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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rizzi sez: Guys, the dream is over. Itâ€™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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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