date:20160515

Craig and Alain--

Mutagenic changes in gene cells are not always corrected in the egg cells of 
females nor in the sperm cell of males.  However damaged egg cells are more 
likely because they stay vital for many years, sometimes a much as 60 years in 
humans.  If an egg cell  incurs a mutagenic change that is not fixed, (and that 
happens) the mutation is passed on to future generations if the off spring is 
vital.  Most such mutations cause some sort of health effect, including more 
susceptibility to cancer.  

It was shown that the effects of tritium on vole populations around Chernobyl 
suffered such mutations as a result of very low concentrations of tritium.  
Tritium is an insidious  radiologic contaminant because it becomes incorporated 
in all cells, including DNA.  It’s low beta energy, 18 KEV, deposits nearly all 
its energy in a short distance—about 6 microns.  This is about the size of a 
cell nucleus.  The likelihood of mutations that do not kill the cell is high.  

The vole population demonstrated that significant mutations did occur in the 
populations around Chernobyl that were passed on to subsequent generations.  
The live of a vole is short and the potential for any egg cell being damaged is 
much lower than it may be in humans, maybe thirty times less likely.  The 
models for mutation in single strand DNA as occurs in egg cells and their 
repair is significantly different than for a regular cell that carries the male 
and the female’s DNA.  There is no apparent lower threshold for egg cell 
mutations that can be passed on to future generations of off spring and many 
subsequent individuals.  The problem is significant for small breeding 
populations of people, for example various indigenous folks.

Bob Cook

From: Alain Sepeda 
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 3:03 PM
To: Vortex List 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

to be clear it is long ago proven that hormesis is real, thet there is 
structural threshold in genotoxic effects, ... 

As much as LENR is long time measured, ormesis and threshold are measured.
much meter tha Rossi's calorimetry.

every 6 month someone say that we have at last found that, and nobody cares...
we are unders propaganda war , and this is hopeless.


there is no epidemiology, nor biological tknowledge on cancerogenesis and 
genotoxicity that makes that result surpsing.


latest I caught is
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160316085015.htm

but there are papers since decades on that.

LLNT is a joke, but news and politics are full of joke.

2016-05-13 15:37 GMT+02:00 Chris Zell :

  I agree.  There is too much assumption that harm created by pollution or 
radiation is perfectly linear, down to tiny amounts.  There doesn't seem to be 
any allowance for hormesis.   And, yes, I own solar panels.


  -Original Message-
  From: a.ashfield [mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net]
  Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:58 PM
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Cheap Solar Power (harvard.edu)

  Jed,

  I think the numbers killed by power plants, at least in the US,are very 
flakey.
  Likewise the number skilled by particulates from indoor cooking relies on 
models that are probably as bad as IPCC's models of global warming.
  I'm not interested enough to spend the time it would take to prove it.

  I'll believe photo voltaic power is cheaper when I actually see it. For 
lighting with a cheap system remember the sun goes away when it gets dark.

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

a.ashfield  wrote:

> I have experience of ~90 glass melting furnaces ranging from 4 - 450 T/day.
> The electrically heated ones were quite cool because the superstructure is
> not hot.  The gas fired ones use ~4 million BTU per ton so a 250 t/day
> melter would use the equivalent of 12208 KW.   The glass is heated to
> ~1500C, a very different story to Rossi's 110C, yet people worked all
> around them in the same building.
>

In ship engine rooms, people work right next to 52 MW Diesel engines. These
are enclosed spaces. But they have lots of ventilation. If there was a
large ventilation fan in the Rossi shipping container and another in the
room, 1 MW would be plausible. But nothing like that is shown in the photos.

I would expect you could put your hand on an electric water heater like the
> 350 KW one Stephen Cooke linked earlier, or on a 250 KW E-Cat.
>

Maybe, but you would not want to be in shipping container with three of
them!

> So, if you quoted him correctly, the HVAC engineer with whom you consulted
> got it wrong.
>

That was back when he was working with 50 units. However, the lawsuit
mentions something about 52 units, so perhaps the 1-year test is also with
50 units. If there are only 4, the heat transfer may be more efficient, and
there will be fewer exposed pipes.

> Rossi stated he used the four 250 KW E-Cats the whole time.
>

I think the lawsuit said otherwise but I'm not sure.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

2016-05-15 Thread a.ashfield


Jed,

I have experience of ~90 glass melting furnaces ranging from 4 - 450 
T/day.The electrically heated ones were quite cool because the 
superstructure is not hot.The gas fired ones use ~4 million BTU per ton 
so a 250 t/day melter would use the equivalent of 12208 KW.The glass is 
heated to ~1500C, a very different story to Rossi's 110C, yet people 
worked all around them in the same building. I would expect you could 
put your hand on an electric water heater like the 350 KW one Stephen 
Cooke linked earlier, or on a 250 KW E-Cat.So, if you quoted him 
correctly, the HVAC engineer with whom you consulted got it wrong.


Rossi stated he used the four 250 KW E-Cats the whole time.You can see a 
picture of Rossi with a stethoscope on one of them on his web page of 
photos.The other small units were on standby and never used


If I recall the main breaker supplying the building was nowhere big 
enough to provide 1 MW so it would have been impossible to get the 
claimed output with a COP of 1.

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

2016-05-15 Thread Robert Dorr

Jed,

They may have been 20KW. I found a link that indicates that he did
indeed switch from the smaller e-cats to the 250KW units. The URL is
"http://hydrofusion.com/news/e-cat-third-quarter-developments-2015";

The main quote is:

"Built-in Redundancy

In the first week of August, 2015, Rossi officially announced that
the 1MW plant had built-in redundancy. The original E-Cat system is
combined with the four 250 KW reactors he had perfected earlier in
the year. This increases the safety margins significantly, and will
figure greatly in the successful long-term test that is scheduled to
end sometime in the first quarter of 2016. The large E-Cats, which
Rossi calls Tigers, are the main source of power, and the smaller
versions are for backup. Rossi gives a great deal of detail about the
plant, stating that it is designed to continue running even if one of
the main units is offline for maintenance, without having to resort
to using the backup power. This provides, in effect, a double back-up
for the production of power."

Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR

At 01:17 PM 5/15/2016, you wrote:

Okay, here are the specs for these boilers:

file:///home/chronos/u-1160197d37ec1500e70f021620dd3bae3f09f41c/Downloads/DR_Electric%20Steam%20Boiler_Nov10.pdf

The models S242 and CR242 are both 420 kW.

The dimensions for both are listed in inches: 43" L x 58" W x 78" H

That's 1 m x 1.5 m x 2 m

I think you could fit two of these in the shipping container.
However, if you fired them both up, the heat would be intolerable. I
expect the heat transfer efficiency of these units is better than
the small square boxes in Rossi's device, so there would be less waste heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Hi Jed, 

I understood that he did indeed have 4 250 kW units in the container which he 
used for the test. The older 50 or so smaller units were also in the container 
as back up units but were never used in 1 year test, only the 250 W units were 
used apparently.

There are pictures I think on his website where you can see them, and you can 
also see their specifications on that site I think. 

Stephen

> On 15 mei 2016, at 22:47, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Robert Dorr  wrote:
>  
>> Didn't Rossi switch from the small square 10kw boxes you refer to, to 4 
>> 250kw units.
> 
> I think there are 50 boxes in the latest unit, so that's 20 kW per box = 
> 1,000 kW.
> 
> - Jed
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Robert Dorr  wrote:


> Didn't Rossi switch from the small square 10kw boxes you refer to, to 4
> 250kw units.


I think there are 50 boxes in the latest unit, so that's 20 kW per box =
1,000 kW.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

2016-05-15 Thread Robert Dorr



Jed,

Didn't Rossi switch from the small square 10kw boxes you refer to, to 
4 250kw units.


Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR


At 01:17 PM 5/15/2016, you wrote:

Okay, here are the specs for these boilers:

file:///home/chronos/u-1160197d37ec1500e70f021620dd3bae3f09f41c/Downloads/DR_Electric%20Steam%20Boiler_Nov10.pdf

The models S242 and CR242 are both 420 kW.

The dimensions for both are listed in inches: 43" L x 58" W x 78" H

That's 1 m x 1.5 m x 2 m

I think you could fit two of these in the shipping container. 
However, if you fired them both up, the heat would be intolerable. I 
expect the heat transfer efficiency of these units is better than 
the small square boxes in Rossi's device, so there would be less waste heat.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Okay, here are the specs for these boilers:

file:///home/chronos/u-1160197d37ec1500e70f021620dd3bae3f09f41c/Downloads/DR_Electric%20Steam%20Boiler_Nov10.pdf

The models S242 and CR242 are both 420 kW.

The dimensions for both are listed in inches: 43" L x 58" W x 78" H

That's 1 m x 1.5 m x 2 m

I think you could fit two of these in the shipping container. However, if
you fired them both up, the heat would be intolerable. I expect the heat
transfer efficiency of these units is better than the small square boxes in
Rossi's device, so there would be less waste heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Thanks Eric. 

From the specs I got the impression it was about 1 sq m (30x30x60 inches) but 
perhaps it was a component as it looks bigger in your picture. Still should fit 
in a container though. More interesting to me was the data about efficiency.

I wish there was an HVAC engineer who has worked with electric boilers on 
Vortex who could clarify. I would just like to understand what are the real 
constraints without perhaps incorrect speculation.

Stephen

> On 15 mei 2016, at 20:50, Eric Walker  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Stephen Cooke  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/Products-and-Solutions/Boilers/Electric/Model-IWH/Index.aspx
>> 
>> Would this not be equivalent to a 250 kW ecat unit?
> 
> The max is 350 kW.  Here is an image with a person to show the scale:
> 
> http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/uploadedImages/Internet_Content/Products_and_Solutions/Boilers/Electric/Model_IWH/PIX_Electric-IWH_03_401x329.jpg
> 
> The argument by the HVAC fellow about Rossi burning himself up in the 
> shipping container is a very interesting one.  But there are too few details 
> about the actual setup for me, personally, to draw any hard and fast 
> conclusions.  Maybe a second opinion would help, with someone playing devil's 
> advocate to poke at the expert's assumptions.
> 
> Eric
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

2016-05-15 Thread Eric Walker

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Stephen Cooke 
wrote:

http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/Products-and-Solutions/Boilers/Electric/Model-IWH/Index.aspx
>
> Would this not be equivalent to a 250 kW ecat unit?
>

The max is 350 kW.  Here is an image with a person to show the scale:

http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/uploadedImages/Internet_Content/Products_and_Solutions/Boilers/Electric/Model_IWH/PIX_Electric-IWH_03_401x329.jpg

The argument by the HVAC fellow about Rossi burning himself up in the
shipping container is a very interesting one.  But there are too few
details about the actual setup for me, personally, to draw any hard and
fast conclusions.  Maybe a second opinion would help, with someone playing
devil's advocate to poke at the expert's assumptions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Hello Jed,

I'm clearly no expert and do not claim to be but there are interesting examples 
of electrical boilers on the Internet.

Here is an interesting link to a electrical water heater that seems comparable 
to an e-cat unit. 

http://www.cleaverbrooks.com/Products-and-Solutions/Boilers/Electric/Model-IWH/Index.aspx

Would this not be equivalent to a 250 kW ecat unit?

Please take a look at the electric brochure and electric boiler book

If I'm not wrong this unit is rated to 360 kW, is between 30x30x36 inches and 
60x34x40 inches in size (sorry metric sizes not given) not including clearances 
for pipe work etc, is 100% emission free and is near 100% efficient. 

There is a lot of detail given in the brochure but it seems in disagreement 
with what I understood you heard from your HVAC. The performance data on page 
30 seems particularly relevant and some of the following pages have interesting 
engineering information that maybe someone more expert understands. But I do 
not see why it could not be contained in a shipping container.

To me given my very limited knowledge in the field and unless I'm missing 
something this example makes the e-cat as a device in the container look 
credible. 

Stephen

> On 15 mei 2016, at 17:58, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Robert Dorr  wrote:
>  
>> I just don't see why it is so difficult determining the COP of such a large 
>> system. As far as I can see you have to make a few measurements to get a 
>> very good idea of a thermal plants performance. . . .
> 
> It is not difficult when you stick to the ASME codes for instruments and 
> procedures. You have to a trained HVAC engineer to work with such large 
> equipment because it can be very dangerous. There are high voltages, high 
> temperature and so on. A rupture in a 1 MW steam pipe will kill people very 
> quickly, or critically burn them. I have seen an 80 kW factory boiler in 
> operation, with the steam vented. It is frightening! Steam pipe breaks in 
> ship engine rooms and steam locomotives were horrible accidents.
> 
> (My late father worked for 6 years in the engine room of a steamship launched 
> circa 1910, and he said there were dozens of ways to be killed or maimed by 
> the equipment. He was, in fact, maimed, which is why he left the merchant 
> marine did not see combat during WWII.)
> 
> The procedures are described by state laws in every state, but they are all 
> based on ASME recommendations.
> 
> The full set of boiler inspection procedures are difficult. They are 
> complicated. They include things like checking combustion efficiency, chimney 
> safety, emergency shutdown equipment, carbon monoxide levels and so on. Many 
> of them are over my head, but the ones relating to boiler efficiency are 
> fundamentally the same as laboratory-scale calorimetry, except on a much 
> larger scale. They are accurate but not precise by the standards of the 
> laboratory. I would say they are within 10%, judging by things such as the 
> lookup table range of values here, for example:
> 
> file:///home/chronos/u-1160197d37ec1500e70f021620dd3bae3f09f41c/Downloads/Boiler%20Efficiency%20Guide.pdf
> 
> See also:
> 
> http://www.nationalboiler.com/blog/uncategorized/ways-to-measure-industrial-boiler-efficiency/
> 
> https://www.asme.org/about-asme/who-we-are/standards/performance-test-codes
> 
> Measuring boiler efficiency is a critical part of the inspection. When a 
> boiler operates below rated efficiency, something is seriously wrong with it. 
> Such as incomplete combustion (smoke), or scale in the tank, or for various 
> other reasons. So this is always part of the inspection routine.
> 
> The state of Florida has their boiler inspection procedures online, but when 
> I last checked the links did not work. Look up some other state and you will 
> see what I mean. Or look at the Boiler Efficiency Guide I linked to above.
> 
> Anyway, to make a long story short, any professional who glances at Rossi's 
> configuration and data will say "there's no excess heat." Even I can do that. 
> It is obvious.
> 
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:Sunday isssue LENR dissidents, peaceful

2016-05-15 Thread Peter Gluck

 If you read everything you will see why is it a Sunday issue
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/05/may-15-2016-sunday-issue-about-lenr.html


peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Robert Dorr wrote:

> I just don't see why it is so difficult determining the COP of such a
> large system. As far as I can see you have to make a few measurements to
> get a very good idea of a thermal plants performance. . . .
>

It is not difficult when you stick to the ASME codes for instruments and
procedures. You have to a trained HVAC engineer to work with such large
equipment because it can be very dangerous. There are high voltages, high
temperature and so on. A rupture in a 1 MW steam pipe will kill people very
quickly, or critically burn them. I have seen an 80 kW factory boiler in
operation, with the steam vented. It is frightening! Steam pipe breaks in
ship engine rooms and steam locomotives were horrible accidents.

(My late father worked for 6 years in the engine room of a steamship
launched circa 1910, and he said there were dozens of ways to be killed or
maimed by the equipment. He was, in fact, maimed, which is why he left the
merchant marine did not see combat during WWII.)

The procedures are described by state laws in every state, but they are all
based on ASME recommendations.

The full set of boiler inspection procedures are difficult. They are
complicated. They include things like checking combustion efficiency,
chimney safety, emergency shutdown equipment, carbon monoxide levels and so
on. Many of them are over my head, but the ones relating to boiler
efficiency are fundamentally the same as laboratory-scale calorimetry,
except on a much larger scale. They are accurate but not precise by the
standards of the laboratory. I would say they are within 10%, judging by
things such as the lookup table range of values here, for example:

file:///home/chronos/u-1160197d37ec1500e70f021620dd3bae3f09f41c/Downloads/Boiler%20Efficiency%20Guide.pdf

Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Axil Axil  wrote:

It seems to me that calorimetry is a weak subject to base a defence on.
> Nether the judge or any of the jury will have even heard the word let alone
> understand why the ERV messed it up. The layers for the defence will need a
> expert witness to educate the court on what is good and what is ill in LENR
> gain measurement. Since you are a sympathetic backer of IH, you may well
> get the call to teach and convince the court.
>

This is the most fatuous nonsense you have come up with yet. As I said, I
am not a professional HVAC engineer licensed in the state of Florida. There
is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE anyone would call me to testify. You know nothing
about courts or legal proceedings if you think anyone would call me. No
judge would allow it.

No one needs to educate the court about calorimetry. The state of Florida
has laws and codes about boilers, including detailed procedures for
measuring boiler efficiency. Every boiler has to inspected periodically.
These inspections include a measure of efficiency. See:

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/division/sfm/BFP/BoilerSafety/documents/BoilerSafetyBrochure2015.pdf

A licensed HVAC engineer has to perform the inspection, following a
strictly defined set of procedures. Any HVAC engineer licensed to work with
large boilers would be qualified to measure the performance of the Rossi
device, or to evaluate the data.

I am confident that any HVAC engineer who tests the reactor or examines the
data will conclude that there is no excess heat. It took me about 30
seconds to reach that conclusion. It is obvious.

Testimony from a licensed professional in court is always admissible, by
definition. Testimony about technical disputes by amateurs such as me is
never admissible. I do not know much about legal procedures but I know
that. I doubt you will find a licensed HVAC engineer willing to testify the
Rossi gadget works, because the others will all point out this is
preposterous, and that person will lose his license and his livelihood for
perjury or incompetence.

Needless to say, Penon is not an HVAC engineer licensed in Florida.
Whatever magic fantasy he or Rossi came up with to convert a COP of <1 into
50 will not be admissible in court, except perhaps as evidence of fraud.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi device AFUE is probably low

Peter Gluck  wrote:

you do not get the significance of the electricity bills for the
> Rossi-IH trial?
>

I have not seen any electricity bills, and I know nothing about them.

You have not seen them but they exist.
>

Have you seen them? What do they show? What are you talking about?

> By the way I have read three discussion threads and 40 comments
> but could not ffind your explanation about why the IH  technicians are
> convinced that there was absolutely NO excess heat in the 1MW experiment.
>

I have not explained this. I am not free to explain it at this time. I hope
that I.H. will be able to explain it soon.

Rossi has not explained anything either. He has not described anything
about the calorimetry, or how he determined the reactor is producing 50
times input.

The only thing Rossi has told us is that he stood inside the reactor
shipping container when it was producing 1 MW. That is impossible. So he is
wrong about that. That does not rule out the possibility there is some
excess heat, but it cannot be 1 MW.

Send it me in private and I will keep it secret If true the plant has
> consumed more energy than it produced delivered a financial loss and
> irrational to do it.
>

Please ask Rossi or I.H. for this information.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

2016-05-15 Thread Robert Dorr

I just don't see why it is so difficult
determining the COP of such a large system. As
far as I can see you have to make a few
measurements to get a very good idea of a thermal
plants performance. 1) temperature of water going
in, 2) temperature or water going out, 3) water
flow rate, 4) the difference in temperature of
the incoming and outgoing water, 5) energy
required to produce the temperature difference,
6) and the energy consumed from the A.C. mains.
The difference between the energy required to
produce the temperature rise and the energy
consumed from the A.C. Mains is the COP. I am not
taking into account any losses, but with
a system this large and a COP of 50 who gives a damn.

Robert Dorr
WA7ZQR

At 06:00 AM 5/15/2016, you wrote:
Stephen Cooke
<stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is probably a naive question on my part, so
I apologize for that. But in the interest of
clarity I wonder if the definition of "excess
heat" and "heat balance" is the same for all
parties. I strongly expect it is of course.

As far as I know it is! I have not hear that
Rossi has redefined this. It is the ratio of
output to input power. Suppose 20 kW of
electricity goes in, 1,000 kW comes out. That
would be COP of 50, which is what Rossi claims.
The I.H. people say that less than 20 kW is coming out, because of heat losses.

In any conventional electrical or combustion
heater, the COP is always less than 1, because
there are heat losses. In a heat pump, the COP
can be higher than 1, but that is not actually a
violation of the laws of thermodynamics (as some
people imagine) because the surroundings outside
the building grow colder. The heat is moved, not generated.

Â
It seems from what you said that the technicians
measured heat from the device but apparently
observed no excess heat due to LENR?

No excess heat from anything.
Â
Â
Is the heat balance the continuous heat provided
by the plant regardless of input? External power
or LENR? I.e balance over time?

I am not sure what you mean, but anyway, heat
out always balances heat it. It is just an
electric heater, as far as anyone can tell. (Anyone other than Rossi.)

Was 1MW heat power ever provided from external power alone?

No, that would not be possible. That takes a
huge power supply transformer, such as what you
see behind a shopping mall. A 1 MW transformer
is the size of a pickup truck. This is just an ordinary warehouse facility.

I believe this is an image of a 1 MW transformer:

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/workshoponenergyandgridconnectionbasicssalford26-140115050535-phpapp02/95/workshop-on-energy-and-grid-connection-basics-salford-260613-72-638.jpg?cb=1389762849

Â
If so was 1MW thermal heat output from the
plant? Regardless of the energy source?Â

Based on the data I have seen and the overall
size and shape of the machine, there is no way
this thing could be putting out 1 MW.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Robert Dorr  wrote:


> Since you are in communication with someone that is linked to I.H. maybe
> you can answer a few questions.
>

Sorry, I cannot address these questions. I hope that I.H. will be able to
address them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Hi Jed

Thanks again for your patience with my questions. I know they were a bit basic 
but I wanted to clarify exactly the understanding. 

Most the thermal issues especially the waste heat are honestly over my head so 
I will leave that to experts.

If there is less than 20kW thermal output I suppose that is indeed concerning. 
Its surprising for us on the outside not seeing the data, and surprising it was 
not noted before by IH or the customer, but that topic is old ground now and 
something for the court to decide on. 

I hope we or if that's not possible at least some other mutually trusted LENR 
representatives as well as yourself get to see that data more clearly some day.

Stephen


> On 15 mei 2016, at 15:00, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> 
> Stephen Cooke  wrote:
> 
>> This is probably a naive question on my part, so I apologize for that. But 
>> in the interest of clarity I wonder if the definition of "excess heat" and 
>> "heat balance" is the same for all parties. I strongly expect it is of 
>> course.
> 
> As far as I know it is! I have not hear that Rossi has redefined this. It is 
> the ratio of output to input power. Suppose 20 kW of electricity goes in, 
> 1,000 kW comes out. That would be COP of 50, which is what Rossi claims. The 
> I.H. people say that less than 20 kW is coming out, because of heat losses.
> 
> In any conventional electrical or combustion heater, the COP is always less 
> than 1, because there are heat losses. In a heat pump, the COP can be higher 
> than 1, but that is not actually a violation of the laws of thermodynamics 
> (as some people imagine) because the surroundings outside the building grow 
> colder. The heat is moved, not generated.
> 
>  
>> It seems from what you said that the technicians measured heat from the 
>> device but apparently observed no excess heat due to LENR?
> 
> No excess heat from anything.
>  
>  
>> Is the heat balance the continuous heat provided by the plant regardless of 
>> input? External power or LENR? I.e balance over time?
> 
> I am not sure what you mean, but anyway, heat out always balances heat it. It 
> is just an electric heater, as far as anyone can tell. (Anyone other than 
> Rossi.)
> 
> 
>> Was 1MW heat power ever provided from external power alone?
> 
> No, that would not be possible. That takes a huge power supply transformer, 
> such as what you see behind a shopping mall. A 1 MW transformer is the size 
> of a pickup truck. This is just an ordinary warehouse facility.
> 
> I believe this is an image of a 1 MW transformer:
> 
> http://image.slidesharecdn.com/workshoponenergyandgridconnectionbasicssalford26-140115050535-phpapp02/95/workshop-on-energy-and-grid-connection-basics-salford-260613-72-638.jpg?cb=1389762849
> 
>  
>> If so was 1MW thermal heat output from the plant? Regardless of the energy 
>> source? 
> 
> Based on the data I have seen and the overall size and shape of the machine, 
> there is no way this thing could be putting out 1 MW.
> 
> - Jed
>

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Axil--

Don’t be so mean!

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 9:00 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

But there is a contradiction here since IH accepted that the Rossi reactor does 
produce gainful heat to the tune of $11,500,000.  

This payment was made on response to the demonstration of a COP 6 or above for 
a 24 hour period as defined in the license agreement.

You must be in error in your understanding as to the position that IH will take 
during the trial.

Both Rossi and IH had representatives present during the successful 24 hour 
test so the actions of the ERV were monitored and validated. 

This situation that you portray presents an affront to the logical mind.

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

  Axil Axil  wrote:

Jed or another could negotiate the COP down but by how much is the 
question. 50 is really high to come down from. 

  I cannot negotiate anything. I have no standing in this and no role. I am not 
a professional HVAC engineer licensed in Florida, so no lawyer and no court 
would ask my opinion. If anyone did, that is all I would say: "I am not a 
professional HVAC engineer licensed in Florida."

  Putting aside all of that, the COP is less than 1. The machine produces no 
excess heat. That is what I.H. experts concluded. The COP is not 50, not 6, not 
4, not 1.1. It is less than 1. There is no heat. That is why I.H. said it was 
not "substantiated." That's all there is to it.

  If the court accepts the judgment of professional experts who say there is no 
excess heat, then the case will be thrown out of court. End of story. That is 
what lawyers have told me. Mr. Pretend Lawyer Axil disagrees, but that is what 
actual lawyers say.

  - Jed

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Eric--

Thanks for that correction.  I was reading the original agreement.  I assume 
the difference between 4 and 6 was only a matter of fine tuning for Rossi.  

The agreement indicated the requirement to identify the control procedures to 
operate the E-Cat.  What those procedures specify will be of interest relative 
to the achievement of a COP of 6 that you have identified as the higher 
performance required to earn the $89M.  Those controls may be the real 
indicator of the science behind the E-Cat.

Bob Cook



From: Eric Walker 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 8:10 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Hi,

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:


  I would note that all the Agreement called for is a COP of 4.

The second amendment to the agreement modified this detail to stipulate, as I 
understand it, a graduated payment for a COP between 2.6 and 6, with the full 
$89 million being owed at 6 or higher.

Eric


[1] 
http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Rossi_et_al_v_Darden_et_al__flsdce-16-21199__0001.4.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Rossi device AFUE is probably low

2016-05-15 Thread Peter Gluck

you do not get the significance of the electricity bills for the
Rossi-IH trial?
You have not seen them but they exist.

By the way I have read three discussion threads and 40 comments
but could not ffind your explanation about why the IH  technicians are
convinced that there was absolutely NO excess heat in the 1MW experiment.
Send it me in private and I will keep it secret If true the plant has
consumed more energy than it produced delivered a financial loss and
irrational to do it.

peter

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Peter Gluck  wrote:
>
> But it cannot waste the heat that is not produced.- as you believe; or not?
>>
>
> Perhaps you misunderstand the term "waste" in this context.
>
> The term "waste heat" means heat that is not transferred to the fluid in a
> boiler. It means heat that radiates from boiler to the surroundings. A 70%
> AFUE boiler that produces 1 MW of hot water or steam would also produce 300
> kW of waste heat in the area around the boiler. In this case, in the
> shipping container.
>
> Obviously, heat which is not produced does not exist and does not heat
> anything.
>
>
>
>> If the efficiency was indeed so low, who has paid the huge electricity
>> bill?
>>
>
> I do not know what electricity bill you refer to. I have not seen any
> electricity bills.
>
>
>
>> It could be as high as 85 million kWh- how much does this cost in Florida?
>>
>
> What could be this high? I do not know what you are talking about.
>
> - Jed
>
>

-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Axil--

See the Civil complaint that Rossi filed in the Federal Court:

Case 1:16-cv-21199-CMA Document 1, Entered on FLSD Document 04/05/2016 Page 1.

I specifies: “CIVIL COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL”

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:50 PM
To: vortex-l 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

How do you know that this trial will be a jury trial? Reference?

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:



  Axil--

  Rossi has asked for a jury trial.  The judge only listens to the arguments on 
either side and decides  if they are appropriate.  The Jury will decide whether 
or not the intent of the agreement was met.  I would agree the wording will be 
important to the decision of the Jury.  I am not sure what constitutes a 
favorable Jury decision in the Fed. Court regarding contractual agreements.  
Frequently the understanding of the person that did not write the contract is 
more important than the wording of the contract as presented and interpreted by 
the party that wrote the contract.  

  Any of the documents entered into the record can be review by the members of 
the Jury as each chooses I think.   Who authored the Agreement should be able 
to be determined by the Jury, if one side or the other wants that information 
to be presented.  It may be that the Jury can even ask the Judge to require 
that information to be incorporated into the court record.  

  It was my impression that the contract was written by IH and edited by Rossi. 
 I do not know.  In case of an edited version of a contract, there would be no 
deference as to the author I would guess, since both parties would have had a 
hand in the wording.  What the intent was in agreeing with certain wording is 
all important.  Vague contracts typically do not “old much water.”

  Bob Cook

  From: Axil Axil 
  Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2016 2:22 PM
  To: vortex-l 
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

  The Judge is going to ask IH if they gave the ERV absolute authority as the 
agent of arbitration to determine if the terms of the licence agreement were 
met. Then the Judge will ask the ERV if he has determined if the terms of the 
Licence agreement were met. The ERV will say that in his expert judgement, the 
terms of the licence agreement were met. The Judge will then rule that the 
terms of the licence agreement were met and that 89 million must be paid to 
Rossi.

  What Rossi thinks or does, if the e-cat works or not, if a teapot is used to 
make hot water, what IH thinks or does are all immaterial to this arbitration. 
The key to the legal case is the judgement of the ERV since he is the absolute 
agent of arbitration. All the other noise is immaterial to the legal case at 
hand.

  After the favorable ruling by the judge in favor of Rossi, if I were Rossi's 
lawyer, I would request an injunction to prohibit IH from selling any LENR 
based product until it is proved in court, that all these IH products contain 
no Rossi IP.


  On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Axil Axil  wrote:

  IH cannot use Rossi's IP for anything as its stands now.

IH (and I) think that Rossi's gadget does not work, so he does not have any 
IP, so this does not matter. No one can use pretend IP for anything, as it 
stands now, and as it will always stand.


  If Rossi's IP is used in other products from other OEMs, does IH need to 
pay Rossi the 89 million?

  Does IH need to pay Rossi 5% of the value of the selling price of the 
produces from other vendors that include Rossi's IP in their products?

As I said, I know nothing about business arrangements or contracts, so I 
cannot address these questions. Except, as I pointed out, you might as well be 
discussing a contract to sell unicorn manure.

It is possible Rossi had a working reactor in the past, but his 1 MW 
reactor does not work.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi device AFUE is probably low

Peter Gluck  wrote:

But it cannot waste the heat that is not produced.- as you believe; or not?
>

Perhaps you misunderstand the term "waste" in this context.

The term "waste heat" means heat that is not transferred to the fluid in a
boiler. It means heat that radiates from boiler to the surroundings. A 70%
AFUE boiler that produces 1 MW of hot water or steam would also produce 300
kW of waste heat in the area around the boiler. In this case, in the
shipping container.

Obviously, heat which is not produced does not exist and does not heat
anything.

> If the efficiency was indeed so low, who has paid the huge electricity
> bill?
>

I do not know what electricity bill you refer to. I have not seen any
electricity bills.

> It could be as high as 85 million kWh- how much does this cost in Florida?
>

What could be this high? I do not know what you are talking about.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat

Stephen Cooke  wrote:

This is probably a naive question on my part, so I apologize for that. But
> in the interest of clarity I wonder if the definition of "excess heat" and
> "heat balance" is the same for all parties. I strongly expect it is of
> course.
>

As far as I know it is! I have not hear that Rossi has redefined this. It
is the ratio of output to input power. Suppose 20 kW of electricity goes
in, 1,000 kW comes out. That would be COP of 50, which is what Rossi
claims. The I.H. people say that less than 20 kW is coming out, because of
heat losses.

In any conventional electrical or combustion heater, the COP is always less
than 1, because there are heat losses. In a heat pump, the COP can be
higher than 1, but that is not actually a violation of the laws of
thermodynamics (as some people imagine) because the surroundings outside
the building grow colder. The heat is moved, not generated.

> It seems from what you said that the technicians measured heat from the
> device but apparently observed no excess heat due to LENR?
>

No excess heat from anything.

> Is the heat balance the continuous heat provided by the plant regardless
> of input? External power or LENR? I.e balance over time?
>

I am not sure what you mean, but anyway, heat out always balances heat it.
It is just an electric heater, as far as anyone can tell. (Anyone other
than Rossi.)

Was 1MW heat power ever provided from external power alone?
>

No, that would not be possible. That takes a huge power supply transformer,
such as what you see behind a shopping mall. A 1 MW transformer is the size
of a pickup truck. This is just an ordinary warehouse facility.

I believe this is an image of a 1 MW transformer:

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/workshoponenergyandgridconnectionbasicssalford26-140115050535-phpapp02/95/workshop-on-energy-and-grid-connection-basics-salford-260613-72-638.jpg?cb=1389762849

> If so was 1MW thermal heat output from the plant? Regardless of the energy
> source?
>

Based on the data I have seen and the overall size and shape of the
machine, there is no way this thing could be putting out 1 MW.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Rossi device AFUE is probably low

2016-05-15 Thread Peter Gluck

But it cannot waste the heat that is not produced.- as you believe; or not?
If the efficiency was indeed so low, who has paid the huge electricity bill?
It could be as high as 85 million kWh- how much does this cost in Florida?
peter

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I mentioned that an HVAC engineer estimated that the Rossi device heat
> transfer efficiency is probably low. This is called the AFUE (annual fuel
> utilization efficiency). Typical AFUE are:
>
> 56 to 70% for old furnaces
> 80 to 83% for mid-range efficiency
> 90 to 99% for advanced, high efficiency heaters
>
> http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers
>
> The thing is, the HVAC engineer said that as a heater,  Rossi's gadget is
> poorly designed. It should be at the low end of the scale. I am out of my
> depth here, but as I recall, the reasons were:
>
> A heater should have low surface area. Most are large cylinders to reduce
> surface area. This heater is series of small square boxes, which has the
> most surface area per unit of volume.
>
> This boiler has external pipes running from one box to the next, outside
> the boxes. Every pipe radiates heat, even if they are insulated.
>
> The path from the fluid inlet to the outlet should be as long as possible,
> and convoluted. With each box in this heater, the water goes in and comes
> right out, in a short path. In a boiler the "fluid" is either the water you
> want to heat, or in a fire tube boiler, it is the hot combustion product
> gas. See:
>
>
> http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-Tutorials/the-boiler-house/shell-boilers.aspx
>
> This is why I estimate the heat transfer efficiency is ~70%. The other 30%
> would be waste heat released inside the shipping container. This is only a
> very rough estimate by me. I suppose it could be higher given the
> insulation. But I doubt that it higher than the low end of today's the high
> efficiency heater. That would be 90%. So, a 1 MW heater will have between
> 100 and 300 kW of waste heat.
>
> - Jed
>
>


-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

[Vo]:Rossi device AFUE is probably low

I mentioned that an HVAC engineer estimated that the Rossi device heat
transfer efficiency is probably low. This is called the AFUE (annual fuel
utilization efficiency). Typical AFUE are:

56 to 70% for old furnaces
80 to 83% for mid-range efficiency
90 to 99% for advanced, high efficiency heaters

http://energy.gov/energysaver/furnaces-and-boilers

The thing is, the HVAC engineer said that as a heater,  Rossi's gadget is
poorly designed. It should be at the low end of the scale. I am out of my
depth here, but as I recall, the reasons were:

A heater should have low surface area. Most are large cylinders to reduce
surface area. This heater is series of small square boxes, which has the
most surface area per unit of volume.

This boiler has external pipes running from one box to the next, outside
the boxes. Every pipe radiates heat, even if they are insulated.

The path from the fluid inlet to the outlet should be as long as possible,
and convoluted. With each box in this heater, the water goes in and comes
right out, in a short path. In a boiler the "fluid" is either the water you
want to heat, or in a fire tube boiler, it is the hot combustion product
gas. See:

http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-Tutorials/the-boiler-house/shell-boilers.aspx

This is why I estimate the heat transfer efficiency is ~70%. The other 30%
would be waste heat released inside the shipping container. This is only a
very rough estimate by me. I suppose it could be higher given the
insulation. But I doubt that it higher than the low end of today's the high
efficiency heater. That would be 90%. So, a 1 MW heater will have between
100 and 300 kW of waste heat.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: LENR and the feline nature of the E-Cat