Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... 1MW Honeycat
He seems to be calling the new 1MW configuration the honeycat -- which I take to be a merger of honeycomb and ecat Andrea Rossi September 2nd, 2012 at 12:42 PM Dear Italo R. I am not kidding: in these days ( also today, even if it is Sunday) we are working on the hot cat, and we are arriving to stunning results, unbilievable just few weeks ago: it is possible that we will reach 1 MW of power in 200 liters of volume: the 1 MW generator could be a drum with a diameter of 0.8 m x 0.4 m of length. I am not saying that it is made, but from the mathematic equations and integrals I am making and the experiment we are doing with the modules of 10 kW, this is quite a possibility! Warm Regards, A.R. ... Andrea Rossi September 2nd, 2012 at 2:56 PM Dear Guest: I owe this achievement to a genial idea from Prof. Joseph Fine, who made a “design” that is an art masterpiece. Then I put some math. Now, let’s see if it works. Warm Regards, A.R. ... Ecco Liberation September 2nd, 2012 at 1:23 PM Dott. Rossi, I tried making a very simple, quick 3D representation of a 0.8 m x 0.4 m drum containing 10 kW “hot cat” modules. I have been only able to fit 48-50 units at most inside this volume: Image 1: http://i.imgur.com/e4U5B.png Image 2: http://i.imgur.com/rFfvn.png Does this means that Hot Cats will be able to be temporarily overdriven to higher power outputs, or simply that they could be smaller than the unit previously seen in the leaked photo? Ecco Andrea Rossi September 2nd, 2012 at 2:58 PM Dear Ecco Liberation: It’s a honeycat configuration, you’ll see. Warm Regards, A.R. ... If it's all a scam it's sure an INTERESTING scam !!!
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
Again, I call upon you who _do_ know what the reaction is to put forth the experiment that will demonstrate it is what they say it is and thereby discount the others who know what the reaction is. You know -- multiple competing hypotheses -- strong inference and all that. On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:01 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: It is if you don't know what the reaction is! On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: A cold fusion nuclear reactor that that puts out as much energy and density as a common nuclear reactor cannot possibly be dangerous. 2012/8/31 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com More tea-leaf reading : problems with the domestic certification ? Andrea Rossi August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=6#comment-311191 Dear Koen Vandewalle: We have all the resources necessary for a development of our technology, based on our businessplant. I do not think we will have delays as for the industrial apparatuses. For the domestic ones, certification will be possible, I think, after the industrialplants will have produced enough statistics. Warm Regards, A.R. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Again, I call upon you who _do_ know what the reaction is to put forth the experiment that will demonstrate it is what they say it is and thereby discount the others who know what the reaction is. Amen. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
More tea-leaf reading : problems with the domestic certification ? Andrea Rossi August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 AM Dear Koen Vandewalle: We have all the resources necessary for a development of our technology, based on our businessplant. I do not think we will have delays as for the industrial apparatuses. For the domestic ones, certification will be possible, I think, after the industrialplants will have produced enough statistics. Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
A cold fusion nuclear reactor that that puts out as much energy and density as a common nuclear reactor cannot possibly be dangerous. 2012/8/31 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com More tea-leaf reading : problems with the domestic certification ? Andrea Rossi August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=6#comment-311191 Dear Koen Vandewalle: We have all the resources necessary for a development of our technology, based on our businessplant. I do not think we will have delays as for the industrial apparatuses. For the domestic ones, certification will be possible, I think, after the industrialplants will have produced enough statistics. Warm Regards, A.R. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
It is if you don't know what the reaction is! On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: A cold fusion nuclear reactor that that puts out as much energy and density as a common nuclear reactor cannot possibly be dangerous. 2012/8/31 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com More tea-leaf reading : problems with the domestic certification ? Andrea Rossi August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=6#comment-311191 Dear Koen Vandewalle: We have all the resources necessary for a development of our technology, based on our businessplant. I do not think we will have delays as for the industrial apparatuses. For the domestic ones, certification will be possible, I think, after the industrialplants will have produced enough statistics. Warm Regards, A.R. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Domestic certification problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzLobQxY6gg On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: A cold fusion nuclear reactor that that puts out as much energy and density as a common nuclear reactor cannot possibly be dangerous. 2012/8/31 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com More tea-leaf reading : problems with the domestic certification ? Andrea Rossi August 31st, 2012 at 9:34 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=695cpage=6#comment-311191 Dear Koen Vandewalle: We have all the resources necessary for a development of our technology, based on our businessplant. I do not think we will have delays as for the industrial apparatuses. For the domestic ones, certification will be possible, I think, after the industrialplants will have produced enough statistics. Warm Regards, A.R. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
OK, correcting this. I think I am mixing up MW electric and MW thermal. A like sized region of a commercial fission core is producing about three times this much thermal output, ~3MW. Plants of that generation are about 33% efficient so the resulting electrical output is ~1MW, which I erroneously used for the thermal number in the previous mail. So I think the thermal density Rossi describes is about 1/3 of an operating commercial LWR fission core. Jeff On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: My back of the envelope scratching suggests that a like-sized three-dimensional region of a fuel bundle in a conventional LWR fission core produces just about the same amount of energy. That volume would accommodate ~4 linear feet of ~100 fuel rods which would produce ~1 MW. Note: I am not a nuclear engineer but I'm playing one tonight on the interwebs. Ymmv. Jeff On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation. This is the entire surface area of the cylinder. Please check your figures and let me know if there is an error. This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor. It is time to do some further research into this. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-309975 Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-310135 Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:50 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: “Would that be Russell's Teapot you're referring to?” Oh heavens no… It’s the Mad Hatter’s (aka, Richard Garwin) teapot, of course. ;-) T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Terry, His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time with his not yet disclosed T-cat device. To him he has been working on it for 50 years . That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair grow closely you can tell. :) On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
It does not look so fast if you assume that he work with a corporate team managed by professional (ie, not him). Moreover the result are good but not so huge, since the reactor seems still slow to start, and activated simply by heat. COP limitation, if real, seems simply related to simple control by stabilization, where there is a risk of runaway if too hot... (anyway COP at 1200C should be higher ?)... I'm just doubting of my hypothesis because no corporate boss would allow such communication (see how DGT react when it get messy)... maybe they simply let the genious inventor play on internet, or maybe I'm totally wrong... anyway, what is sure and confirmed by him, it is that many of his claim are simply red-herring. Some other seems errors, or lies, or misunderstanding... What make him credible is other people behavior. If you don't look at Rossi, it is clear that something great is coming... however no idea about temperature, COP, size... 2012/8/30 ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com Terry, His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time with his not yet disclosed T-cat device. To him he has been working on it for 50 years . That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair grow closely you can tell. :) On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote: It does not look so fast if you assume that he work with a corporate team managed by professional (ie, not him). I would sooner believe that Rossi's device produces 1 MW and it is a time machine. Rossi will never work with any team, managed by anyone, professional or amateur. Not gonna happen. You would have to be crazy to believe these latest claims. And . . . as I said before, you would have to be even crazier to bet against Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? 2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com as I said before, you would have to be even crazier to bet against Rossi. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of these devices. Uncertainty? Instability? Unreliability? Collapsed matter? Life imitating science? I also worry about health effects unless properly shielded and isolated. Stewart http://wp.me/p26aeb-4 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. Shrodinger's cat had only 2 states once the box was opened: dead or alive. Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't be opened. One may wonder if there's a cat after all... mic
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Only I think in the case of these devices the cat can also jump thru the box or consume the box if he/she is large and hungry enough... On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. Shrodinger's cat had only 2 states once the box was opened: dead or alive. Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't be opened. One may wonder if there's a cat after all... mic
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
The probable reason for Rossi to give feedback on his status is getting technical suggestions that his small team of developers is not able to generate on such a short time frame. And he's getting a lot of free usefull feedback at his blog. We simply don't know the qualifications of his staff since they will be bound to communication restrictions by contract, so you won't hear anything from them. I bet companies like Shell and Exxon have research people on this as well, but these multinationals don't require feedback and suggestions by society via blogs since they have sufficient staff to do this on their own. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: To bet in what sense? That he has a work able device or that he has anything at all? Everything that Rossi does says is in a state of Quantum Indeterminacy. The act of betting may tilt events one way or the other. It is best not to go there. Shrodinger's cat had only 2 states once the box was opened: dead or alive. Rossi's E-cat keeps staying in multiple states because the box can't be opened. One may wonder if there's a cat after all... mic
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of these devices. Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt. If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.) Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow independent public testing*. I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a few days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message. I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve commercial success. Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion. It usually fails. Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows? Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have. Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I also performed a comparison that suggests that Rossi will do fine with the new design. I thought about a 1 MW thermal input ICE which should deliver around 300 kW of mechanical power on a good day. At 750 watts to a horse power I obtain an estimate of 400 HP for the equivalent internal combustion motor rating. The size of Rossi's drum is greater than the radiator required to cool down an engine of this size with air. I think the drum in quite reasonable with this comparison as a reference. Dave -Original Message- From: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 2:04 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... OK, correcting this. I think I am mixing up MW electric and MW thermal. A like sized region of a commercial fission core is producing about three times this much thermal output, ~3MW. Plants of that generation are about 33% efficient so the resulting electrical output is ~1MW, which I erroneously used for the thermal number in the previous mail. So I think the thermal density Rossi describes is about 1/3 of an operating commercial LWR fission core. Jeff On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: My back of the envelope scratching suggests that a like-sized three-dimensional region of a fuel bundle in a conventional LWR fission core produces just about the same amount of energy. That volume would accommodate ~4 linear feet of ~100 fuel rods which would produce ~1 MW. Note: I am not a nuclear engineer but I'm playing one tonight on the interwebs. Ymmv. Jeff On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation. This is the entire surface area of the cylinder. Please check your figures and let me know if there is an error. This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor. It is time to do some further research into this. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - From: Patrick Ellul To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AM Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AM Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Actually, I hope you are wrong. We need these systems ASAP. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things: a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story, b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked; c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected, surprised, d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found something new No possibility of realist choice here. Peter On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, I hope you are wrong. We need these systems ASAP. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I tend to get bored quickly so the rate of improvements seems in line. If one is developing a new system that has an enormous range for improvement then big strides can be made. Once Rossi and others have achieved performance that approaches the limit, then we can expect to see improvements become incremental. We should celebrate the fact that apparently there is much room for advancement. This rate of development should also exist as people push the boundaries toward smaller size. As long as dangerous radiation is not a problem, I think we will see remarkable things in the near future. Dave -Original Message- From: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:54 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Terry, His progress seems fast to you because he has figured how to warp time with his not yet disclosed T-cat device. To him he has been working on it for 50 years . That is approx 25:1 time dilation... If you watch his hair grow closely you can tell. :) On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I agree, I think Rossi has come upon anomalous heat/energy like many others including SRI, DGT, etc. You are right, the smaller the scale, the more the reliability/less uncertainty. Nature keeps atoms, electrons and protons small because by themselves, they are uncertain. Orbits due to gravity/repulsion maintain some level of certainty. Magnify atoms into superatoms and collapsed matter and you increase uncertainty/unreliability. Many of the researchers that have passed, some untimely, and have taken their knowledge with them. Reding, De Palma, Patterson, Fox, etc. but the effect remains. On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of these devices. Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt. If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.) Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow independent public testing*. I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a few days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message. I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with 100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve commercial success. Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion. It usually fails. Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows? Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have. Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Hmm, a) sounds very realistic 2012/8/30 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things: a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story, b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked; c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected, surprised, d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found something new No possibility of realist choice here. Peter -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
In reply to Akira Shirakawa's message of Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:32:07 +0200: Hi, One drawback I foresee is that by packing them all together in a small container, he is making it difficult to replace an individual unit on the fly. IOW it may be difficult to extract a single defective unit while keeping the rest running. That implies losing the only advantage that exists by ganging multiple small units together to form a large one. On 2012-08-30 00:31, Jojo Jaro wrote: I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. I think the diameter of each reactor is supposed to be that of the model shown in the leaked photo some time back, which was of 9 cm. By the way, I've seen suggested around that this design vaguely reminds that of CANDU nuclear fission reactors (at a much smaller scale). See here: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/candu2.htm Cheers, S.A. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I like D here; He has 83 people working for him in his company. Delegating reactor packaging to a mechanical engineering group seems reasonable to me because this activity does not involve entrusting the secret sauce to somebody else. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things: a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story, b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked; c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected, surprised, d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found something new No possibility of realist choice here. Peter On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Actually, I hope you are wrong. We need these systems ASAP. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Or it might be that after 3 years he does not yet have a stable reactor,
like DGT, Rohners, Terrawatt, etc. these things might last for a short
period of time for a demo but then break down in short order. They run
just long enough to show a patent officer or inspector or investor...
On Thursday, August 30, 2012, Axil Axil wrote:
Many viral infections are successful in infecting other hosts because
these pathogens delay symptoms until they have had an almost certain
opportunity to spread. Evolution has proven that such a delaying survival
tactic allows the pathogen to survive and prosper, ADS and influenza are
examples of the “kept it quiet” infection strategy.
Rossi is using this dormancy infection strategy to imbed his product
deeply in the marketplace before it can be stuffed out by a countering
competitive eradication procedure by another form of energy production. .
Cheers: Axil
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'jedrothw...@gmail.com');
wrote:
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:
Of course I agree with Jed. This is the same plague that effects all of
these devices.
Well, not the small scale cold fusion devices at places like SRI, thank
goodness. They are established beyond any rational doubt.
If I may be a little more serious about Rossi . . . It is clear to me
that his policy is the same as Patterson's was. He does not want
credibility. He *does not want* people to know for sure that his device
is real -- or that it is fake. (I assume it is real, mainly because there
are a growing number of credible nanoparticle Ni-H results.)
Rossi has repeatedly gone out of his way to prevent people from
independently confirming his claims. People including me. I could have
verified it to a far greater extent than it has been so far. I could have
done this easily in a few hours. He knows I could have. He put his foot
down. Let me repeat with emphasis, and let me make this clear: he told me
and he told several other people that *he will he will never allow
independent public testing*.
I and many others have proposed such tests. We could arrange them in a
few days. He says no tests! He means it. He only allows tests that will
remain secret under NDAs. As I have said here before, I know of some secret
tests. I never publish things without permission. The last thing I need is
to have researchers upset with me. I get in enough trouble with Rossi and
others when I say the sort of thing I am saying here, in this message.
I assume Rossi cultivates this ambiguity for the same reason Patterson
did. I doubt it is because he is trying to cover up a fraud, and I can't
think of any other reasons. Patterson and Reding both told me they wanted
most people to think they were wrong, or crazy, or frauds, because that
gave them 100% market share. I told him Patterson he would end up with
100% of nothing. Needless to say, he took his technology and his market
share to the grave with him. I predicted he would. I predict Rossi will do
the same thing if he persists with this strategy. There is no chance you
can keep this secret to the extent he is trying to do yet also achieve
commercial success.
Rossi and Patterson also shunned mass media exposure. No kidding. They
went out of their way to make themselves look bad in the mass media. This
is a business strategy, not lunacy. It is a lousy strategy, in my opinion.
It usually fails.
Defkalion has done the same thing, by the way. Last January they said
they wanted tests with the results made public. Apparently they changed
their minds, or they changed the schedule. As far as I know, all tests done
since then have been under restrictive NDAs. I do not know if any of these
NDAs have a time limit. A little information has leaked out despite the
NDAs. As far as I can tell the tests have been unimpressive. But who knows?
Until they publish a complete independent data set, you don't know whether
their claims are valid. I see no point to speculating. It is a waste of
time trying to suss out information people do not want you to have.
Generally speaking, in my experience, the value of a technical claim is
inversely proportional to the level of secrecy applied to it.
- Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Item E Independent test showed no anomalous energy. -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I like D here; He has 83 people working for him in his company. Delegating reactor packaging to a mechanical engineering group seems reasonable to me because this activity does not involve entrusting the secret sauce to somebody else. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: If Rossi says he is shocked this could mean more things: a) he is not shocked but knows that some shocks are good in a story, b) be he is not shocked but wants the reader be shocked; c) he is sincerely shocked because he has found something unexpected, surprised, d) he has now a team working for him and the team indeed has found something new No possibility of realist choice here. Peter On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:17 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Actually, I hope you are wrong. We need these systems ASAP. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 7:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I find it extremely difficult to take anything AR says seriously. His research seems to be advancing too fast even if he does have assistance from the NRL, which I doubt would be taking place in a warehouse in Italy. Just my opinion. I could be wrong. T -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Rossi said...
Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-309975 Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-310135 Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - From: Patrick Ellul To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AM Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AM Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Rossi adopts Chan last year: AnonymousDecember 18, 2011 12:42 PM http://opensourcenuclearfuel.blogspot.com/2011/11/possible-activator-for-gas-loaded-lenr.html?showComment=1324240950625#c4302940741857909284 Used LiH from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=enN4=201049|ALDRICHN5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEYF=SPEC nano-nickel-copper from http://www.canfuo.com/NanoNi-Cu.html LiBH4 from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=enN4=222356|ALDRICHN5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEYF=SPEC and Fe powder from http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?N4=267953|ALDRICHN5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEYF=SPEC mixed in unequal proportions (Proprietary). Using glove box with previously suggested barbecue propane bleed the mix was loaded into 8lengths of Cu tube welded shut on bottom. Vice pinched and welded closed at the top, 4 tubes were loaded into a Chan oil bath with resistant heater and pumped with an RFG. The temperature rose as expected at a steady rate until 80 C where a strong acceleration of rate showed on the computer screen associated with the thermocouple. I Immediately cut all power. It kept rising. Maximum oil circulation through radiator was not able to control it. I circulated cold water through a copper emergency coil previously placed in the oil bath. This finally worked. To control and contain this untamed LENR I will now switch to the Chan oil dispersion technique which should provide greater control and safer operation. http://opensourcenuclearfuel.blogspot.com/2011/11/possible-activator-for-gas-loaded-lenr.html Obviously oil out, larger sealed tubes, NiH +LiH mix, in mentioned large container container. See my work also. Sweet and spicy
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
On 2012-08-30 00:31, Jojo Jaro wrote: I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. I think the diameter of each reactor is supposed to be that of the model shown in the leaked photo some time back, which was of 9 cm. By the way, I've seen suggested around that this design vaguely reminds that of CANDU nuclear fission reactors (at a much smaller scale). See here: http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/candu2.htm Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I talking about the area of the openning, not the area of the circumference of the cylinder. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation. This is the entire surface area of the cylinder. Please check your figures and let me know if there is an error. This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor. It is time to do some further research into this. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - From: Patrick Ellul To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AM Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AM Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
I see now what you are saying. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I talking about the area of the openning, not the area of the circumference of the cylinder. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation.This is the entire surface area of the cylinder. Please check your figures and let me know if there is an error. This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor. It is time to do some further research into this. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - From: Patrick Ellul To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM Subject: [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AM Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AM Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
It is going to be revealed soon the e-cat is a time machine too. Giovanni On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I see now what you are saying. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... I talking about the area of the openning, not the area of the circumference of the cylinder. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:19 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation. This is the entire surface area of the cylinder. Please check your figures and let me know if there is an error. This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor. It is time to do some further research into this. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-309975 Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-310135 Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: It is going to be revealed soon the e-cat is a time machine too. And antigravity. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Giovanni Santostasi gsantost...@gmail.com wrote: It is going to be revealed soon the e-cat is a time machine too. And antigravity. T and sausage maker. harry
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
And tea kettle. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Terry, do I detect a bit of sarcasm? Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 11:33 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... And tea kettle. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Would that be Russell's Teapot you're referring to? ;-) On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: And tea kettle. T
RE: [Vo]:Rossi said...
Would that be Russell's Teapot you're referring to? Oh heavens no. It's the Mad Hatter's (aka, Richard Garwin) teapot, of course. From: Jeff Berkowitz [mailto:pdx...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:14 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... Would that be Russell's Teapot you're referring to? ;-) On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: And tea kettle. T
Re: [Vo]:Rossi said...
My back of the envelope scratching suggests that a like-sized three-dimensional region of a fuel bundle in a conventional LWR fission core produces just about the same amount of energy. That volume would accommodate ~4 linear feet of ~100 fuel rods which would produce ~1 MW. Note: I am not a nuclear engineer but I'm playing one tonight on the interwebs. Ymmv. Jeff On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jojo, I get 3.77 square meters of area with a quick calculation. This is the entire surface area of the cylinder. Please check your figures and let me know if there is an error. This is very interesting information from Rossi as, if true, his device now would fit nicely within a locomotive size tractor. It is time to do some further research into this. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:31 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi said... This is incredible power density. Seems unbelievable how you can pack 1MW output from these dimensions. If true, this is more revolutionary than we thought. I did some rough calculations. With diameter of the cylinder at 1.2 m, the area is 1.13 m2. Assuming that the coolant pipes take up about 50% if this area, and fitting remaining area with 100 reactors. Each reactor would have a diameter of 4.2 cm. Each 4.2 cm dia. reactor would be producing 10KW. Dave, maybe you can do some simulations on if it even is possible to remove this much heat from such a reactor. Another thing. Rossi says he's shocked. Does this mean that Rossi no longer does the main development. Otherwise, How can he be shocked by something he is developing himself? Or maybe, he is shocked by the extent of his own imagination. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:45 AM *Subject:* [Vo]:Rossi said... Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 3:05 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-309975 Dear Dr Joseph Fine: You are perfectly right: in fact we are designing the new 1 MW plants, for hot temperature, and the dimensions will be those of a cylinder with a diameter of 1.2 m and a lencth od 0.4 m. Is shocking, I myself are surprised, but it is so. Warmest Regards, A.R. Andrea Rossi August 29th, 2012 at 9:45 AMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=63#comment-310135 Dear Franco: Attention: the dimensions 1.2 x 0.4 is not the surface of the surface of the reactors! Inside this drum of 1.2 x 0.4 m there are 100 reactors , each of one having about 1 200 cm^2 of surface ! I talked of the dimensions of the external container, not of the heat exchange surface ! Warm Regards, A.R. Regards, Patrick
