> > Do you guys know about Iron Sky? > It does have themes interesting to this group as alternative energy > sources, anti-gravity and so on. It is a movie rendition of the well known > meme that Nazi escaped to the moon at the end of the second world war. It > is should be a pretty entertaining movie I think: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeAfoiN5SDw > > I plan to write a book on it called: > " The physics of Iron Sky". >
http://www.facebook.com/groups/physicsironsky/ > > Giovanni > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > Lots of good, and **rational**, skepticism going on today…**** > > ** ** > > Rossi’s failure to deliver is likely due to the lack of competent experts > in the required technologies (physics, engineering), and that is probably > due to his ego and/or paranoia of someone stealing his ‘secret sauce’. DGT > differs in that they have an appreciation for the complexity and > sophistication of the effort, and apparently hired the expertise needed.** > ** > > ** ** > > If Jones’ statements about “quiescence” are in fact what is happening, > and Rossi was aware of it, then the business decision to attempt a > commercial unit was a major error… he should have focused on solving that > problem prior to any commercial announcement… perhaps he was attempting a > ‘hail mary’, and betting that he could solve the problem before delivery, > but that decision has come back and bit him in the a$$... **** > > ** ** > > Also, I doubt that the quiescence problem can be solved by engineering… it > is likely due to the physics of the reaction and will require strong > scientific understanding to solve. Fortunately, Rossi has stoked the fires > of interest in LENR, and there are plenty of very competent scientists now > working on it.**** > > ** ** > > -m**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 24, 2012 8:22 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Rossi's Best Chance**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Energy Liberator: The issue I have with Rossi's device is the > high electricity demand required to start off the E-Cat …**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > You may recall that DGT uses a heat transfer fluid, not water. **** > > ** ** > > One can employ a reservoir of hot fluid for faster startup, and this bulk > reservoir can serve many units. Thus the need for electric input is > mollified.**** > > ** ** > > On vortex, a year ago we were suggesting that Rossi should do this (use a > dedicated heat transfer fluid), since one can store heat like this with a > low vapor pressure at high temperature, possible near or higher than the > threshold for startup. **** > > ** ** > > With water you cannot do this - YET Rossi still does not get it. This is > why he needs the strong engineering help that he is NOT getting. DGT almost > immediately picked up on this, which indicates that they are either > monitoring this forum or had come to the conclusion independently.**** > > ** ** > > Typically with other positive results in Ni-H, which have been openly > reported in the USA (Ahern) - the gain is in the form of a “temperature > inversion” in which there is (X) input and the output is a multiple – let’s > say it is 6*(X). **** > > ** ** > > Note that Ahern was getting only about 1.2(X) – that is: until recently > when we found a commercial nanopowder may have pushed the multiple way up > (Sorry the report of that advance is not ready for publication yet and > subject to many more runs). And thank Zeus that MY is not here to pounce on > this bit of delay in publication.**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, early on, the skeptics hit on this need for constant input very > hard - as being non-reconcilable with the claimed large gain, since after > startup, any large gain should eliminate the need for further input. They > are both right and wrong.**** > > ** ** > > They would be correct if there was steady gain over time in the reactor - > but this does not happen with a few grams of reactant ! The lack of steady > gain is part of the larger problem of “quiescence”. The active material > goes in and out gain-mode sequentially. (we have a possible QM explanation > for that oddity).**** > > ** ** > > Get it? **** > > ** ** > > I hope we do not have to re-convince the new-comers to Vo of the fact that > this need for some kind of “forced continuity” (or stable input power) is > indeed reconcilable with strong gain. **** > > ** ** > > It is part of the process and it is *new physics*. You will not find much > on this in current literature but I am prepared to defend it once again if > there are continuing doubts.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Energy Liberator **** > > ** ** > > The issue I have with Rossi's device is the high electricity demand > required to start off the E-Cat and the length of time required to get it > going and then the periodic electric demand to keep it going. In comparison > DGT's system seems draw much lower power to start up and starts much > faster. Do you think that's because DGT have a better / more efficient > heater or their reactor fuel has some catalyst that kick starts the > reaction faster. What sort of temperatures are required to start the > reaction? > > > On 24/01/12 15:27, Jones Beene wrote: **** > > Wolf,**** > > **** > > This comes under the category of ‘puffery’ and it probably relates to net > gain, if there is any truth to it. **** > > **** > > Obviously if one can achieve lots of heat without input – COP is infinite. > However, when you factor in the quiescent period and the startup delay then > the average over an extended period could be COP-6. **** > > **** > > In the case of DGT, they could be saying that COP=20 is the best gain ever > seen, and they may want to downplay the fact that the average over time, is > far less. **** > > **** > > We await real data, in either case.**** > > **** > > Jones**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** >
