Why is relevant?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> wrote: > so I have a good memory or not? > can you answer? > peter > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < > gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> And? >> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >
