Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h) It's amazing that nobody reads the report. He wrote ENERGY PRODUCED. That's not energy flow, is energy produced. ANd it's not a typo, because he wrote it many many times. 2011/10/8 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna. He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual error, a big one. No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h). http://www.wolframalpha.com/**input/?i=kWh/hhttp://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Hi, On 8-10-2011 17:44, Mattia Rizzi wrote: No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h) It's amazing that nobody reads the report. He wrote ENERGY PRODUCED. That's not energy flow, is energy produced. ANd it's not a typo, because he wrote it many many times. 2011/10/8 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna. He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual error, a big one. No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear. Ok, once again Mattia, I know what you are referring to and you are right. The thing only is, it's not a matter of syntax but semantics as Stremmenson and others who say kWh/h i.s.o. kWh seem not to know or understand that kWh is already a unit of Energy which is ALWAYS expressed in power per time unit. You really need to read inter versus, to understand what Stremmenson meant to say. Yes, his syntax is wrong, but his semantics are right! If you don't understand what I mean, then please look up the meaning of the words SYNTAX and SEMANTICS. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
I think the reason for easy confusion is that kWh is not a term that the lay person normally deals with. 1 KWh, or 1 kilowatt-hour, does not indicate 1 kilowatt per hour, but represents 1 kilowatt over a span of 1 hour. Hence, 500 watts for two hours = 1 kWh. The layperson inherently links kWh as kilowatts per hour. Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, On 8-10-2011 17:44, Mattia Rizzi wrote: No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h) It's amazing that nobody reads the report. He wrote ENERGY PRODUCED. That's not energy flow, is energy produced. ANd it's not a typo, because he wrote it many many times. 2011/10/8 Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna. He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual error, a big one. No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear. Ok, once again Mattia, I know what you are referring to and you are right. The thing only is, it's not a matter of syntax but semantics as Stremmenson and others who say kWh/h i.s.o. kWh seem not to know or understand that kWh is already a unit of Energy which is ALWAYS expressed in power per time unit. You really need to read inter versus, to understand what Stremmenson meant to say. Yes, his syntax is wrong, but his semantics are right! If you don't understand what I mean, then please look up the meaning of the words SYNTAX and SEMANTICS. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi wrote: You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they talk about energy. Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very wrong. Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Even a emeritus professor in physics who's mission is supposed to teach others ? Jed, you're or too indulgent or too naive. This is not a single error. They keep doing the same mistake over and over. A poor student will fail any test with this little mistake. 2011/10/7 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Mattia Rizzi wrote: You didn’t get the point. What is wrong is that they means kilowatt but they talk about energy. Stremmeson used kwh/h (equals to kW) and wrote “energy produced”. That’s very wrong. Ah, I see your point. Let us assume this was a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
On 10/07/2011 10:31 AM, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Stremmeson was a physics/chemistry professor from university of bologna. He made several error inside this report. That’s not a typo, is a conceptual error, a big one. No, it isn't. He's talking about energy (Kwh) flow (/h). http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kWh/h Although the expression may be confusing, the concepts are clear. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
That part was written by a Greek not an Italian, LOL. But that is probably a typo given that it is unusual to write power as kwh/h and that the original text was in greek. 2011/10/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com The test was done in July, not June. And we have a university professor that measure Energy with Kwh/h intead of kWh. And that can't do a correct integral (the formula of integral are wrong). That's italy :( -Messaggio originale- From: Akira Shirakawa Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report On 2011-10-06 16:11, Akira Shirakawa wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/**2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-**2011.htmlhttp://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html According to Passerini (in one of his comments), there were Fat-Cat modules ready for use back in June, but they haven't been shown to Krivit during his visit in Bologna for a reason or another. I wonder why. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
At 08:10 AM 10/6/2011, Mattia Rizzi wrote: And we have a university professor that measure Energy with Kwh/h intead of kWh. per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour, that's most likely kWh/Heat -- but doesn't explain the Kw instead of kW
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
http://www.google.com/search?num=100hl=ensafe=offbiw=1152bih=746q=%22kwh%2Fh%22oq=%22kwh%2Fh%22aq=faqi=g-v2aql=gs_sm=egs_upl=2926l4028l0l4521l2l2l0l0l0l0l270l443l0.1.1l2l0 2011/10/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com Stremmenson can speak italian quite good. The unit of measure “kWh/h” for energy was used only by Rossicompany. It’s not a typo. Was used many many times by Rossi and you can see that it’s typed everywhere, from photos to text inside the report. *From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:32 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report That part was written by a Greek not an Italian, LOL. But that is probably a typo given that it is unusual to write power as kwh/h and that the original text was in greek. 2011/10/6 Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com The test was done in July, not June. And we have a university professor that measure Energy with Kwh/h intead of kWh. And that can't do a correct integral (the formula of integral are wrong). That's italy :( -Messaggio originale- From: Akira Shirakawa Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:00 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:July 7th E-Cat test report On 2011-10-06 16:11, Akira Shirakawa wrote: http://22passi.blogspot.com/**2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-**2011.htmlhttp://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/10/test-e-cat-7-luglio-2011.html According to Passerini (in one of his comments), there were Fat-Cat modules ready for use back in June, but they haven't been shown to Krivit during his visit in Bologna for a reason or another. I wonder why. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi wrote: Here in ITALY, WE USE kWh for ENERGY and kW for POWER. Not all of you. I know several Italians who use kWh/h, as I mentioned. Not just Rossi. kWh/h IS NOT AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD (IS) UNIT OF MEASURE. By semplification kWh/h equal to kW, which is a measure of POWER. The report is totally wrong about this. A notation that many professional people actually use cannot be called totally wrong. A little odd, perhaps. Nonstandard. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
In reply to Mattia Rizzi's message of Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:31:58 +0200: Hi, [snip] The precise calculation of the output ***thermal energy in Kwh per hour***, which the reactor produces through the exothermal nuclear reaction of NICKEL-HYDROGEN. Look at image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-k4ysf4H8ntA/To2cA6P_50I/Fjs/ERVWCfAKflk/s1600/BOLOGNA+TEST+7-7-11tre.png 15 kg/h (water) ? 627,5 wh (needed energy for the evaporation of 1 kg of water) = 9412 wh/h = 9,412 ***Kwh/h ENERGY produced*** in a hour during the You put the *** in the wrong place. Try reading it like this: 9,412 Kwh/h *** ENERGY produced in a hour *** during the phase shift (evaporation). http://22passi.blogspot.com/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
In reply to Mattia Rizzi's message of Thu, 6 Oct 2011 19:31:58 +0200: Hi, [snip] PS - Try reading it like this: 9,412 Kwh/h *** ENERGY produced in a hour *** during the or if it makes it clearer, 9,412 Kwh/h *** ENERGY produced per hour *** during the (Energy per unit time = power). phase shift (evaporation). http://22passi.blogspot.com/ Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Hi, On 7-10-2011 0:30, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Stremmenson wrote: As a consequence, the total production of thermal energy of this particular reactor was: 9,412 Kwh/h + 1,22 Kwh/h = 10,6 Kwh/h He used kWh/h as an ENERGY. Hmmm, I think what he meant to say was that he was referring to the amount of energy generated in an hour, but he didn't realize that when using kWh as unit it is already a unit of energy per hour. It's like when people talk about white snow or green grass. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Hi, On 7-10-2011 0:46, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Man on Bridges, kWh/h if you leave the two h means kW, POWER. As a consequence, the total production of thermal energy of this particular reactor was: 9,412 Kwh/h + 1,22 Kwh/h = 10,6 Kwh/h equals to As a consequence, the total production of *thermal energy* of this particular reactor was: 9,412 Kw + 1,22 Kw = 10,6 Kw It's simply wrong. I know what you are referring to and you are right. The thing is, it's not a matter of syntax but semantics as Stremmenson and others who say kWh/h i.s.o. kWh seem not to know or understand that kWh is already a unit of energy which is always expressed in power per time period. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
It is good to understand, that power is the energy production rate or energy per time unit. If you set timeunit to one, then power and energy are the same thing. This is also called as common sense. . . And perhaps Mattia should also need a degree on common sense. . . —Jouni On Oct 7, 2011 1:58 AM, Man on Bridges manonbrid...@aim.com wrote: Hi, On 7-10-2011 0:46, Mattia Rizzi wrote: Man on Bridges, kWh/h if you leave the two h means kW, POWER. As a consequence, the total production of thermal energy of this particular reactor was: 9,412 Kwh/h + 1,22 Kwh/h = 10,6 Kwh/h equals to As a consequence, the total production of *thermal energy* of this particular reactor was: 9,412 Kw + 1,22 Kw = 10,6 Kw It's simply wrong. I know what you are referring to and you are right. The thing is, it's not a matter of syntax but semantics as Stremmenson and others who say kWh/h i.s.o. kWh seem not to know or understand that kWh is already a unit of energy which is always expressed in power per time period. Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Re: July 7th E-Cat test report
Mattia Rizzi mattia.ri...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, i have a scientific degree. I know what are the unit of measuremnts. kWh/h, by semplification, is kW, is a unit of POWER. Using kWh/h for ENERGY is totally wrong. Totally. Open a physic book and study it. Yes, I am aware of this. I learned it in 8th grade as I recall. However, even though this notation is not standard, many people use it. To insist that it is wrong is pedantic. It is pointless. We know that they mean kilowatts. We know this is not standard. You are not telling me or anyone else here anything we do not know, so I suggest you give it a rest. In both common speech and scientific writing there are many forms of notation and many expressions that are irrational, redundant, obsolete, based on mistaken premises, or reversed in meaning. This is a fact of life. Human communication is imperfect. There is no need for you to tell us this. We know. - Jed
