[Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
One further point - the dimensions of the bulge only on the smallest device - the one with the ruler scale as seen in the images indicate the bulge is 7 cm in length and about the same 7 cm in diameter or ~260 cc in volume, maybe more. That is without the long flanges. If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January - and then included the flanges in his rough estimation of the volume - then one liter as a rough guess would not be a surprise, since the heater makes it appear more voluminous than it is. Jones Beene wrote: Everything seen so far - when exposed looks nearly identical, and the only reason to suggest that there ever was a larger model is for Rossi to hide the fact that the erroneous results of the January test (Focardi tribute) where 'wet steam' was giving three times more energy than actual.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions - rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. There is no 50 CC which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw - and it simply does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no evidence of a larger device. Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. The 50 CC is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is every 'logical' reason to suspect, given Rossi's abundant history of disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi's gross measurement errors in the 'Focardi tribute' (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a further error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry - below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us something closer to the truth - but as Mats admits, they are not there yet Jones From: Jed Rothwell If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
If 500 cc volume were true... A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a 130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square centimeter give or take. The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be 17,636,684,303 degrees. On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions – rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw – and it simply does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no evidence of a larger device. Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. The “50 CC” is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is every ‘logical’ reason to suspect, given Rossi’s abundant history of disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi’s gross measurement errors in the ‘Focardi tribute’ (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a further error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry – below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us something closer to the truth – but as Mats admits, they are not there yet Jones *From:* Jed Rothwell If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry - below high school standards... If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer, Philip forget last name, then I can believe Rossi and company are mired in confusion as well.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw That should be: What they told me and what they stated publicly they saw. If Beene does not believe Levi, that's his prerogative, but he should not accuse me of putting words into Levi's mouth. This is not about me. It is about what Levi said. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com wrote: It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry - below high school standards... That's not a bit clear. This is industry standard calorimetry for heating systems of this size. These procedures are done hundreds of thousands of times a day successfully. Claiming they don't work is like saying that no airline pilot ever makes a successful landing, and all commercial aircraft always crash. If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer, Philip forget last name, then I can believe Rossi and company are mired in confusion as well. A person can believe anything, but you do not have a rational reason for believing this particular assertion. You cannot show how or why they are mired in confusion, or point to any likely error in their technique. Jones Beene asserts there is problem because they used a 50 ml cell instead of a 1 liter cell. However, there is not a shred of evidence for that. You can invent some nonsensical claim the way he did in this case, but making up a fantasy and then declaring it must be true does not actually make it true. You have to have some supporting evidence, or at least a minimal reasons to suspect it is true, and you have none. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
I am not sure about the size of E-Cat's stomach, but the foil covered animal from janurary appears to be slightly longer from nose to tail than the march/april animal. Harry From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 12:38:29 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? Well I can see that Rothwell is in now full retreat - since he has started to distort the facts to conform with his prior erroneous assumptions – rather than doing the basic reality check and admitting that he could be wrong. There is no “50 CC” which is relevant. There is no factuality in the Rothwell appraisal of what others saw, or what he has heard that they saw – and it simply does not add up that Rossi would be hiding the insides of a reactor that is no longer the one to be used in October. If we look at facts only, there is no evidence of a larger device. Ockham sez: only one size E-Cat. The “50 CC” is pure BS and typical rossi-speak. The cm scale is shown in the images, and the smallest bulge alone is at least five time more, and there is every ‘logical’ reason to suspect, given Rossi’s abundant history of disinformation - that there always was only one size - and that the reason for why the coverup remains in place is to disguise Levi’s gross measurement errors in the ‘Focardi tribute’ (the wet steam error) which was compounded by a further error in February (the misplaced thermocouple error). It is clear now that both of these tests were juvenile efforts at calorimetry – below high school standards - and thankfully the Swedes have at least given us something closer to the truth – but as Mats admits, they are not there yet Jones From:Jed Rothwell If one trusted observer (namely Levi) were to have been given a quick peek inside the original device, back in January 1. It was not a quick peek. Who told you it was quick? 2. Others saw it too. 3. What difference does it make whether it was January, February, March or April? The size does not change with the season. 4. Anyone can tell at a glance the difference between an object roughly 1 L and one that is 50 ml. Even a quick peek would be enough. Look, there is not a shred of evidence for this idea of yours. Not one person has said one thing that indicates this might be the case. I do not know how or why this idee fixe entered your mind, but it is incorrect. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
- Original Message From: peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 1:00:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? If Steorn, with a bunch of engineers working for it, could make a measurement error and not spot it for a year or more, and have to have it pointed out to them by an outside engineer, Philip forget last name, . where is this explained? harry
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
A person can believe anything, but you do not have a rational reason for believing this particular assertion. You cannot show how or why they are mired in confusion, or point to any likely error in their technique. As I understand it, Rossi is claiming to do something that people who know a lot about this sort of thing believe is not possible. Until enough people have reverse-engineered his device and gotten the same amazing performance that he claims, it seems more likely that he and his colleagues have made a mistake than that they have an amazing new invention.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
peatbog peat...@teksavvy.com wrote: As I understand it, Rossi is claiming to do something that people who know a lot about this sort of thing believe is not possible. Not quite. Rossi and several hundred others have published definitive proof that they are doing something that some other people -- mainly hot fusion scientists who claim they are experts -- say is not possible. Until enough people have reverse-engineered his device and gotten the same amazing performance that he claims . . . People have already gotten the same amazing performance, albeit on a smaller scale. They got that performance back in 1992. Scientifically speaking, cold fusion results then were as astounding, and convincing, as Rossi's results are today. The only difference is that Rossi's device has more commercial potential. , it seems more likely that he and his colleagues have made a mistake than that they have an amazing new invention. It does not seem likely because there is no evidence for that. It would have to be that Rossi, his colleagues, everyone else who has observed heat from Ni-H made a mistake. Or, if you go by the standards of the above mentioned hot fusion experts, it has to be that every scientist who has ever observed cold fusion in any form was wrong. It is not possible all of these people are wrong. It is not even possible that the entire Ni-H group is wrong. And Rossi's tests are definitive. The best proof of that are the absurd objections. If the best objection anyone can come up with is that the thermocouples shown in the photos, with a 1 L/s flow, might be too close to the cell, all of meaningful objections are exhausted. That's not scraping the bottom of the barrel; it is scraping right through it into the ground. There are only two possibilities here: 1. Rossi, Focardi and everyone else who has examined this cell or reported on it are in cahoots in a gigantic scam, and everything they have claimed is made-up nonsense. 2. It is real. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
Where did the 130,000 kW come from? Levi reported 130 kW for a brief period. Levi only reported that he saw the OUTSIDE of the reactor ... presumably a longer version of the bulge in the nekkid mini eCat. Essen and Kullander accepted ROSSI's statement that the current reactor is 50cc. All that we actually know is the size of the nearly-spherical 7cm bulge. Reactor Sphere diameter: 7.00 cm OUTER volume: 179.59 cm 3 EK didn't measure the weight of the Hydrogen. Lewan gives the weight AND the pressure: Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.1 grams - after: 13652.6 grams Total loaded: 0.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 12 bar From the weight (0.5g) and pressure (12 bar) we could compute the total pressurized volume. That would give an upper limit on the reactor volume. H Cylinder === valve 1 lost hydrogen === valve 2 === visible tubing === reactor The hydrogen between valve 1 and valve 2 is lost when the cylinder is disconnected. This is all industry-standard stuff, so one could build a dummy without a reactor, and subtract that volume from the observed volume. This could be compared to the total bulge volume. Not worth doing though ... 50cc vs 180cc isn't a significant difference. From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:48:59 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? If 500 cc volume were true... A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a 130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square centimeter give or take. The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be 17,636,684,303 degrees.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
So Sorry, I had an order of magnitude error. But the point still applies. The point I was trying to make was that the 130 kw heat spike could not come from a reactor vessel with a limited surface area of a reaction vessel the size of a golf ball without melting. That heat spike must have only come from a vessel with a volume of at least one liter. On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Where did the 130,000 kW come from? Levi reported 130 kW for a brief period. Levi only reported that he saw the OUTSIDE of the reactor ... presumably a longer version of the bulge in the nekkid mini eCat. Essen and Kullander accepted ROSSI's statement that the current reactor is 50cc. All that we actually know is the size of the nearly-spherical 7cm bulge. Reactor Sphere diameter: 7.00 cm OUTER volume: 179.59 cm3 EK didn't measure the weight of the Hydrogen. Lewan gives the weight AND the pressure: Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached): - before: 13653.1 grams - after: 13652.6 grams Total loaded: 0.5 grams Pressure H2 Bottle: 85 bar Reduced: 12 bar From the weight (0.5g) and pressure (12 bar) we could compute the total pressurized volume. That would give an upper limit on the reactor volume. H Cylinder === valve 1 lost hydrogen === valve 2 === visible tubing === reactor The hydrogen between valve 1 and valve 2 is lost when the cylinder is disconnected. This is all industry-standard stuff, so one could build a dummy without a reactor, and subtract that volume from the observed volume. This could be compared to the total bulge volume. Not worth doing though ... 50cc vs 180cc isn't a significant difference. -- *From: *Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent: *Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:48:59 AM *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat? If 500 cc volume were true... A cubed shaped reaction chamber with a volume of 50 CC that can produce a 130,000 kw heat spike would radiate at a power of 1 kilowatt per square centimeter give or take. The absolute black body radiation temperature of such a vessel would be 17,636,684,303 degrees.
Re: [Vo]:Only one size E-Cat?
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Sun, 8 May 2011 16:07:23 -0400: Hi, [snip] So Sorry, I had an order of magnitude error. But the point still applies. The point I was trying to make was that the 130 kw heat spike could not come from a reactor vessel with a limited surface area of a reaction vessel the size of a golf ball without melting. That heat spike must have only come from a vessel with a volume of at least one liter. You are assuming incorrectly that the heat would have to be disposed of by radiation. In fact it is disposed of by water cooling, which is capable of removing heat much more rapidly, and at a much lower temperature. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
