Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
I quoted: Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is not a surprise . . . Furthermore, that appraisal was done by the authors themselves, in NyTeknik. It isn't anecdotal -- it is what they measured and reported. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
This is hilarious and indicative of a child's playground mentality . did so, did not, did so . ROTFL - you said yourself, on the advice of your so-called expert, that the 130 kW was BOGUS !! So now are you reversing direction once again, hoping to save face by using the data you already rejected as evidence for something else that is immaterial ! . or is it just sobbing in sandbox, because you are looking more foolish with every inane posting? Jones From: Jed Rothwell Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is not a surprise . . . Furthermore, this is simple arithmetic. Input is 80 W, output 130,000. That's a factor of 1,624. You claim it is 2 or 3. That's a factor of 800. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
I love this group. It makes better viewing than a soap opera ;). Joe On 19 Apr 2011, at 14:58, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is hilarious and indicative of a child’s playground mentality … did so, did not, did so … ROTFL – you said yourself, on the advice of your so-called expert, that the 130 kW was BOGUS !! So now are you reversing direction once again, hoping to save face by using the data you already rejected as evidence for something else that is immaterial ! … or is it just sobbing in sandbox, because you are looking more foolish with every inane posting? Jones From: Jed Rothwell Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is not a surprise . . . Furthermore, this is simple arithmetic. Input is 80 W, output 130,000. That's a factor of 1,624. You claim it is 2 or 3. That's a factor of 800. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is hilarious and indicative of a child’s playground mentality … did so, did not, did so … ROTFL The message is right here: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45088.html It says there is at least a 1000:1 error. Maybe you did not mean that. I suggest you explain what you meant. – you said yourself, on the advice of your so-called expert, that the 130 kW was BOGUS !! I said problematic. That is assuming the cell is exactly 1 L and more or less in the shape of a liter water bottle. Since the e-Cat is long and slender, I suppose the cell is also long and slender. It may be somewhat bigger than 1 L; that was a rough estimate. Make it 3 L and a different shape, and it transfers about as much per surface area as a fission reactor fuel rod, which is perfectly believable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
I wrote: Since the e-Cat is long and slender, I suppose the cell is also long and slender. That might also explain why it needs 5 heaters, where the e-Kitten needs only one. Rossi does not want to discuss the shape of the cell. I suppose that means the shape is important. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
I'm hoping that Jed will soon post that Rossi Quotes .doc file, instead of doing back'n'forth with Jonas :) On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk wrote: I love this group. It makes better viewing than a soap opera ;). Joe
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
Hello, I have been looking at the calculations from Jed Rothwell, Robin van Spaandonk and Jones Been. I think the proposed heat transfer of 130 kW would be possible, but only with a pressurised system (as in a nuclear reactor) to prevent steam production. I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour explosions are heard. I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach the boilingpoint before it reaches the end of the nickel catalyst. If you have a hotplate and you put a relatively small amount of water on it, according to me the water will evaporate instantly with a lot of noise. On the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Ru1eAymvE the inlet tube is periodically moving and a clicking sound is being heard, but that is probably due to the pump which introduces the water, but I am not sure. In the past I already expressed my surprise that the black tube coming from the Rossi reactor is not moving during the test. Would a steamflow with an energycontent of 12 kW not cause a reactionforce on the hole system? Peter van Noorden - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1 I quoted: Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which is not a surprise . . . Furthermore, that appraisal was done by the authors themselves, in NyTeknik. It isn't anecdotal -- it is what they measured and reported. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
P.J van Noorden wrote: I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour explosions are heard. Which experiment was that? You may be confused. On Jan. 14 the flow rate was 18 L/h, power ~12 kW. On March 29, the flow rate was 6.7 L/h but the power was 4.7 kW, not 12 kW. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
From: P.J van Noorden I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour explosions are heard. I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach the boilingpoint before it reaches the end of the nickel catalyst. Precisely ! No steam buts this into the category as divine intervention . And can you imagine - lo and behold NO steam explosion at 130 KW/15 min (equivalent to 520 KWh) A modern day miracle !! But - not surprising as many are already treating Rossi as some kind of Messiah figure who can do no wrong - I want to get in on the water-into-wine if anyone hears the date. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach the boilingpoint before it reaches the end of the nickel catalyst. Precisely ! No steam buts this into the category as divine intervention … And can you imagine – lo and behold NO steam explosion at 130 KW/15 min (equivalent to 520 KWh) Why would there be a steam explosion when the power is only enough to raise the temperature of the water to 40°C by the time it reaches the end of the nickel catalyst cell? That is well below the boiling point of water. Hydrodynamics and others make factory boilers much larger than 130 kW. They make them 200 to 400 kW. However, the flow of water through these boilers is rapid, so the water does not flash into steam. Your assertions make no sense. You seem to think that the e-Cat should have melted a ton of steel. How can it do that if all of the heat is being carried off in the form of hot water? You cannot use the same heat twice, once to heat water, and once again to melt steel. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
I wrote: Your assertions make no sense. You seem to think that the e-Cat should have melted a ton of steel. How can it do that if all of the heat is being carried off in the form of hot water? A nuclear reactor could probably melt a ton of steel in a few seconds, but it heats water instead. Except, unfortunately, at Three Mile Island and Fukushima. Over the course of a month or so, my home water heater could melt a lot of steel too (if you could hold the heat in a well insulated container), but I use it for hot baths instead. At around 40°C as it happens. This discussion is surrealistic. What sense does it make to say that a machine that heats water could have or should have melted steel instead?!? You can't do both. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
On 04/19/2011 10:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote: A modern day miracle !! But -- not surprising as many are already treating Rossi as some kind of Messiah figure who can do no wrong -- Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi? You swallowed all the nonsense spewed out by *Doctor* Stiffler, quite some time back, with hardly a hiccup, despite the fact that his claims were flat-out impossible, and his trick was spotted early on (inductive power transfer from his signal generator, which was kept running throughout his tests). What's so different about Rossi that it's got your hair in a snood? Rossi's overall process isn't physically impossible, and so far nobody's spotted any trick which could account for his results. Why are you getting so bent out of shape over the fact that Jed is convinced that Rossi's device is the Real McCoy? Jed's being a whole lot more reasonable about this than you were about the Stiffler miracle, as far as I can see.
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
Jed, Yes, you are right. The waterflow was higher. During the test on january 14th one can hear a pulsating sound. I suspect that this is caused by a pump which infuses a certain amount of water into the Rossi cell. Do you know if the waterflow is continously or pulsating? Peter - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1 P.J van Noorden wrote: I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour explosions are heard. Which experiment was that? You may be confused. On Jan. 14 the flow rate was 18 L/h, power ~12 kW. On March 29, the flow rate was 6.7 L/h but the power was 4.7 kW, not 12 kW. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Beene says the error is at least 1000:1
P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote: The waterflow was higher. During the test on january 14th one can hear a pulsating sound. I suspect that this is caused by a pump which infuses a certain amount of water into the Rossi cell. Do you know if the waterflow is continously or pulsating? On Jan. 14 they used a constant displacement pump, which made that pulsating sound. On Feb. 10 they did not have pump big enough and they needed lots of water, so they attached it directly to the tap (faucet), and opened the tap until it reached ~1 liter per second. They measured this flow with a bucket, and also by looked at a flowmeter. It was the kind of flowmeter the water company uses to charge you for water, out at the curb in front of your house or building. These things are extremely reliable. Not precise, but very accurate. They must have had a large water bill! - Jed
