Mattia Rizzi wrote:
The point 2 is CRITICAL when the measuremnt is done with point 1,
because without using a demister you made a mesuremnt error that
*over-extimate* the real energy produced.
Over-estimate by how much? 470 kW? I doubt it. The exact power level
does not matter. An hour
On 11-11-02 04:48 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely
to me. When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it
falls too far, you throttle it.
This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Exactly which test do you refer to? What was the date?
Despite my use of the singular, I wasn't thinking of a single specific
test; as far as I can recall, all the steam tests done in the spring
supposedly had the same output temperature, to within a degree: 101C
I wrote:
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said that they
are certain this was dry steam.
I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry steam. You can see the
condensate collection bucket
it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
would have overflowed in no time.
Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply you don't know.
By the way, i've readed many comments by guys that are experts of
thermodynamics: nobody will use the Colonel approach,
Correction: with the Colonel approach you collect *a part *of the water
already condensed, since there isn't a U water trap!
2011/11/3 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com
it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam, that bucket
would have overflowed in no time.
Incorrect
On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.
I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
There is no doubt the Oct. 28 test produced only dry
On 11-11-03 04:20 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-03 03:41 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I wrote:
The colonel and others who know a lot about steam have all said
that they are certain this was dry steam.
I mean that he said that about Rossi's previous tests. And this one too.
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
I think that the Colonel was hired by Ampenergo.
Why would they hire someone to tell them what they already know? Rossi
and Ampenergo did not use the colonel to improve their own credibility.
By the way, Rossi confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.
Jed, i think you missed the most important part of my message.
So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.
I mean, Rossi and the colonel have worked toghether in the past.
2011/11/3 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
I think that the Colonel was hired by
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
So did the colonel, and so did the document they published.
I mean, Rossi and the colonel have worked toghether in the past.
Yes, I know they have. They talked about it. No one disputes that they
have. What's your point? Do you think that anyone who has worked with
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, Rossi
confirmed that he has already worked with the Colonel.
Fioravanti was at the Oct. 6 demonstration. I wonder if that is what AR meant.
T
What's your point?
I think it's interesting that a *secret* USA customer hired a person that
has worked with Rossi.
But Jed, you missed again the most interesting part of my message.
It's:
Jed Rothwell: it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with steam,
that bucket would have overflowed
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Wait -- do you mean Miley's recent work on Patterson-type cells?
Nope. Gas loaded ZrPd powder. Similar to Arata. Roughly the same power
density as Rossi.
I've never argued that what Rossi is claiming is physically
impossible. He's too clever to claim perpetual
Mattia Rizzi wrote:
Jed Rothwell: it. If there had been a lot of water coming out with
steam, that bucket would have overflowed in no time.
Mattia Rizzi: Incorrect since the valve is pratically closed. SImply
you don't know.
Lewan felt the lower pipe and the valve attached to it and
Jed, you are not answering my questions.
The valve is not so much open, so the quantity of water is simply
arbitrary. You cannot say 'if there was much liquid water then it will go
out from the pipe'.
What is interesting is:
1) Why the colonel as not installed a demister?
2) Why the colonel even a
Am 03.11.2011 22:08, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
He has also proved it by first principles in the Oct. 6 test. Unless
you think a 30 L container of water can magically radiate heat for 4
hours and yet remain hot while you run 60 L of tap water through it.
It is ridiculous that anyone would
Peter Heckert wrote:
Rossi is a magically talented engineer but because he never has proven
his claims -and this would be easy if true- we must assume that he
abuses his abilities to fool us.
Theory of magic:
It is possible to keep the water boiling if you realize that the
amperemeter was
Am 03.11.2011 23:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote: For example he is a good psychologist and he
knows how to fool people.
No, he is a terrible psychologist. He does not know how to fool
anyone. He inspires no confidence in anyone. he gives everyone,
including me, the impression
Am 03.11.2011 23:28, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 03.11.2011 23:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote: For example he is a good psychologist and he
knows how to fool people.
No, he is a terrible psychologist. He does not know how to fool
anyone. He inspires no confidence in anyone. he
Peter Heckert wrote:
This is how he appears to you, and this is why he doesnt invite you.
He wants to look like a crook? This is complicated reverse psychology.
It could easily backfire I suppose, and have the opposite effect. I
suppose he also wanted the authorities to send him to jail
Peter Heckert wrote:
What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no
technical or scientific knowledge?
Who told you this journalist has no technical or scientific knowledge?
Did you communicate with the journalist? Where did you get this information?
Please do not make
Am 03.11.2011 23:45, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
What do you think why did he invite an AP journalist who has no
technical or scientific knowledge?
Who told you this journalist has no technical or scientific knowledge?
Did you communicate with the journalist? Where did you
Jed, i'm still waiting to know why an expert of thermodynamic, hired for
checking a 2,000,000$ trade, would:
1) Mesaure the energy by measuring the liquid water condensed and then
calculate the energy by the ASSUMPTION that the remaining water has been
converted into a dry steam, when there are
I know that this post is going to ruffle some feathers, but:
He has indeed done stints in jail. He has repeatedly claimed incredible strides
in developing rare technology, and has seen things go awry in delivery.
Petroldragon appeared totally revolutionary. The telling of this story varies
Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
No he left it in Rossi's care. Andrea plans to sell it again to another
buyer.
A variation on the gift that keeps on giving.
That's humorous. But then... such a scenario doesn't make much sense to me.
Why would the anonymous
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 8:49 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
What did I miss?
My acerbic sense of humor.
T
Terry Sez:
What did I miss?
My acerbic sense of humor.
Heh!
Specifically meant for Mr. Murray's benefit?
Sorry, Mongo still a little cunfuz'd on this point. (He lost his box
of candy in all the excitement.)
Mongo want's to know who's currently in possession of the eCat. Cuz...
maybe that's
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
Mongo want's to know who's currently in possession of the eCat. Cuz...
maybe that's where Mongo left left his box of candy.
Rossi, or the alleged anonymous customer?
Inquiring Minds Wanna Know.
No idea.
- Jed
Jed sez:
No idea.
Thank-u Jed,
It's back to the candy store for Mongo.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Jed sez:
No idea.
Thank-u Jed,
It's back to the candy store for Mongo.
Candygram for Mongo:
The test was for a customer - his first name was Colonel - who
immediately hooked up the 20-ft
Terry sez:
...
Personally, I don't think he trucked it off since it would have taken
hours to un-plumb it. Not to mention that a number of the little
kittens resided on the roof of the container.
And as all cat owners, of the biological configuration know, they will
seek out warmth. So, if
The value of the first 1MW plant to the first dozen customers will not
be its steam, per se: Its getting first-mover advantage on learning
about this new technology that might replace 1/5 of the world economy.
Yes, the customer probably left the container on site with rights to
use it. Rossi says
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic.
Someone who is registered on his web log could just ask (except Jed :-).
T
Terry sez:
If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic.
Someone who is registered on his web log could just ask (except Jed :-).
A famous quote from Animal House comes to mind:
Dean Vernon Wormer: Put Neidermeyer
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:23 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Terry sez:
If there is someone in Bologna who could snoop around the Rossi
building and send us some intel, that would be fantastic.
Someone who is registered on his web log could just ask (except
On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,
No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the same
argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many months.
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level
On 11-11-01 10:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murrayrmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
No he left it in Rossi's care. Andrea plans to sell it again to another buyer.
Boy, that sure saves a lot of
From Stephen:
(Terry, what are you talking about? Sometimes I think I understand your
posts but this isn't one of them.)
I believe the honorable Mr. Blanton was being sarcastic. ;-)
To be honest, I wasn't sure at first as well. My excuse was that I had
been highly distracted for the past
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the power level could have been
held constant to better than 1%, and precisely matched to the pump
rate. Jed and a number of other people see no problem with it.
Nonsense! I never said that. I said I assume the water level
Hi,
On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,
No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the
same argument that's been bashed around for the last how-ever-many
months.
I
On 11-11-02 02:22 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
Hi,
On 2-11-2011 19:07, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-11-01 10:25 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument,
No I didn't. (No credit where no credit is due, please.) It's the
same argument that's been bashed
On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was
constant with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent. (That's 9/100 of
1 percent.) This, in a process which is
I would not worry too much about the level of water in the boiler.
See this classical example of dobule retroactive feedback for managing
water level ;-) .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet
mic
2011/11/2 Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com:
On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Either that, or the water level fluctuated. That seems more likely to
me. When it starts to rise, you increase the reaction. When it falls
too far, you throttle it.
This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here. In the test
from last spring, the
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:15 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
From Stephen:
(Terry, what are you talking about? Sometimes I think I understand your
posts but this isn't one of them.)
I believe the honorable Mr. Blanton was being sarcastic. ;-)
At least some
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
This is, of course, all old stuff being reiterated here.
Regurgitated. ;-)
See? That is my humor.
T
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
On 11-11-01 09:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent. (That's 9/100
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Smart man. He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.
Yes indeed, It is curious how hard this thing has been for many to
understand, that it is impossible to get low quality steam by boiling in
low pressure. But low quality steam can be made
Alan J. Fletcher wrote [quoting Colonel Fioravanti):
The only case when you have low steam quality or droplets or liquid
water in this steam is in long or poorly isolated tubes fro steam
transport. Steam then condenses and there will be a flow of water
together with the steam.
This is not
Hi,
On 1-11-2011 22:31, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
That's with multiple E-cats working together, and with a system which
was flaky enough that the final power level measured was just under
half what it was supposed to be (that's a 50% variation from what was
predicted).
So, we've got a
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
Since the pump rate was constant, that means the power level was constant
with a precision of +/- 0.09 percent. (That's 9/100 of 1 percent.) This,
in a process which is said to be hard to start and hard to control.
Either that, or the water
Steven A. Lawrence has presented a new argument, worthy of the level
of critical acumen shown by the very astute Joshua Cude, that Rossi
claims a stablility of control of the level of power output that seems
unbelievable, given the evident problems of controlling the chaotic
output of a very
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com wrote:
Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
No he left it in Rossi's care. Andrea plans to sell it again to another buyer.
T
Thanks for reading my post and answering the question -- I wonder if
the buyer has the right to cancel the purchase and get his money back
at this point? R
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Rich Murray rmfor...@gmail.com
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Did the buyer take away the huge eKat in its storage container?
No he left it in Rossi's care. Andrea plans to sell it again to another
buyer.
A variation on the gift that keeps on giving.
- Jed
Smart man. He is exactly right contrary to many discussions here.
T
57 matches
Mail list logo
