Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 -- Passi22
http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/10/resoconto-da-pordenone-parte-1.htm http://22passi.blogspot.it/2012/10/resoconto-da-pordenone-parte-2.html Mostly covers stuff we've heard before Via google translate : Prof. Franco Battaglia has asked many questions to Rossi: What kind of reaction thought to occur in the reactor (especially if the supposed merger between Ni and H was just a side-effect ), if the Ni is used in the natural isotopic ratio; if the copper is occurring radioactive; finally, if an examination was done isotope of dust exhausted. Rossi has confirmed that the powder of Ni present in the charge undergoes a process of enrichment (isotopes Ni62 and Ni64) and that the product is Cu Cu63 and Cu65. Battle of the objection that, if so, the dust would still be radioactive, even for a few hours, Rossi stated that the shutdown of the reactor lasts 4 hours because after that time the radioactivity of the Cu product is totally lapsed. Then explained that, when it says that for him the fusion between NI-H is a side-effect , means that it is a residual phenomenon than primarily at the origin of the excess energy, in fact, the transformation of Ni in Cu concerns only picograms of matter. He asked for help (he cited the University of Padova) for analysis isotopic dust exhausted, but the amount of transmuted elements are too small. Someone asked if he had detected emissions He4 (a sign of fusion H + H). Rossi said that this does not occur. - - - - - - If there really is a 4-hour radioactive window, then an eCat explosion could me more serious than just steam.
[Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-hot-cat-report/
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Awesome! He ran it for 228 hours. Unless he's deluded or lying, he's got it. Craig On 10/12/2012 12:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-hot-cat-report/
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
I've been disappointed by his claims too many times - with his uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory through sloppiness. As far as most of the world is concerned (and even a lot of people who follow this closely) until we see independent confirmation this is just more unverified claims from a known liar. I am however optimistic that we will eventually get that confirmation. On 12 October 2012 17:46, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Awesome! He ran it for 228 hours. Unless he's deluded or lying, he's got it. Craig On 10/12/2012 12:36 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-hot-cat-report/
RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) Celani's wire is around ~70 W/g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 18:37 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-h ot-cat-report/
RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Why Rossi is taking energy produced per weight as a power density ? In the report he says : POWER DENSITY 163,4 MW*kg^-1 (onehundred sixtythree point four MWh per kg) (see the Ragone Plot at pag. 15 of the Penon Report attached) He should have called that the energy density which has no meaning here cause there are still energy to release of its cylinder ... It seems, he is always confusing energy and power. With its kWh/h unity which for means nothing physical. -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck [mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 19:06 To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) Celani's wire is around ~70 W/g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 18:37 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-h ot-cat-report/
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
If average power over 228 hours is 14.337 KW, and the total charge is 20 g, then shouldn't the power density be: 14337 / 20 = 716 watts/gm = 716 kw / kg Craig On 10/12/2012 01:15 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: Why Rossi is taking energy produced per weight as a power density ? In the report he says : POWER DENSITY 163,4 MW*kg^-1 (onehundred sixtythree point four MWh per kg) (see the Ragone Plot at pag. 15 of the Penon Report attached) He should have called that the energy density which has no meaning here cause there are still energy to release of its cylinder ... It seems, he is always confusing energy and power. With its kWh/h unity which for means nothing physical. -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck [mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 19:06 To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) Celani's wire is around ~70 W/g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 18:37 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-h ot-cat-report/
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
At 09:36 AM 10/12/2012, Terry Blanton wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-hot-cat-report/ Electrical measurements : pce-830 http://www.industrial-needs.com/manual/power-anlayser-pce-830.pdf
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) This is correct. I neglected to subtract out the input power. Craig On 10/12/2012 01:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: If average power over 228 hours is 14.337 KW, and the total charge is 20 g, then shouldn't the power density be: 14337 / 20 = 716 watts/gm = 716 kw / kg Craig On 10/12/2012 01:15 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: Why Rossi is taking energy produced per weight as a power density ? In the report he says : POWER DENSITY 163,4 MW*kg^-1 (onehundred sixtythree point four MWh per kg) (see the Ragone Plot at pag. 15 of the Penon Report attached) He should have called that the energy density which has no meaning here cause there are still energy to release of its cylinder ... It seems, he is always confusing energy and power. With its kWh/h unity which for means nothing physical. -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck [mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 19:06 To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) Celani's wire is around ~70 W/g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 18:37 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-h ot-cat-report/
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Yet another Rossi said... It is getting a little bit repetitive. 2012/10/12 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) This is correct. I neglected to subtract out the input power. Craig On 10/12/2012 01:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: If average power over 228 hours is 14.337 KW, and the total charge is 20 g, then shouldn't the power density be: 14337 / 20 = 716 watts/gm = 716 kw / kg Craig On 10/12/2012 01:15 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: Why Rossi is taking energy produced per weight as a power density ? In the report he says : POWER DENSITY 163,4 MW*kg^-1 (onehundred sixtythree point four MWh per kg) (see the Ragone Plot at pag. 15 of the Penon Report attached) He should have called that the energy density which has no meaning here cause there are still energy to release of its cylinder ... It seems, he is always confusing energy and power. With its kWh/h unity which for means nothing physical. -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck [mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 19:06 To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) Celani's wire is around ~70 W/g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 18:37 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-h ot-cat-report/
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
The COP went up!!! 2012/10/12 Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com Yet another Rossi said... It is getting a little bit repetitive. 2012/10/12 Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) This is correct. I neglected to subtract out the input power. Craig On 10/12/2012 01:21 PM, Craig Haynie wrote: If average power over 228 hours is 14.337 KW, and the total charge is 20 g, then shouldn't the power density be: 14337 / 20 = 716 watts/gm = 716 kw / kg Craig On 10/12/2012 01:15 PM, Arnaud Kodeck wrote: Why Rossi is taking energy produced per weight as a power density ? In the report he says : POWER DENSITY 163,4 MW*kg^-1 (onehundred sixtythree point four MWh per kg) (see the Ragone Plot at pag. 15 of the Penon Report attached) He should have called that the energy density which has no meaning here cause there are still energy to release of its cylinder ... It seems, he is always confusing energy and power. With its kWh/h unity which for means nothing physical. -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck [mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 19:06 To: 'vortex-l@eskimo.com' Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 If claim of Rossi are right, the power density per gram of powder is awesome 596.85 W/g ( (14337-2400)/20 ) Celani's wire is around ~70 W/g -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 18:37 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/leonardo-corp-releases-new-h ot-cat-report/ -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: I've been disappointed by his claims too many times - with his uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory through sloppiness. Exactly. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
This is his paint supplier: http://www.universokema.eu/ On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Updated report: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/10/update-andrea-rossi-provides-corrected-pordenone-hot-cat-report/ Still has some , vs . mixups. On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.comwrote: This is his paint supplier: http://www.universokema.eu/ On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 7:35 AM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever! -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? It must be soon since Rossi has the data.
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Maybe so ChemE! My quick analysis reveals that the true COP in the self sustaining mode is in line with his earlier statements. If you take the total input energy during the self sustaining mode (278.4 kWh) and divide by the hours in this mode (118 Hours) you get 2.359 kW. This matches his average input power listing of 2.4 kW. And it is likewise stated that the peak input is 5 kW. This matches my simulations fairly well where the duty cycle is at 2.359/5 = .4718. The output power is stated as 14.337 kW. If I use these numbers I calculate the COP in this mode as being 14.337/2.359 = 6.0775. Note also that the peak power output to the peak input is 14.337 / 5.0 = 2.8674 which is in line with his previous statements that this ratio is 3 to 1 in his design that also is in line with my earlier simulations. These numbers are consistent with what Rossi has been telling the world for a long time and my simulations support the numbers when temperature control is applied to my simulated device. Perhaps this time we have the proof we seek if the numbers hold up to scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Dave, In selfsustaining mode, there is no input power to the cylinder. So I don't understand the 3 first sentences of your email. Self sustain mode is no input power and you say 2.359 kW. Duty cycle is 118/328 = 0.359. Time when the system was not in self sustaining mode is 328-118 = 210 hours. Something is wrong about the total energy consumed as claimed by Rossi. If total energy consumed is 278.4 kWh and 210 hours of non self sustained mode, the average power consumption is 1.32 kW, not 2.4 kW as said in the report. If we take the total time, things go worse ... Or am I missing something ? Arnaud _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 23:18 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Maybe so ChemE! My quick analysis reveals that the true COP in the self sustaining mode is in line with his earlier statements. If you take the total input energy during the self sustaining mode (278.4 kWh) and divide by the hours in this mode (118 Hours) you get 2.359 kW. This matches his average input power listing of 2.4 kW. And it is likewise stated that the peak input is 5 kW. This matches my simulations fairly well where the duty cycle is at 2.359/5 = .4718. The output power is stated as 14.337 kW. If I use these numbers I calculate the COP in this mode as being 14.337/2.359 = 6.0775. Note also that the peak power output to the peak input is 14.337 / 5.0 = 2.8674 which is in line with his previous statements that this ratio is 3 to 1 in his design that also is in line with my earlier simulations. These numbers are consistent with what Rossi has been telling the world for a long time and my simulations support the numbers when temperature control is applied to my simulated device. Perhaps this time we have the proof we seek if the numbers hold up to scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave
[Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Forwarded with permission. -- Forwarded message -- From: Lewan Mats Mats.Lewan@** Date: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM Subject: Direct Mail: Hot Cat COP 11.7 To: hohlr...@gmail.com hohlr...@gmail.com Cc: Alan Fletcher alanfletc...@farcad.com, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com Hi Terry (this is a direct email – I’m not on the Vortex-list), It might be worth noting that there are still a couple of errors in the updated Hot Cat report. I have pointed these out to Rossi. The emitted power calculated with Stefan Boltzmann’s formula is too low – Rossi used (T(K) – T0(C))^4 when it should be T(K)^4 – T0(K)^4, as far as I know. This gives an output power of 17.6 kW instead of 14.3 kW. I cannot understand how the energy consumed is calculated from the average power consumption. 278/2.4 gives 118 hours… The total output energy is calculated on 228 hours and not 328 hours as indicated (and there’s a decimal point where you should expect a comma). Kind Regards Mats Lewan --- Mats Lewan, redaktör Next Magasin – reporter Ny Teknik. tel. 08-796 64 10, mobil 070-590 72 52, twitter: matslew
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Andrea Rossi October 12th, 2012 at 3:27 PM DEAR READERS: THIS MORNING I SENT TO THE SPECIALIZED MAGAZINES THE TEXT OF MY REPORT. UNFORTUNATELY, I CLICKED THE WRONG ADDRESS, AND SENT THE DRAFT FULL OF TYPOS, WITH NONSENSE NUMBERS. I AM JUST RETURNED FROM PORDENONE AND REALIZED THIS !!! ( IT IS 10.20 P.M. IN ITALY). I HAVE SENT TO ALL THE CORRECTED VERSION, YOU SHOULD FIND IT WITHIN MINUTES. EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO RECEIVE A COPY CORRECTED OF THE REPORT CAN WRITE TO i...@leonardocorp1996.com I WILL MAIL IT ASAP. VERY SORRY, I AM UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE. ANDREA ROSSI
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
I think you are missing something Arnaud. Rossi uses the phrase self sustaining to include operation where the input power is applied intermittently. I consider this to be a drive it to the desired level and let it drift until it needs to be re driven again mode. It is very difficult to control a positive feedback system at high COP (6) unless you handle it in the manner I mentioned since it has a tendency to continue increasing output power until it self destructs otherwise. I can not think of many applications where you do not need to be able to stop the output power at some desired point in time. In the October test he mentions that the drive needs to be in a duty cycle form even though it is called self sustaining operation. The difficulty is in the form of a mismatch in definitions. If Rossi carefully drives his device until the internally generated heat is just below that required to cause the device to keep heating up he can discontinue the drive and it will begin to cool off. The closer to this critical heat generation level he gets, the longer the device lingers at the high temperature levels. My model demonstrates that the time constant reaches infinity when the device is internally generating heat at a level that exactly matches that lost through all of the loss mechanisms. Does this not seem obvious? Try not to be confused by the tricky way that Rossi displays his data. I can decode the scrambled information since I have a model that appears to demonstrate the behavior of his actual device to a reasonable degree. He is a master at hiding the important information within a lot of non pertinent details. Carefully follow my input and you can see what is actually happening. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 6:17 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Dave, In selfsustaining mode, there is no input power to the cylinder. So I don't understand the 3 first sentences of your email. Self sustain mode is no input power and you say 2.359 kW. Duty cycle is 118/328 = 0.359. Time when the system was not in self sustaining mode is 328-118 = 210 hours. Something is wrong about the total energy consumed as claimed by Rossi. If total energy consumed is 278.4 kWh and 210 hours of non self sustained mode, the average power consumption is 1.32 kW, not 2.4 kW as said in the report. If we take the total time, things go worse ... Or am I missing something ? Arnaud From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 23:18 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Maybe so ChemE! My quick analysis reveals that the true COP in the self sustaining mode is in line with his earlier statements. If you take the total input energy during the self sustaining mode (278.4 kWh) and divide by the hours in this mode (118 Hours) you get 2.359 kW. This matches his average input power listing of 2.4 kW. And it is likewise stated that the peak input is 5 kW.This matches my simulations fairly well where the duty cycle is at 2.359/5 = .4718. The output power is stated as 14.337 kW. If I use these numbers I calculate the COP in this mode as being 14.337/2.359 = 6.0775.Note also that the peak power output to the peak input is 14.337 / 5.0 = 2.8674 which is in line with his previous statements that this ratio is 3 to 1 in his design that also is in line with my earlier simulations. These numbers are consistent with what Rossi has been telling the world for a long time and my simulations support the numbers when temperature control is applied to my simulated device. Perhaps this time we have the proof we seek if the numbers hold up to scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us the confidence that we so much desire? Dave
RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
So from your point of view, Rossy is saying that in self sustaining mode, the average consumed power is 2.4 kW ... That's not a so called self sustaining mode ?!? Dave, bear in mind also that the computation of the dissipated power is completly faulty ... cfr mail from Mats. This report is crap ! A lot of imprecisions, computation errors, mistakes, '.' and ',' dyslexia coming from continental europe and english, and typos ... _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: samedi 13 octobre 2012 00:54 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 I think you are missing something Arnaud. Rossi uses the phrase self sustaining to include operation where the input power is applied intermittently. I consider this to be a drive it to the desired level and let it drift until it needs to be re driven again mode. It is very difficult to control a positive feedback system at high COP (6) unless you handle it in the manner I mentioned since it has a tendency to continue increasing output power until it self destructs otherwise. I can not think of many applications where you do not need to be able to stop the output power at some desired point in time. In the October test he mentions that the drive needs to be in a duty cycle form even though it is called self sustaining operation. The difficulty is in the form of a mismatch in definitions. If Rossi carefully drives his device until the internally generated heat is just below that required to cause the device to keep heating up he can discontinue the drive and it will begin to cool off. The closer to this critical heat generation level he gets, the longer the device lingers at the high temperature levels. My model demonstrates that the time constant reaches infinity when the device is internally generating heat at a level that exactly matches that lost through all of the loss mechanisms. Does this not seem obvious? Try not to be confused by the tricky way that Rossi displays his data. I can decode the scrambled information since I have a model that appears to demonstrate the behavior of his actual device to a reasonable degree. He is a master at hiding the important information within a lot of non pertinent details. Carefully follow my input and you can see what is actually happening. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 6:17 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Dave, In selfsustaining mode, there is no input power to the cylinder. So I don't understand the 3 first sentences of your email. Self sustain mode is no input power and you say 2.359 kW. Duty cycle is 118/328 = 0.359. Time when the system was not in self sustaining mode is 328-118 = 210 hours. Something is wrong about the total energy consumed as claimed by Rossi. If total energy consumed is 278.4 kWh and 210 hours of non self sustained mode, the average power consumption is 1.32 kW, not 2.4 kW as said in the report. If we take the total time, things go worse ... Or am I missing something ? Arnaud _ From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com? ] Sent: vendredi 12 octobre 2012 23:18 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Maybe so ChemE! My quick analysis reveals that the true COP in the self sustaining mode is in line with his earlier statements. If you take the total input energy during the self sustaining mode (278.4 kWh) and divide by the hours in this mode (118 Hours) you get 2.359 kW. This matches his average input power listing of 2.4 kW. And it is likewise stated that the peak input is 5 kW. This matches my simulations fairly well where the duty cycle is at 2.359/5 = .4718. The output power is stated as 14.337 kW. If I use these numbers I calculate the COP in this mode as being 14.337/2.359 = 6.0775. Note also that the peak power output to the peak input is 14.337 / 5.0 = 2.8674 which is in line with his previous statements that this ratio is 3 to 1 in his design that also is in line with my earlier simulations. These numbers are consistent with what Rossi has been telling the world for a long time and my simulations support the numbers when temperature control is applied to my simulated device. Perhaps this time we have the proof we seek if the numbers hold up to scrutiny. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 The higher COP includes additional energy calculated when the transformer overheated, vessel wall melted, table cracked from embrittlement and the blinding array of photons released:) On Friday, October 12, 2012, David Roberson wrote: I certainly hope that the new data is accurate. But if history repeats itself, there are likely to be errors of some type. When will we get to see independent test results to give us
Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7
Arnaud, I determined that the average consumed power input is 2.4 kW during the self sustaining mode of operation according to the report. It is not what you or I might call self sustaining operation, but I can see how Rossi might consider it that. He might be thinking of the fact that the device is continuing to generate excess heat all of the time, even when there is no drive. Another mode of operation would be a case where the drive is always being applied to the device and it is generating excess heat in response. The problem is that the amount of excess heat must be low as compared to the drive so the COP would be too low to be very useful. If one attempted to use this alternate mode with a COP that is large, the device would most likely self destruct or latch at an uncontrolled output level. Of course my model demonstrates the above performance when the generated excess power is a second or higher order function of the core temperature. If by some miracle a truly linear function were obtained, then it would be possible to have a large value of COP in continuous operation. I would find it difficult to believe that a linear transfer function could be obtained, but I leave that possibility open. Do not get too upset about the confusing information contained within the data released. Any data is helpful as long as it is honest and not manipulated. It is the task of the reviewers to decode that which is presented and to sort out important facts. This set of data is typical of what we have seen in the past. I am waiting for the report from independent researchers that are not attempting to disguise the facts. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 7:15 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 So from your point of view, Rossy is saying that in self sustaining mode, the average consumed power is 2.4 kW ... That's not a so called self sustaining mode ?!? Dave, bear in mind also that the computation of the dissipated power is completly faulty ... cfr mail from Mats. This report is crap ! A lot of imprecisions, computation errors, mistakes, '.' and ',' dyslexia coming from continental europe and english, and typos ... From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: samedi 13 octobre 2012 00:54 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 I think you are missing something Arnaud. Rossi uses the phrase self sustaining to include operation where the input power is applied intermittently. I consider this to be a drive it to the desired level and let it drift until it needs to be re driven again mode. It is very difficult to control a positive feedback system at high COP (6) unless you handle it in the manner I mentioned since it has a tendency to continue increasing output power until it self destructs otherwise. I can not think of many applications where you do not need to be able to stop the output power at some desired point in time. In the October test he mentions that the drive needs to be in a duty cycle form even though it is called self sustaining operation. The difficulty is in the form of a mismatch in definitions. If Rossi carefully drives his device until the internally generated heat is just below that required to cause the device to keep heating up he can discontinue the drive and it will begin to cool off. The closer to this critical heat generation level he gets, the longer the device lingers at the high temperature levels. My model demonstrates that the time constant reaches infinity when the device is internally generating heat at a level that exactly matches that lost through all of the loss mechanisms. Does this not seem obvious? Try not to be confused by the tricky way that Rossi displays his data.I can decode the scrambled information since I have a model that appears to demonstrate the behavior of his actual device to a reasonable degree.He is a master at hiding the important information within a lot of non pertinent details. Carefully follow my input and you can see what is actually happening. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 6:17 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Hot Cat COP 11.7 Dave, In selfsustaining mode, there is no input power to the cylinder. So I don't understand the 3 first sentences of your email. Self sustain mode is no input power and you say 2.359 kW. Duty cycle is 118/328 = 0.359. Time when the system was not in self sustaining mode is 328-118 = 210 hours. Something is wrong about the total energy consumed as claimed by Rossi. If total energy consumed is 278.4 kWh and 210 hours of non self sustained mode, the average power consumption is 1.32 kW
