Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes. I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. My interpretation of Levu's comment in Part 3 of the Krivit video is that the rate natually declines until after 15 minutes it was judged that steam production had ceased. Either way thermal inertia plays a role. You're really stretch credulity to ask me to believe you calculation shows only a few minutes is possible. My calculations do not show that only a few minutes is possible. My calculations show the decay time *for some assumed conditions*. *Under those conditions* only a very short time is possible. I explicitly stated this. I am providing a model to assist others in make such calculations based upon their own assumptions. It is important to keep in mind such an approach is purely hypothetical, but might shed some light on boundaries to the experimental conditions. You haven't set it up carefully enough, i.e. it is flawed. For one thing it would appear that more than 1 MJ would be stored in the case you discuss. I did not supply the 1 MJ number. It was suggested on this list. Further, I don't believe 1 MJ number is correct and never did. It is merely a *sample* assumption based on the postings of others, your postings perhaps. Your temperature seems low. The temperature is a result of the *assumptions*, specifically the assumption of a 1 MJ energy storage, and the assumed power input. I set up the the spread sheet so that temperature is specified and stored energy is computed, instead of vice versa as was done in the manual calc. below. I remember Rossi saying he was able to heat a working fluid to 450C so the thermal mass would seem to get hotter than that. Your calculation of time constant is clearly unacceptable as heat output cannot remain constant. Have you not heard of logarithmic decay curves? Their shape is based on a decay constant lambda, or half life, etc. Did you even read my post? The analysis, if done properly, leaves no doubt about the correct conclusion. To say its all off for a factor of 3 is laughable in my judgment, esp. when you've underestimated values and overestimated outout and failed to understand the decay of output. I don't think we have communicated. Please explain what the following comments, taken from my post quoted below by you, meant to you: My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume ... So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. Also it seems hydride formation probably explains any anomalous heat produced- that is if it can be determined that its produced and how much. So far this has been an enormous fiasco. The fiasco is due to the lack of data and credible measurement of run enthalpy. I should note that I posted a corrected version of this, August 28, 2011 1:06:32 PM AKDT, including reference to a spread sheet with multiple assumptions, but that post has not come back. I don't see it in the archive either. I will resubmit it. I made reference to it in the following post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg50819.html which includes an additional 15 sets of assumptions. The first spread sheet also had 15 assumptions: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf I also added calculations to take into account flow rate and water heating energy. BTW, if you don't like my assumed numbers feel free to tell me what your assumed numbers are for Mass, Thermal Power (before shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow. However, it should be self evident that the results can be made to look as you please by choice of assumptions. The required data is simply not available to make a determination. However, discussion based on quantitative analysis should be more meaningful than discussion based on personal feelings and arbitrary assumptions. At least some of
[Vo]:Re: Corrections to heat after death calculations
Second sending of this. First sent August 28, 2011 1:06:32 PM AKDT. On Aug 27, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Joe Catania wrote: For the umpteenth time it is not an assertion. The thermal mass of the reactor is about 1MJ (based on specific heat), the energy outflow is a mere fraction (~1kW). OK? There has been no demonstration that output is higher than inout. Steam quality is not measured, therma; inertia not accounted for. and there is Rizzi's determination that flow is over estimated. I hope I don't have to repeat these facts again. The source of heat in the 15 minutes is thermal inertia since it would account for all steam produced. Cold fusion is not indicated by what Levi has said. I have not seen the graphs you speak of and I'm not sure they are coincident with cutting the power but thermal inertia needs to be accounted for. So show me the data. And all I can say is one does not assume cold fusion to prove cold fusion. CF proof is totally elusive by the means exploited. Its more likely a flaw in technique of measurement. But if there is proof of anomalous heat it has eluded my detection so far. The properway to do the calorimetry is not with flow as I've detailed before. Levi said steam stopped after 15 minutes so it seems you need to get on the same page. My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume the story is correct and the device was outputting 5 kW as advertised. Let's also be generous with regard to mass, and assume it was equivalent to 20 kg of copper, and stored 1 MJ of energy as specified above. Using a heat capacity of copper, 0.385 J/(gm K), a 20 kg mass requires delta T = (10^6 J)/((0.385 J/(gm °C))*(2*10^4 gm)) = 130 °C to store the 1 MJ thermal energy. If we assume inlet temperature of 23°C then this is an absolute temperature of 153°C. The thermal mass, Cth, is given by: Cth = (0.385 J/(gm °C)*(2*10^4 gm) = 7700 J/°C Assume the device transfers 5 kW of output heat when the internal temperature is 153°C and inlet temperature is 23°C, i.e. delta T is 130°C. This gives a thermal resistance of R = (130°C)/(5^10^3 W) = 2.6x10^-2 °C/W. The decay time constant, tau, for the 1 MJ thermal mass, C, is is given by: tau = R*Cth = (2.6x10^-2 °C/W)*(7700 J/°C) = 200 s We now have the thermal decline curve: T(t) = T0 * e^-(t/tau) = (153 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) The problem now is, with a flow of 1.94 gm/s cold water, what is the minimum mass temperature that will permit heating of water to 100°C? THe water heating required to heat the water from 23°C to 100°C is: Pwater = (100°C - 23°C) * (1.94 gm/s) * (4.2 J/(gm °C)) = 627.4 W For the thermal mass to provide this minimum heat flow for steam, the mass temperature has to be: Tcrit = Cth * * Pwater + 100 = 116.3°C If we want steam to disappear at time t, then T(t) = 116.3°C. So: (116.3°C) = (153 °C) * 1/e^(t/tau) (t/tau) = ln((153°C) /(116.3 °C) t = ln((153°C) /(116.3 °C)) * (200.2 s) t = 54.9 s = .915 m So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. This is demonstrated more aptly by the following calculations: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal.pdf The above manual calculation is supported by the first row in the Mode 1 numbers. In addition, calculations are provided for other device masses in rows 2 and 3. Mode 2 demonstrates that this simple thermal mass flow model is inadequate to explain any steam in heat after death (without nuclear energy added) if the mass temp is assumed to be 300°C, because the Thermal Resistance necessary to explain normal operation is too high to permit boiling of the water at all. The assumed numbers are inconsistent. Mode 4 demonstrates that no nuclear energy is consistent with the assumptions provided the mass temperature is on the order of 1200°C, and the mass of the device is between 20 kg and 10 kg. Mode 5 shows that if the COP of the device is 1500/748 ~= 2, then the heat after death observed is consistent with 500°C mass temperature and a device mass of between 10 and 20 kg. Hopefully the above examples are correct (though greatly oversimplified) and useful to others for theorizing. A sensible analysis requires a detailed finite element analysis and more input data. We just have to wait until October to see what happens. I hope for the best. I hope we don't see non-credible delays and moving target
Re: [Vo]:a few + words re the 1MW DEMO plus IS No 470
Hi, On 29-8-2011 0:50, Alan Fletcher wrote: The Army version is Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. Tell 'em. Tell 'em what you told 'em. A good demo is like a good preach, I remember reading what a famous pastor told: “First, I tell them what I will say them in the preach. Then I say it. When finished, I explain them what I have told. Then, I sit down.” If I'm not mistaken this in the civil world also known as the tell-to-tell principle. B.t.w. it reminds me of an old saying which is allegedly be said by Confucius: Tell me and I forget, Show me and I remember, Involve me and I understand. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:a few + words re the 1MW DEMO plus IS No 470
Thank you I will search the Web for that principle. In the case of the October Test what is announced and claimed has to be in harmony with what happens and can be observed and with the post-factum explanations. Everything has to go as planned. Peter On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.comwrote: Hi, On 29-8-2011 0:50, Alan Fletcher wrote: The Army version is Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em. Tell 'em. Tell 'em what you told 'em. -- A good demo is like a good preach, I remember reading what a famous pastor told: “First, I tell them what I will say them in the preach. Then I say it. When finished, I explain them what I have told. Then, I sit down.” If I'm not mistaken this in the civil world also known as the tell-to-tell principle. B.t.w. it reminds me of an old saying which is allegedly be said by Confucius: Tell me and I forget, Show me and I remember, Involve me and I understand. Kind regards, MoB -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. Your exponential (not log) function is not correct as it does not allow for exponential decay in energy. There is no need to hash this out. My original presentation and conclusions are correct. Your calculations are not correct, nevertheless they do show 15 minutes is possible. There's nothing hypothetical about thermal inertia. Perhaps you are referring to your errant guesswork. We don't need to second guess mother nature. I mentioned ~ 1MJ not exactly 1 MJ and of course the amount will vary with mass, specific heat and temperature. The problem is that you used it without understanding it. This is not a plug-in. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes. I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. My interpretation of Levu's comment in Part 3 of the Krivit video is that the rate natually declines until after 15 minutes it was judged that steam production had ceased. Either way thermal inertia plays a role. You're really stretch credulity to ask me to believe you calculation shows only a few minutes is possible. My calculations do not show that only a few minutes is possible. My calculations show the decay time *for some assumed conditions*. *Under those conditions* only a very short time is possible. I explicitly stated this. I am providing a model to assist others in make such calculations based upon their own assumptions. It is important to keep in mind such an approach is purely hypothetical, but might shed some light on boundaries to the experimental conditions. You haven't set it up carefully enough, i.e. it is flawed. For one thing it would appear that more than 1 MJ would be stored in the case you discuss. I did not supply the 1 MJ number. It was suggested on this list. Further, I don't believe 1 MJ number is correct and never did. It is merely a *sample* assumption based on the postings of others, your postings perhaps. Your temperature seems low. The temperature is a result of the *assumptions*, specifically the assumption of a 1 MJ energy storage, and the assumed power input. I set up the the spread sheet so that temperature is specified and stored energy is computed, instead of vice versa as was done in the manual calc. below. I remember Rossi saying he was able to heat a working fluid to 450C so the thermal mass would seem to get hotter than that. Your calculation of time constant is clearly unacceptable as heat output cannot remain constant. Have you not heard of logarithmic decay curves? Their shape is based on a decay constant lambda, or half life, etc. Did you even read my post? The analysis, if done properly, leaves no doubt about the correct conclusion. To say its all off for a factor of 3 is laughable in my judgment, esp. when you've underestimated values and overestimated outout and failed to understand the decay of output. I don't think we have communicated. Please explain what the following comments, taken from my post quoted below by you, meant to you: My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume ... So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. Also it seems hydride formation probably explains any anomalous heat produced- that is if it can be determined that its produced and how much. So far this has been an enormous fiasco. The fiasco is due to the lack of data and credible measurement of run enthalpy. I should note that I
Re: [Vo]:heat after death at 3 liters per hour flow rate
The following calculations http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf show the thermal decline curve for the case: 5Mass (kg) 748 Thermal Power (w) for powered equilibrium 600 Mass Temp. (°C) at powered equilibrium = T0 1484.9 Thermal Decay Time Constant (s) = Tau taken from mode 3, line 3, of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf This demonstrates the cutoff occurs at the temperature at which all power is going to merely heating the water, with none left to boil the water. On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:24 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: In the Corrections to heat after death calculations I posted values assuming a flow rate of 7 liters per hour: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal.pdf However, Mattia Rizzi made a sound argument for a flow rate of 3 liters per hour, or about 0.83 g/s, for the Krivit demo, in his post: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg50685.html There is thus a good possibility this setting was used in other tests. If true then the feasibility of a 15 minute heat after death observation without any excess (nuclear) heat being provided looks far more feasible. See: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. Your exponential (not log) function is not correct as it does not allow for exponential decay in energy. That is correct - it is called an exponential decay function. I am an old guy with some memory problems. I forget simple words and sometimes it takes me a long time to write because I have to find the words. As anyone knows who has read my posts here for the last 15 years, I am also prone to clerical errors, arithmetic errors, and seldom get things right the first pass. However I wrote my first thermal transfer finite element code in the 1970's, so I am no stranger to these issues. You should note the function used/provided is correct, namely: T(t) = T0 * e^-(t/tau) There is no need to hash this out. There is no need to discuss Rossi at all, since there is insufficient data provided by him to determine anything. All such discussion is at best hypothetical, if not even based on obvious untruths. However, this has not stopped either you or Jed from repeatedly taking positions without foundation in fact. I think it is clear an analysis can rule out some assumption sets as self-inconsistent. That is more useful than repeated useless argument based on differing assumptions. My original presentation and conclusions are correct. Your calculations are not correct, nevertheless they do show 15 minutes is possible. There's nothing hypothetical about thermal inertia. Perhaps you are referring to your errant guesswork. We don't need to second guess mother nature. I mentioned ~ 1MJ not exactly 1 MJ and of course the amount will vary with mass, specific heat and temperature. The problem is that you used it without understanding it. This is not a plug-in. Again I say, if you don't like my assumed numbers feel free to tell me what your assumed numbers are for Mass, Thermal Power (before shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow. However, it should be self evident that the *results* can be made to look as you please by choice of assumptions. The required data is simply not available to make a determination. However, discussion based on quantitative analysis should be more meaningful than discussion based on personal feelings and arbitrary assumptions. At least some of the inconsistent assumptions might be ruled out. If you think I have arithmetic or analytical errors, calculation errors, please point them out specifically. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes. I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. My interpretation of Levu's comment in Part 3 of the Krivit video is that the rate natually declines until after 15 minutes it was judged that steam production had ceased. Either way thermal inertia plays a role. You're really stretch credulity to ask me to believe you calculation shows only a few minutes is possible. My calculations do not show that only a few minutes is possible. My calculations show the decay time *for some assumed conditions*. *Under those conditions* only a very short time is possible. I explicitly stated this. I am providing a model to assist others in make such calculations based upon their own assumptions. It is important to keep in mind such an approach is purely hypothetical, but might shed some light on boundaries to the experimental conditions. You haven't set it up carefully enough, i.e. it is flawed. For one thing it would appear that more than 1 MJ would be stored in the case you discuss. I did not supply the 1 MJ number. It was suggested on this list. Further, I don't believe 1 MJ number is correct and never did. It is merely a *sample* assumption based on the postings of others, your postings perhaps. Your temperature seems low. The temperature is a result of the *assumptions*, specifically the assumption of a 1 MJ energy storage, and the assumed power input. I set up the the spread sheet
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
Try to understand there is no way that the temperature can decay in only a few minutes. If you start with 1MJ and subtracted 1kJ/sec you'd get 1000sec. Now understand that we don't stay at 1kJ, we decrease in accordance with a decline in temperature. Nothing further is required since it is obvious that steam will be produced for more than 15 minutes. You have yet to acknowledge this. Listen to me, not to yourself. I've been hearing obvious nonsense like the temperature will decline very fast therefore steam will be produced for only a couple minutes. This is absurd. You need to take a more serious look at this. You have certainly rested on your 1970 laurels. Assumed numbers are meaningless. You do not proceed from first principles. I've already shown steam will be produced for over 15 minutes. I've said this many times. I will not consider your numbers since they are obviously flawed as well as you calculation. It is obvious to the most rank amateur that steam will be produced for over 15 minutes. Your errors have been pointed out. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 12:41 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations On Aug 29, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Joe Catania wrote: I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. Your exponential (not log) function is not correct as it does not allow for exponential decay in energy. That is correct - it is called an exponential decay function. I am an old guy with some memory problems. I forget simple words and sometimes it takes me a long time to write because I have to find the words. As anyone knows who has read my posts here for the last 15 years, I am also prone to clerical errors, arithmetic errors, and seldom get things right the first pass. However I wrote my first thermal transfer finite element code in the 1970's, so I am no stranger to these issues. You should note the function used/provided is correct, namely: T(t) = T0 * e^-(t/tau) There is no need to hash this out. There is no need to discuss Rossi at all, since there is insufficient data provided by him to determine anything. All such discussion is at best hypothetical, if not even based on obvious untruths. However, this has not stopped either you or Jed from repeatedly taking positions without foundation in fact. I think it is clear an analysis can rule out some assumption sets as self-inconsistent. That is more useful than repeated useless argument based on differing assumptions. My original presentation and conclusions are correct. Your calculations are not correct, nevertheless they do show 15 minutes is possible. There's nothing hypothetical about thermal inertia. Perhaps you are referring to your errant guesswork. We don't need to second guess mother nature. I mentioned ~ 1MJ not exactly 1 MJ and of course the amount will vary with mass, specific heat and temperature. The problem is that you used it without understanding it. This is not a plug-in. Again I say, if you don't like my assumed numbers feel free to tell me what your assumed numbers are for Mass, Thermal Power (before shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow. However, it should be self evident that the *results* can be made to look as you please by choice of assumptions. The required data is simply not available to make a determination. However, discussion based on quantitative analysis should be more meaningful than discussion based on personal feelings and arbitrary assumptions. At least some of the inconsistent assumptions might be ruled out. If you think I have arithmetic or analytical errors, calculation errors, please point them out specifically. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations On Aug 28, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Joe Catania wrote: No one to my knowledge is showing data that the heat after pulling the plug continues at the rate it had before power-off for a full 15 minutes. I can not see how the above remark is relevant in any way. Did you not see that I am providing the standard logarithmic decay function? The cutoff time for the logarithmic decay is intended to set a *boundary time* on when there is no more steam. If the temperature of the mass is below boiling point then it can not generate steam. My interpretation of Levu's comment in Part 3 of the Krivit video is that the rate natually
[Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
With October fast approaching, I have some easy questions: Where is Rossi right now? Where is his lab/factory that is producing E-cats for the 1MW test? Wouldn't it be easy for someone to follow him from his apartment to the factory? Give an address, count cars in the parking lot, etc? How many people are working in the factory/lab? Who is doing the hiring, engineering, plumbing, safety checks, security, office admin, etc? Has anyone seen help wanted ads from Rossi and/or Defkalion? (Clicking Job Positions on http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ leads to a 404 error.) What are some names and backgrounds of newly hired people working on the E-Cats? Nobody has a friend of a friend who is working this? No leaks by employees? Does this suggest military level secrecy? Seems like Rossi would be getting lots of offers to help work on his invention -- Do we know of anyone who is actually working along side Rossi? Assuming the 1MW reactor heats a flow of water by N degrees, how many liters/sec throughput would be expected where N is 10 to 80 degrees? Does this volume of cold water suggest he would be near a large body of water such as a lake or river? Or would waste heat go, as Defkalion said ...neighbour factories and other installations. One of these installations is Xanthi Police Academy. Does this sound plausible? Has anyone talked to the Xanthi Police Academy to see if they have a hot pipe leading to DGT working E-Cats? http://wikimapia.org/17980152/Police-academy Besides Piantelli, Forcardi and Rossi, has anyone proved or replicated the transmutation of Ni+H+Heat to other elements such as copper? I'd love to hear your responses.. Maybe a little sleuthing is required to get a little better picture of what we can expect in the next couple of months. Cheers, - Brad L
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
The Job Positions link on the main page seems to be working fine to me. What I cannot do is asking inquires to Defkalion since it asks me to refresh the page every time I type submit.
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
ecat builder wrote: With October fast approaching, I have some easy questions: Where is Rossi right now? Where is his lab/factory that is producing E-cats for the 1MW test? Wouldn't it be easy for someone to follow him from his apartment to the factory? Give an address, count cars in the parking lot, etc? How many people are working in the factory/lab? Who is doing the hiring, engineering, plumbing, safety checks, security, office admin, etc? Has anyone seen help wanted ads from Rossi and/or Defkalion? (Clicking Job Positions on http://www.defkalion-energy.com/ leads to a 404 error.) What are some names and backgrounds of newly hired people working on the E-Cats? . . . Unless you are a stockholder I don't see how this is any of your business. Technical issues such as the performance, specifications and safety of the eCat will have to be made public before the machines can be sold. Such things are your business. They are everyone's business. You cannot sell commercial products in the United States, the EU or Japan without telling people how they work and without first submitting them to safety regulatory agencies for testing and licensing. The questions here, however, have nothing to do with technical issues. They are just nosy. I wouldn't answer any of them if I were Rossi. - Jed
[Vo]:Steam : Temperature-Enthalpy Diagrammer
I've been working on a javascript program for generating Temperature-Enthalpy Diagrams. http://lenr.qumbu.com/jsxgraph_h.php Following NASA's diagram in Krivit's Appendix 9 the Enthalpy is scaled to kWh, for the given input flow. I've set it up so that I can draw a path on the diagram -- as shown, it goes up to boiling point at 1 atmosphere (actually, 1 bar), and then moves along the Quality line. I haven't put in the values for superheated steam yet. When I've got it working I'll add a form so one can enter an experiment and get a diagram.
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot sell commercial products in the United States, the EU or Japan without telling people how they work and without first submitting them to safety regulatory agencies for testing and licensing. In the US, approval will be required from the Underwriter's Laboratory, a private firm. I am presently working on a $40M ARRA Fire Protection Project which requires all equipment to be UL approved. Getting UL approval on a Rossi eCat will be a multi-year effort. I assume his client in the US is someone who does not require such approval. You can count those on the fingers of half a hand. T
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
What are those? 2011/8/29 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com Getting UL approval on a Rossi eCat will be a multi-year effort. I assume his client in the US is someone who does not require such approval. You can count those on the fingers of half a hand. T
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: What are those? Those what? Installations which require no UL approval? Come on, Rocha, you can figure that out. UL.com. T
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
Jed, I don't think it hurts to ask a few softball questions here in hopes that there is some insider information available. I don't expect Rossi to answer here. (Otherwise I'd write to his blog, which he is great about responding to people's non-confidential questions.) This is just standard gossip magazine level questions... People Magazine spends more time/money investigating Justin Bieber each week than I see being spent determining the extent of Rossi's $500T discovery. And pretty much every person on the planet may end up being financially impacted by such a discovery... Daniel, not sure why, but I get a clicking Job Positions on http://defkalion-energy.com/ goes to http://defkalion-energy.com/job-position which is a 404. Again, not my business that the web site has problems, but does seem like having a working site would lead to better hiring, PR, corporate communications, etc. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
No, I cannot figure out. I am not completely with everything from USA.
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
*completely familiar
[Vo]:666 pancake spiral system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgPnLkOLvWU 666 pancake spiral system using Radio Shack MegaCable speaker wire spools. To gain a concept of what distortion of time means in a practical sense we can make a vector drawing of all three internal voltage rises (approximation of those drawn vectors shown near beginning of video) where these vectors start from a common point. To find the acting phase angles between each voltage rise we then measure the difference of voltages BETWEEN each voltage rise. If no time distortion is taking place, the delta V(i) quantities will form the outside voltage quantities as a triangle around the three inner vectors as rays having a common origin point as shown in the drawing. Stopping the video at 7:55 and applying the law of cosines we find the V(i) voltages between (1-2) indicates a 118 degree phase angle and (2-3) shows 126.4 degrees, but (1-3) shows only 15.6 degrees. About 100 degrees are missing in the time circle, so the flat diagram will not suffice to show that aspect. But if we instead cut a 100 degree piece of pie out of the vector diagram; and fold the diagram into a cone to account for the missing time portion, then the outer voltage differences will be in correct measurement as periphery measurements, but now they will be curved and 2D flat plane vectors cannot be used, instead 3D vectors must be employed: thus this is the easiest analogy to explain the issuance of the curvature of space time caused by torsional or twisting magnetic fields caused by the circular placement of the coil segments in series and interacted to the fullest degree of mutual inductance between those phases themselves separated by time. In this experiment the circling of the seriesed phase segments for interaction of mutual inductance between phasings was made in the same direction as the phase rotation, but in the original 666 machine made using coils with far less mutual inductance, the circling of series phase segments was made AGAINST the phase rotation, and instead of the time circle being contracted; it was instead expanded. This expansion % wise corresponded to the % rise of inductive reactance accomplished by the mutual inductance between phasings; in that case about 10%. This machine exibited about a 30% increase of inductance by mutual inductance, and also showed about a 30% amount of time distortion, but it was a contraction instead of an expansion. The next experiment will be to rewire the phase segments so that they instead oppose the phase rotation, instead of being in agreement with it. Sincerely HDN Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
[Vo]:666 machine records.
666 pancake coil system/ pt 1 First of all let me recount what the 666 machine is all about; from records placed on flicker; 666 coil system with pancake coil secondaries (the system is shown using 10-11 mh coils of 500 ft spools of 14 gauge wire; using 3 stacks of three in a circle,with all three phases interwoven in a spiral series of wiring using three coils in series for each phase of the three phase car alternator driven at constant 465 hz. The advancement here will consist of reconstructing that system using only pancake coil segments of four winds in magnetic agreement;(shown as secondaries in the flicker jpeg) for a total also of nine units. The geometry of the shown 500 ft spools means that only 10% of effects are made by mutual inductance between phasings, however constructing the system using these type of pancake spiral geometries means that we expect 100% mutual induction/ hence the importance of this construction) http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/5495252846/ We have classified the 666 machine as a nine coil system using six polar reaction areas, given six options for polarity, where all the options are set at one sixth of a cycle, hence it produces the effects that a six phase system could deliver. Ordinarily we would not suppose that a six phase system can accomplish effects that a strict interpretation of the three phase system could not itself accomplish if instead the cycle separation time at the polar interaction areas were instead set at one third of a cycle or 120 degrees..., however this is untrue in light of the fact that the three phase system can not produce Lenz Law effects by mutual induction between phasings whereby that voltage component with relation to the phasal line connections and phase rotation will always arrive BEHIND that rotation, or be lagging it. Instead the 666 machine allows that component to arrive AHEAD of the phase rotation. This in turn causes more voltage to appear on the interphasal outputs then the components it is sourced from. Ordinarily when we react pancake coils together, if we are studying just the the lenz law effects, we find that the inductive reactance of the sender is cut in half,(because of complete mutual inductance coupling) and the increased current we find on that phase from former condition tested in isolation also appears on its secondary pancake coil. If we study the same effect where each phase is 120 degrees apart in time, we also find an reduction of o inductive reactance due to that contribution made by lenz law. If we then study the system when it is constructed to be only 60 degrees out of phase, we do then find that the inductive reactance has been increased by mutual induction, but not by the same margin as the opposite situation where it was instead decreased. Essentially in a machine whereby the reactance increase was made to be expanded, we also found a simultaneous identical % wise expansion of time between the generated resonant potentials. In the first tested case that was 10%, generating a 10% expansion of time. With the pancake coils we may expect a 50% increase. With a 50% increase of time distortion effects, this might mean that for every volt measured as the component vector sources, instead of two volts being present between those potentials measured in time when they were completely opposite, if that 50% increase of reactance could also manifest itself with a concurrent identical time distortion, then we might suspect that it would be possible to measure 3 volts between two one volt potentials, a 50% increase of the value 1+1. Hence again the concept of making a machine whereby it acts as if 1+1=3. If this is truly possible then we have made a machine whereby instead of only two opposites in time exist, three will instead exist in its place.) HDN Scoping Evidence of Advanced Phase Rotation in 666 machine Sun Aug 14, 2011 If we have a clock whereby the minute hand rotates 12 times faster then the hour hand; and then we look at the points of time when both hands are in simultaneous positions, we find that this happens six times in six hours and 33 minutes, leaving only 5 hours and 27 minutes for the remaining points of simultaneous appearance. During the longer portion of time the phase rotation is aiding the source voltage, and in the shorter time period of the total cycle it is opposing it. The net result of this is to obtain more voltage between points of voltage reference in time; then the sum of those components themselves. http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/5722415153/ vecsub First 40 ms of 100 ms sweep showing advanced phase rotation vector opposing source voltage. Addition of source and resonant voltage rises on two channel observation. Taken from youtu.be/USLqK59o-ec http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/5722415123/ vecadd1 After the advanced phase rotation has finished opposing the source resonant voltage, it begins to aid it, shown at 60 ms of sweep. Addition of source and resonant voltage rises on
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
Brad wrote: «People Magazine spends more time/money investigating Justin Bieber each week than I see being spent determining the extent of Rossi's $500T discovery. And pretty much every person on the planet may end up being financially impacted by such a discovery...» This is all the reason why Rossi wants to tarnish his own reputation by creating dubious demonstrations and acting like a paranoid lunatic fearing evil snakes who want to tarnish his reputation and steal the technology! I am now 98% sure that Rossi invited Krivit to Bologna to see a dummy E-Cat, so that he would tarnish Rossi's reputation by making 201 page special issue on debunking E-Cat. It was quite successful antivenin against mass media attention. —Jouni
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
Hi, On 30-8-2011 0:39, Daniel Rocha wrote: What are those? 2011/8/29 Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com Getting UL approval on a Rossi eCat will be a multi-year effort. I assume his client in the US is someone who does not require such approval. You can count those on the fingers of half a hand. I suggest, think which bodies can write their own standards and specs; there are not that many who have can. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Try to understand there is no way that the temperature can decay in only a few minutes. If you start with 1MJ and subtracted 1kJ/sec you'd get 1000sec. This is woefully wrong on two counts, (a) the 1 MJ number is a wild guess on your part and probably wrong, way too high, and (b) you can not simply subtract 1 kJ/sec until reaching zero, even if that is the thermal demand at some point. There is flowing water coming in at 23° C or thereabouts. The temperature required to warm that water up to 100°C is substantially above 100°C, as I have clearly shown: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg50831.html http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf For example, note in the above pdf, to which I have added a Stored Energy column, that even though the initial stored energy is 1.11 MJ, that steam generation stops when stored energy is 0.5467 MJ. All the 1.11 MJ is thus *not available* to generate steam. Note in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf Mode 3, line 3, that, given all the assumptions in that line, a minimum mass temperature of 307°C is required to heat the incoming water to 100°C. This is due to a need to be consistent with the Thermal Resistance that is required by the assumptions. This is in part what I mean when I say this kind of model can iron out internal inconsistencies in the choice of input parameters. Now understand that we don't stay at 1kJ, we decrease in accordance with a decline in temperature. Yes, I provided a thermal decline curve, and, for your convenience I added a column providing the the Thermal Energy of the mass by time: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf Nothing further is required since it is obvious that steam will be produced for more than 15 minutes. The only thing obvious to me is that your conclusion is based on an over simplistic and erroneous analysis, and is also based on an assumption without a good foundation. You have yet to acknowledge this. Listen to me, not to yourself. I've been hearing obvious nonsense like the temperature will decline very fast therefore steam will be produced for only a couple minutes. This is absurd. Again, this assertion of less than 2 minute decay was based on one of 30 assumption data sets I have provided. I did not supply the 1 MJ number. It was suggested on this list. Further, I don't believe the 1 MJ number is correct and never did. It is merely a *sample* assumption for the sake of discussion based on the postings of others, your postings perhaps. Again, I don't think we have communicated. Please explain what the following comments, taken from my post and quoted by you, meant to you: My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume ... So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. What do you think my statements, quoted above, mean? Do you think they mean I am asserting the device mass stores a MJ of energy? Do you think I am asserting therefore there is a 2 minute time limit until no steam? This is not what this means at all. In fact I explicitly stated why that calculation was provided. Your straw man argument simply is not valid. Again I say, if you don't like my assumed numbers feel free to tell me what your assumed numbers are for Mass, Thermal Power (before shutoff), Inlet Temp., Mass Temp., and Inlet Flow. However, it should be self evident that the results can be made to look as you please with regard to decay time, by choice of assumptions. The required data is simply not available to make a true determination of decay time. That said, discussion based on quantitative analysis should be more meaningful than discussion based on personal feelings and arbitrary assumptions. At least some of the inconsistent assumptions might be ruled out. You need to take a more serious look at this. I'll gladly do this. You have certainly rested on your 1970 laurels. I would not say that I am resting. 8^) I do tend to take daily afternoon naps though! 8^) Assumed numbers are meaningless. My point exactly. You do not proceed from first principles. This is what I have done, proceed from basic principles with regard to analysis, even though the model is simplistic. Your mental model, however, is even more simplistic, to the point of arriving at
[Vo]:Law of Cosines/666 Coil System Voltage Outputs
(From records) 666 Coil System Voltage Outputs http://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/5495059320/ An average 13 some volts is internally made by resonant rise of voltage,(Vi) from the lowest possible input of ~1 volt stator obtained in unenergized field. On (1-2) 25.2 volts is obtained between 1Vi= 13.9 volts and 2vi= 13.2 volts. The phase angle by the law of cos is the sum of the squares of the component vi values minus the square of the interphasal voltage/ all divided by twice the multiplication of the component vi values; which then gives the cos of the phase angle. To find the actual phase angle we take the inverse cos function and multiply by 360 degrees/2pi radians.[13.9^2+13.2^2-25.2^2]/(2*13.9*13.2) =-.729 ;cos^-1 (-.729)*(360/6.28)= 136.9 degrees. For (1-3) we find cos^-1(-.719) yeilds a 136 degree phase angle. Finally (2-3) yields cos^-1=-.485 equating to 119.1 degrees. Extra time has appeared on both (1-2) and(1-3) voltage differences in time, with a total phase angle difference of 392 degrees;~10% extra time. Coincidentally the 666 machine achieves 10% increase in inductive reactance by aquisition of mutual inductance by using 6 polar interaction zones interacted at 1/6th a cycle for a 6 phase effect; where employment of a 3 phase effect in these magnetic interactions between phasings will always yield the stronger opposite effect of instead decreasing the inductive reactance, and thus the possible q factor determined by X(L)/R should be diminished for the 3 phase example employing mutual inductance between phasings. Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
In order to walk you must first crawl. If you can't understand what I written you will never make the required progress. Yes you can model what I'm talking about mathematically. You just don't have the patience, are incompetent or are plain ignorant. 1MJ is not a wild guess. Even if it was it would not be wrong. You are the one insisting on numbers for illustrative purposes. If you can't see a line then you aren't going to be able to see a line drawing. Yes you can simply subtract 1000 from one million as many times as you like. We aren't discussing water flow. There is 1MJ only and a certain amount of cooling. If we assume 1kW steady then we produce 1kW steam for 1000 seconds. It makes me laugh that you aren't able to see that esp. when you told me that 5kW steady was your assumption. You're calculation involving 1.11MJ is unacceptable. Now your telling me 1 MJ is ok? You're nuts. To say .5467MJ is not available to form steam is wishful thinking only. Nevertheless it does not mean steam will not be produced for 15 minutes. Since your result is in conflict with this it is wrong. You need to start again. A good place to begin is with a steady 1000J decrement from 1MJ per sec. If you can solve that you may be ready to proceed to non-steady cooling. - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Joe Catania wrote: Try to understand there is no way that the temperature can decay in only a few minutes. If you start with 1MJ and subtracted 1kJ/sec you'd get 1000sec. This is woefully wrong on two counts, (a) the 1 MJ number is a wild guess on your part and probably wrong, way too high, and (b) you can not simply subtract 1 kJ/sec until reaching zero, even if that is the thermal demand at some point. There is flowing water coming in at 23°C or thereabouts. The temperature required to warm that water up to 100°C is substantially above 100°C, as I have clearly shown: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg50831.html http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf For example, note in the above pdf, to which I have added a Stored Energy column, that even though the initial stored energy is 1.11 MJ, that steam generation stops when stored energy is 0.5467 MJ. All the 1.11 MJ is thus *not available* to generate steam. Note in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiThermal2.pdf Mode 3, line 3, that, given all the assumptions in that line, a minimum mass temperature of 307°C is required to heat the incoming water to 100°C. This is due to a need to be consistent with the Thermal Resistance that is required by the assumptions. This is in part what I mean when I say this kind of model can iron out internal inconsistencies in the choice of input parameters. Now understand that we don't stay at 1kJ, we decrease in accordance with a decline in temperature. Yes, I provided a thermal decline curve, and, for your convenience I added a column providing the the Thermal Energy of the mass by time: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DecayCurve1.pdf Nothing further is required since it is obvious that steam will be produced for more than 15 minutes. The only thing obvious to me is that your conclusion is based on an over simplistic and erroneous analysis, and is also based on an assumption without a good foundation. You have yet to acknowledge this. Listen to me, not to yourself. I've been hearing obvious nonsense like the temperature will decline very fast therefore steam will be produced for only a couple minutes. This is absurd. Again, this assertion of less than 2 minute decay was based on one of 30 assumption data sets I have provided. I did not supply the 1 MJ number. It was suggested on this list. Further, I don't believe the 1 MJ number is correct and never did. It is merely a *sample* assumption for the sake of discussion based on the postings of others, your postings perhaps. Again, I don't think we have communicated. Please explain what the following comments, taken from my post and quoted by you, meant to you: My two cents on this is it is a typical one of a kind anecdote - with no solid measurements to back it up. We don't really know if the device was initially outputting 5000 W or just the input wattage, for example. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume ... So, if all is as assumed above (very unlikely!) the device should not be able to output steam for 15 minutes, or even more than 2 minutes, unless a source of heat was present after the power was cut off. The problem is we just do not have enough data to make the above calculation credibly. This is not a new kind of problem with regard to the E-Cat. What do you think my statements, quoted above, mean? Do
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: You cannot sell commercial products in the United States, the EU or Japan without telling people how they work and without first submitting them to safety regulatory agencies for testing and licensing. In the US, approval will be required from the Underwriter's Laboratory, a private firm. Them too. I had in mind government regulatory agencies, but UL approval is also required de facto. Strictly speaking, I believe it is legal to sell a product without UL approval, but no wholesale or retail supplier would think of stocking it. You could not install an unapproved appliance in a house or building and have it pass code. The building inspectors would see it is not on their approved list and would not let anyone occupy the building. UL is private organization because its original purpose (still ongoing) is to provide standards and information to the insurance companies (underwriters). They want to know if it is safe to write a policy on your house, or whether Wall-mart can sell an electric fan and not get sued because it electrocutes a customer or causes a fire. They will have to test many commercial prototype Rossi devices, extensively, before they can make that determination. Also, as I have pointed out here, I have seen the UL application forms. Another cold fusion researcher once got them, and consulted with Gene Mallove about it. You have to tell them exactly what every single component and material in the device is, and where you purchased the raw materials. You cannot say there is a powder made of nickel and two other mystery elements which is a trade secret. They will want to know to the nearest 0.01% what the other two elements are. They will want test samples of the powder for toxicity and fire hazard. So will a dozen federal agencies. Maybe 50 state agencies would too; I do not know know how that works. In the 21st century, trade secrets based on keeping the physical content secret are simply not allowed. Getting UL approval on a Rossi eCat will be a multi-year effort. Yup. I assume his client in the US is someone who does not require such approval. You can count those on the fingers of half a hand. All friends of Uncle Sam. However, you could probably sell a few thousand machines in the U.S. to various laboratories that will not use them for commercial purposes. I mean national labs, university and corporate labs. They are allowed to install and use experimental equipment that has not passed UL or other safety inspections. They have many cold fusion reactors now, none of which has passed inspection. Some of them are dangerous, in my opinion. Plus as I said, you would have to prepare dozens of devices for UL and various agencies, and 50 more if individual states got involved. The UL and the agencies do not pay you for the prototypes. On the contrary, they charge you a ton of money to do the tests and issue the UL Approval. As they should, of course. Some people here have said it is a shame that regulators and safety inspections may delay the introduction of cold fusion. I think it is certain they will delay this, and getting these inspections will surely costs hundreds of millions of dollars to the companies the manufacture the devices. I think it is a shame that it will be delayed. But I have read the history of commerce, and I know what it was like in the bad old days before we had strict standards, inspections, the UL and the rest. You wouldn't want to go back to that world. People have romantic notions about how great things were before the modern red tape and millions of pages of regulations about every product in sight were issued. Especially nowadays Republican politicians wax nostalgic about it. There are people, for example, who complain that we are not free to drink un-pasteurized milk. Two things: 1. They are wrong. You can buy it at some health food stores, including one near my house. 2. That's a good way to get severe food poisoning, which is sometimes bad enough to permanently destroy your health, or even kill you. My great-grandmother's memoirs describe one of her babies who died from un-pasteurized milk around 1906. Milk was not pasteurized in New York City until 1917, thanks to opposition by the dairy industry. From the 1860s pasteurization to that time, hundreds of thousands of babies, small children and some adults perished from this. There have always been loads of red tape and regulations, albeit not as effective as modern ones. In the 18th and 19th centuries an inn could stack 2 or 3 people to a bed, but the amount of money they charged per night and the content and weight of the meals they served were strictly regulated. Uniform, dull, bad tasting, bad-for-you, regulated American road food was invented 250 years before MacDonald's was founded. In Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, carpenters and builders had to meet strict standards when constructing houses and barns or they would be run out of town on a rail
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Them too. I had in mind government regulatory agencies, but UL approval is also required de facto. There is also Factory Mutual; however, my experience is that they are even more stringent. Then again, there are the restrictions in San Francisco and Chicago, two cities who have experienced, er, flaming renewals. Their AHJ's (Authority Having Jurisdiction) can require special testing beyond UL, FMC and CSA (the Canadian tester). There are customers who are not necessarily friends of Uncle Sam. Applications exist whereby the threat to life and property is irrelevant; but, while being commercial, their market is limited. These can include utilities and operations whose exposure levels are self insured. Banks and insurance companies rule he world. T
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
My guess on what's going on is something similar to Dean Kamen's 1kW water purifier which will use any fuel including animal dung to provide electricity by night and potable water by day using his Stirling engine. Rossi mentioned the US partner wanted to use his invention for humanitarian reasons. This would fit in nicely with people like Kamen, the Gates Foundation and even Serge and Larry to provide improvements in the life of the third world. In these countries, many lives could be saved daily with his energy source. Safety and regulatory issues be damned. If you were Steve Jobs, isn't this the type of legacy you would want to leave: iDie vs. iLive? Apple has more money than the US government. T
Re: [Vo]:Where's Rossi and other simple questions...
Oh, I forgot to mention that the agreement with DGT would have to be negated in order to Save the Third World. They owned the rights according to what we have read. Not a bad choice, IMO. It would eventually propagate to US and Europe after the $2T (or more) of oil is pumped out of the ground, a prerequisite for any new energy technology to succeed. T
Re: [Vo]:Corrections to heat after death calculations
On Aug 29, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Joe Catania wrote: [snip ad hominem and continued mistakes] We aren't discussing water flow. [snip ad hominem and continued mistakes] Of course we are discussing water flow. The device had water pumped into it at a constant rate. If you chose to ignore that then you chose to ignore reality. Looking back, I do see that you simply chose to ignore reality in your discussion with Jed. Joe On Aug 26, 2011, at 5:37 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Joe Catania wrote: No, its not out of the question at all. Since we don't know the flow rate of water (whether its flowing or not) and since it isn't particularly relevant I neglect it. The water is always flowing. This is a flow calorimeter. It is completely unrealistic to suppose that you can boil water in device this size, save up heat in metal, and then continue boiling at any observable rate for more than a few seconds after the power goes off. That is out of the question. The temperature of the metal would be far above the melting point. The metal would be incandescent. - Jed Instead of talking imaginary things I suggest a quantitative analysis to see what kinds of numbers make sense. I have taken no position on the reality of input t this point except to say it looks to me that 1 MJ of stored energy seems to be too high to be real. Still, I ran some numbers that support that proposition. Applying logic to a proposition is *not* accepting the proposition as true. The statement: If x then y is not the same as: x is true. It merely provides the opportunity to examine y to see if it is feasibly true. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
