We cannot blame Fletcher for what skeptics do. They will find any number of reasons to deny this. I expect they will soon erase the Wikipedia article. They do not matter. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Mark, It goes without saying that this was a hasty fiction put together to show how this demo (or any similar demo by anyone) could be partially faked (i.e. enhanced) in a way that could fit into a coherent story. and certainly was not intended to be anything more than that. I should have prefaced the post - to make that clear. However, I am in the outspoken minority (minority of one?) who do not trust Rossi to be honest about important details, especially when they contradict, as they often do, more reliable sources. like the Swedish isotope analysis, for instance. However, I vaguely recall the video interview a week or so ago - with the CEO of the Greek company . in which he indicated that a goodly portion of the $100 million has already been released. Did anyone else catch this interview? Jones From: Mark Iverson Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no up-front cash. Don't think that the scenario is consistent with first-hand information... 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 7)Then . flash . Rossi decides he can enhance the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the 'apparent' COP up to maybe 30. -Mark _ From: Jones First, don't get me wrong. I thought the Bologna demo was robust and legitimate at the time, and still think it could have been strongly OU - but less so than appearances might indicate. However, there is no real proof of any huge gain until better controls are implemented. I agree fully with Horace that the demo was shoddy. However, all of us must realize by now, that any further public testing CANNOT HELP Rossi. Deals are signed and he has nothing to gain till he gets the megawatt device ready. A scenario which can answer a lot of questions would be this: 1)Focardi, Piantelli and many others have built Ni-H experiments for years that showed modest gain 2)Mills has built Ni-H systems that purportedly show much higher gain 3)Rossi teamed with Focardi circa 2006, and they were able to get a system up to say - COP of 4 by using nanopowder and Mills' catalysts - maybe less, but reliable. 4)Focardi is in ill-health and recently asks for a public demo while he can still enjoy it 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 6)Rossi decides to do the Bologna demo for the benefit of his old friend and mentor 7)Then . flash . Rossi decides he can enhance the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the 'apparent' COP up to maybe 30. 8)He would already know about this blend, since the Chinese have been promoting it for a year or so. 9)Then the demo in Bologna and the positive PR. 10) The Greeks see this demo, are very impressed, fear competition - and sign the check in January for more than they wanted to. 11) Of course a part of the funds are in escrow, but remember, Rossi can still build reactors that are OU, so he can pull off something impressive in the end, even without the peroxide boost and get the full payment. 12) Thus he has worded the contract in such a way that in the end a showing of strong overunity is the criterion - not the full 30-1 gain 13) ERGO even without the 'enhancement' he used in the demo - he can be successful on the contract clauses and claim his fee, but it might require 700 reactors to get to the megawatt instead of 100. 14) Even with 700 it still makes economic sense but at 3 cents per kW-hr instead of 1 cent. 15) In the mean time Rossi thinks that by using U of Bologna, the Swedes and others - to figure out the underlying details that he realizes he does not know, he might actually get the device into a more robust range than his fall-back gain (COP = ~4) 16) Everyone lives happily ever after From: Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance .. Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. JB: There will be no more public disclosures IMO. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. JB: Part of the deal with the University is surely going to be a strong NDA - till AR sez it's OK BTW - calculations based on heat content can be thrown out the window with peroxide blends, which produce cold steam with less energy than seems physically possible .
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Dear Friends, How many hydrogen peroxide explosion have you seen? I remember 3, great risk to mimic fire with this stuff. iron is a good catalyst for peroxide decomposition. May I ask you to read the MSDS of this substance? Thanks! Peter On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Mark, It goes without saying that this was a hasty fiction put together to show how this demo (or any similar demo by anyone) could be partially faked (i.e. “enhanced”) in a way that could fit into a coherent story… and certainly was not intended to be anything more than that. I should have prefaced the post - to make that clear. However, I am in the outspoken minority (minority of one?) who do not trust Rossi to be honest about important details, especially when they contradict, as they often do, more reliable sources… like the Swedish isotope analysis, for instance. However, I vaguely recall the video interview a week or so ago - with the CEO of the Greek company … in which he indicated that a goodly portion of the $100 million has already been released. Did anyone else catch this interview? Jones *From:* Mark Iverson Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no up-front cash. Don't think that the scenario is consistent with first-hand information... 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 7)Then … flash … Rossi decides he can “enhance” the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the ‘apparent’ COP up to maybe 30. -Mark -- *From:* Jones First, don’t get me wrong. I thought the Bologna demo was robust and legitimate at the time, and still think it could have been strongly OU – but less so than appearances might indicate. However, there is no real proof of any huge gain until better controls are implemented. I agree fully with Horace that the demo was shoddy. However, all of us must realize by now, that any further public testing CANNOT HELP Rossi. Deals are signed and he has nothing to gain till he gets the megawatt device ready. A scenario which can answer a lot of questions would be this: 1)Focardi, Piantelli and many others have built Ni-H experiments for years that showed modest gain 2)Mills has built Ni-H systems that purportedly show much higher gain 3)Rossi teamed with Focardi circa 2006, and they were able to get a system up to say – COP of 4 by using nanopowder and Mills’ catalysts – maybe less, but reliable. 4)Focardi is in ill-health and recently asks for a public demo while he can still enjoy it 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 6)Rossi decides to do the Bologna demo for the benefit of his old friend and mentor 7)Then … flash … Rossi decides he can “enhance” the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the ‘apparent’ COP up to maybe 30. 8)He would already know about this blend, since the Chinese have been promoting it for a year or so. 9)Then the demo in Bologna and the positive PR. 10) The Greeks see this demo, are very impressed, fear competition - and sign the check in January for more than they wanted to. 11) Of course a part of the funds are in escrow, but remember, Rossi can still build reactors that are OU, so he can pull off something impressive in the end, even without the peroxide boost and get the full payment. 12) Thus he has worded the contract in such a way that in the end a showing of strong overunity is the criterion – not the full 30-1 gain 13) ERGO even without the ‘enhancement’ he used in the demo – he can be successful on the contract clauses and claim his fee, but it might require 700 reactors to get to the megawatt instead of 100. 14) Even with 700 it still makes economic sense but at 3 cents per kW-hr instead of 1 cent. 15) In the mean time Rossi thinks that by using U of Bologna, the Swedes and others - to figure out the underlying details that he realizes he does not know, he might actually get the device into a more robust range than his fall-back gain (COP = ~4) 16) Everyone lives happily ever after *From:* Jed Rothwell Jones Beene wrote: Considerably less than the $100 million Euros that a Greek investor might be willing to advance …. Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. JB: There will be no more public disclosures IMO. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Peter, An authority to contact for anyone interested in the safety issues would be the Swiss Rocket Man - since he puts his life on the line with this stuff daily. It is very dangerous at full strength but less so when diluted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Rossy Notice his name is Rossy - instead of Rossi, and that he is also known as the fusion man due to the surprising shock wave power of peroxide (which has little heat energy but high brisance) His old website, where he explains how it is done with peroxide is not active any more AFAIK. That could be for liability reasons. Jones From: Peter Gluck Dear Friends, How many hydrogen peroxide explosion have you seen? I remember 3, great risk to mimic fire with this stuff. iron is a good catalyst for peroxide decomposition. May I ask you to read the MSDS of this substance? Thanks! Peter
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
From: Jed Rothwell * * In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing, and units will probably be delivered to universities in Sweden. That is why we have NDAs, and you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone involved have signed them. * Obviously, any tricks would be revealed by these tests. Not at all. When the Swedish Professors find and document a robust COP of 4 instead of 30 they will be thrilled beyond words ! The prior test will be written off as measurement error. If these Professors can then deduce and tell Rossi how it is happening, he will be thrilled. You and I will not hear a word from them nor anything of value until October at the earliest. NDA in action. If some trick Rossi used is actually exposed before then, you will probably hear of it from Piantelli by way of Krivit's newsletter. This is actually a fair bet to happen before October, come to think of it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ha, ha. And how would this work now that they are testing it in Rossi's absence? I imagine they will notice. JB: There will be no more public disclosures IMO. Obviously if they find it is a fraud they will disclose that. They are not going to let themselves be used by someone scheming to steal 100 million euros. They would be criminally liable if they did not alert the police. Surely the hidden tank will run out, or they will try another source of water. JB: Part of the deal with the University is surely going to be a strong NDA - till AR sez it’s OK If they discover the thing is fake, all NDAs will be out the window! No one would honor such an agreement with a crook. If they open the cell and find magic electric wires, or Rossi shows up at the university to install a 50-ton tank of chemicals, the deception will end instantly, and they will tell everyone. It is amusing to imagine what he might say when he shows up with a large truck and a crew of workmen to install the 50-ton tank. Does anyone suppose they would let him connect that to the water supply, no questions asked, no one curious to find out what it is? Also, the professors might wonder why he demands they call the workmen back after 50 tons of cooling fluid have run through the machine. Just tell them to come by; don't ask why. And don't look in that tank. Ignore it; it isn't important and it's none of your business. It has NOTHING to do with this experiment. The scenarios described by Fletcher call for brain-dead or hypnotized scientists who do not take elementary precautions or bother to look closely at the machine. That's improbable. The scenarios described by Heffner call for people who are too stupid to turn a faucet on or off, and a world full of thermometers that cannot measure the difference between a person with a high fever, and a stone-cold corpse. That's even more improbable. But somehow, the notion of Rossi and a crew of workmen showing up at three different universities and installing large tanks, pumps and other equipment without anyone noticing or caring strikes me as the most improbable Just So Story of all. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Ø In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing, and units will probably be delivered to universities in Sweden. That is why we have NDAs, and you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone involved have signed them. Nonsense. As I pointed out above, NDAs do not cover criminal activities, or excuse the person signing them from reporting crimes to the police. These people are NOT -- rpt NOT -- going to allow themselves to used as pawns by someone scheming to steal 100 million euros. You would have to be insane to do that. Not at all. When the Swedish Professors find and document a robust COP of 4 instead of 30 they will be thrilled beyond words ! The prior test will be written off as measurement error. That's preposterous. A measurement error on that scale is out of the question. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
I wrote: Not at all. When the Swedish Professors find and document a robust COP of 4 instead of 30 they will be thrilled beyond words ! The prior test will be written off as measurement error. That's preposterous. A measurement error on that scale is out of the question. I suppose it is possible they decide that the units delivered to them are nowhere near as good a the one in Bologna. Meanwhile, back in Bologna, by this time Levi et al. are becoming very suspicious, because the unit they are testing suddenly stopped working, or when they brought it to the lab it did not work. This cannot end well. Sooner or later they open the cell, look at it for a minute or two and they realize they have been had. How long would it take for a chemist to recognize equipment used to ignite hydrogen peroxide? Pretty soon the Italian police are tearing down the walls of the other building to reveal the hidden 50-ton tank. There is absolutely, positively, no way this kind of scam would work outside of a 5th rate thriller. Also, you can safely dismiss the possibility that Levi or Essen do not understand how to open and close a faucet, by the way. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
From: Jed Rothwell JR: In real life, this scenario cannot be squared with the fact that tests at U. Bologna are continuing, and units will probably be delivered to universities in Sweden. JB: That is why we have NDAs, and you can bet your bottom dollar that everyone involved have signed them. JR: Nonsense. As I pointed out above, NDAs do not cover criminal activities, JB: Are you accusing him of a crime? Shame on you. AFAIK no crime has been committed. If Rossi has real OU, and I believe that he does as clearly stated - and he wants to prove that theatrically - where is the crime? I have not suggested it, and if you are now suggesting it - then please make it clear that this is your own opinion - not mine. JB: There is no question at all that they WILL sign NDAs if they want to be a part of this continuing RD. They do have competent attorneys in Italy and only a fool would dispense with NDAs. JB: When the Swedish Professors find and document a robust COP of 4 instead of 30 they will be thrilled beyond words ! The prior test will be written off as measurement error. JR: That's preposterous. A measurement error on that scale is out of the question. JB: Nonsense ! In fact, this is the scenario that best fits the facts, whether you like it or not. There is no chance that the demo was done correctly in measuring P-out, as Horace very accurately points out. Thankfully, the substantial errors still leaves plenty of room for gain Shoddy work! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: JB: When the Swedish Professors find and document a robust COP of 4 instead of 30 they will be thrilled beyond words ! The prior test will be written off as measurement error. JR: That's preposterous. A measurement error on that scale is out of the question. JB: Nonsense ! In fact, this is the scenario that best fits the facts, whether you like it or not. Okay, so in the Feb. 10 test, input was 80 W and output was not 16 kW or 130 kW but 320 W (4 times input) the whole time. Is that what you mean? It was a factor of 50 error, and a factor of 406 at the apparent higher power. You consider this measurement error plausible. Which of the 4 parameters do you suppose were wrong? Or was it a combination? Do you think the flow rate was actually 9 ml/s and both the observers and the flowmeter mistook this for 1 L/s? It is hard to believe a flowmeter could be so inaccurate. You say that scenario best fits the facts. Which facts do you have in mind? None that I am aware of. None of the items numbered 1 - 16 above are factual, as far as I know. You made them up. For example you said: . . . Of course a part of the funds are in escrow . . . and . . . he has worded the contract in such a way that in the end a showing of strong overunity is the criterion – not the full 30-1 gain. There are no funds in escrow as far as anyone knows, and the only detail about the contract that has been discussed is that the machine should produce 1 MW. There has been no word about the gain. There is no harm in inventing scenarios but you should take care not to believe something that you yourself dreamed up on the spur of the moment. There is no chance that the demo was done correctly in measuring P-out, as Horace very accurately points out. I disagree. In my opinion, Horace's assertions are no in evidence, to say the least. Any ordinary thermocouple or thermometer can measure a 5°C temperature difference with high confidence. Assertions to the contrary are not very accurate -- they are very strange. Also, the people who did the demo know more about measuring temperatures and energy than I do, and I suspect they know more than Horace does. Possibly more than you do. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
From: Jed Rothwell * Okay, so in the Feb. 10 test, input was 80 W and output was not 16 kW or 130 kW but 320 W (4 times input) It is a mistake to conflate the two tests. Both have their own separate problems. This is not new to Jed, and there is no reason to repeat the details of the problems with the Feb 10 fiasco now, since the insurmountable looming problem for anything above a few kW will be coming out soon. Anyway I have less faith, not more, in the Feb 10 test, but both are physically impossible. But again 400 watts in and 1600 out is FANTASTIC, a Nobel quality finding ! so even the skeptics cannot rejoice. We simply need to put the discovery into the right framework. Myself or someone else will be presenting evidence this coming week (hopefully) from an expert in thermodynamics, if Krivit does not scoop the story - that the gain claimed is physically impossible, under any circumstances - even in a fission reactor; and the reason is mundane and overlooked: heat transfer. Of course, these calculations will of necessity be based on the presumed surface area of a stainless steel inner reactor, as Rossi assures us is there - and the flow rate of the liquid. Those who have fallen for the impossibly large claim will then be forced to invent some other kind of magical way to provide an order of magnitude more surface area than is possible, given the weight and internal pressurization. IOW the average of 16 kW is physically impossible ! The 130 kW claim borders on complete ignorance of thermodynamics. I understand that this data will be presented first to Levi for comment. Professional courtesy, one presumes. What was that joke about the lawyer in the shark tank. !?! Jones
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Of course, these calculations will of necessity be based on the presumed surface area of a stainless steel inner reactor, as Rossi assures us is there - and the flow rate of the liquid. And how do you know what the shape is, or surface area? Where was this reported? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Jones: I know we're all a bit frustrated by the way details have come out, and what seems like some contradictory statements, but it is what it is. What's that saying about not wasting time on things you cannot change... you're one of the more knowledgeable ones on this forum and if you choose to devote energy to analyzing this story as it unfolds, perhaps its best to expend the energy analyzing what we do have! If nothing else, you learn things you didn't know, you pass on that knowledge and insight, and when this is accepted by the mainstream, you just might get offered a cushy (and exciting) job since you're on top of the technical details!! I'd give my left nut to be working in this field! Heck, I'd give BOTH of 'em since I'm not going to be using them anymore in my life... they're just hangin around these days and not of much use. LoL :-) -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible Mark, It goes without saying that this was a hasty fiction put together to show how this demo (or any similar demo by anyone) could be partially faked (i.e. enhanced) in a way that could fit into a coherent story. and certainly was not intended to be anything more than that. I should have prefaced the post - to make that clear. However, I am in the outspoken minority (minority of one?) who do not trust Rossi to be honest about important details, especially when they contradict, as they often do, more reliable sources. like the Swedish isotope analysis, for instance. However, I vaguely recall the video interview a week or so ago - with the CEO of the Greek company . in which he indicated that a goodly portion of the $100 million has already been released. Did anyone else catch this interview? Jones From: Mark Iverson Items 5 and 7 are not fitting with the details that Rossi has stated, which is that he ONLY receives money when the plant is producing energy... so there is no up-front cash. Don't think that the scenario is consistent with first-hand information... 5)At this time, Rossi is already arranging a deal with the Greeks, possibly for far less money than was finalized after the demo. 7)Then . flash . Rossi decides he can enhance the demo, and possibly close the deal with the Greeks for more up-front cash - by using the low COP of about 4 to heat a peroxide blend and get the 'apparent' COP up to maybe 30. -Mark
RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
RE: Yves Rossy, the Jet Man. Of all the people that would have the exact same date of birth, it had to be someone like him. -Mark _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:39 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible Peter, An authority to contact for anyone interested in the safety issues would be the Swiss Rocket Man - since he puts his life on the line with this stuff daily. It is very dangerous at full strength but less so when diluted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Rossy Notice his name is Rossy - instead of Rossi, and that he is also known as the fusion man due to the surprising shock wave power of peroxide (which has little heat energy but high brisance) His old website, where he explains how it is done with peroxide is not active any more AFAIK. That could be for liability reasons. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible
Thank you for this interesting information. But even Rossy will not try to use H2O2 as fake energy source of heat in Rossi's E-cat, I bet. Peter On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote: RE: Yves Rossy, the Jet Man. Of all the people that would have the exact same date of birth, it had to be someone like him. -Mark -- *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] *Sent:* Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:39 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Clear, odorless, water-based combustible Peter, An authority to contact for anyone interested in the safety issues would be the “Swiss Rocket Man” – since he puts his life on the line with this stuff daily. It is very dangerous at full strength but less so when diluted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Rossy Notice his name is Rossy - instead of Rossi, and that he is also known as the “fusion man” due to the surprising shock wave power of peroxide (which has little heat energy but high brisance) His old website, where he explains how it is done with peroxide is not active any more AFAIK. That could be for liability reasons. Jones -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
