Giovanni, just to check my memory- aren't you a known transhumanism author too, or it is only a coincidence of names? peter
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please check my thread "customer warehouse". I show different types of > calculations to demonstrate how nonsensical Rossi's claims are. Somebody > should check my calculations are correct but I will share later the MatLab > code I used. One could do these calculations also as Fermi problems in > their head given that are order of magnitude estimates. > > Bottom line: any chemical process that you can conceive of (I looked at > warming up water, melting ice and salts, the most endothermic reactions I > could find) would require processing of tons of material every few days to > use the energy involved in this situation. > > For example if you use electrolysis that is pretty demanding > physical-chemistry process (that will require to transform the heat of the > eCat in electrical energy, not efficient but this is just to demonstrate > energy and mass involved) we are talking about 30 tons of water coming in > and 30 tons of hydrogen and oxygen coming out of that 6000 sq feet > warehouse every single week. You get similar numbers when you use reactions > with large enthalpies that could use the heat more directly. > > Please take a look at my thread where I show pics of the building and the > address. Google map it. Go at the street level. You can see it is a > commercial area but not at all an industrial zoned area. There is > absolutely no way to have swimming pools worth of water outside to exchange > it with, there is no way to bring in 30 tons of chemical material every few > days, process it, packing it in such a small warehouse in particular > without causing huge problems with the other businesses around (that are > all retailers), the owners of the building or the authorities. > > How much personnel does it take to process these quantities of material? > > The warehouse also needs to host the 1 MW plant and so on. > > I'm still doing calculations for venting the place but I bet you will need > hurricane winds strength ventilation to remove the heat. > > But if you use water that is much more efficient way to exchange heat you > will need to move 1 ton of hot water every second outside the building (and > bring in an equivalent cold water amount). That is almost 90,000 tons of > water every day. > Talk about the water bill or even what it will take to get that water from > the faucet or down a sink. > > As I said there is no way to recycle this amount of water without having > enormous quantities of pipes (we can do the calculations how big the piping > system needs to be) or swimming pools of steaming water outside the > building. Where in the parking lot? > > Please use common sense and some basic physics and you will see how absurd > the situation is. > > Giovanni > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Adrian, >> >> Actually, people asked AR if the process was endothermic and he said >> "Yes." When later asked if the heat that was not used was collected in >> water, he responded "Yes." >> >> People should consider that they are engaging in crowd sourced excuse >> making for him. He just has to sit back and wait for someone to suggest a >> possible explanation. >> >> Imagine how the response (or non-response) may have been different if an >> open ended question had been asked (e.g., what took place in the customer >> side with the heat?). >> >> In the case of the actual questions that were asked, a "Yes" can lend >> itself to future contradiction. For example, "Oh, I must have >> misunderstood the question. Language differences. he, he, he" >> >> Jack >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:10 PM a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, you should read what Rossi actually said before making a >>> statement like that. Rossi said that the customer's process was >>> endothermic and the excess heat beyond that was vented. He didn't add how >>> much was by air or radiation and how much through cooling water going to >>> the drain. >>> >>> >>> On 8/14/2016 8:34 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: >>> >>> Daniel, >>> The main discussion we had in the last few days was about where the heat >>> is dumped. This is basic thermodynamics not sophisticated arguments about >>> Coulomb barrier shielding and so on. >>> Rossi claiming that the energy was used by chemical reactions and >>> therefore this why it didn't leave a thermal signature is bs. >>> Plain bs. No field of expertise needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> What field of expertise? This kind of argument is also used to "show" >>>> that cold fusion is bullshit. >>>> >>>> 2016-08-14 19:35 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>>> I have a PhD in Physics so I understand the basics of energy, >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
