Mats Lewan told me that the cylinder was not attached to the gas inlet
(it just looked that way in some photos) and its purpose was a radiation
sensor (probably a gamma scintillator). Mats said the frequency device
was behind the eCat - so I keep looking for glimpses of it in the
videos.
I originally surmised heat exchanger fins on the bottom, but several
vorts insisted that there is no evidence for heat fins on the bottom and
that the reactor cell is bolted to the bottom (but I didn't show bolts).
So I removed the fins on the bottom.
Your comment about the internal water flow
I generously considered that the insulation value was R6 in my analysis (an
input in the spreadsheet), but much of that insulation may have been lost when
the water leaked into the insulation. If you presume R6, and calculate the
outside area of the eCat, the calculation of the heat loss is
I think the effort of disassembly of the internal cell is being grossly
under-estimated by those wishing for/expecting a viewing of the guts.
In Rossi's big eCat, the cover seal was leaking water at 15 psi of
pressure (maybe less). The cell is far more difficult to seal. Inside
is initially ~150
One of the reasons that Rossi may not wish to run a very long test is
that I suspect that HE is the control mechanism. When it is run in
self-sustaining mode, after some period it will need to be briefly
reheated to stabilize the mode. If it was not in self-sustaining mode,
then it may be in
And let us not forget Occam’s razor. Dr. Ed Storms, in his book, makes a good
point that any theory of the mechanism should explain all of the experimental
evidence, not just a convenient subset. It seems to me (Occam’s razor) that
there is only one truly new phenomenon taking place in this
This is a lot of good work, Alan. I am amazed at the number of high
quality posts on Vortex. I am having trouble keeping up because each
post warrants a good deal of thought.
I examined pictures of the manifold and created a diagram to capture the
important features. [I made a small .png
Regarding the thermocouples and isolation. I don't believe electrical
isolation is responsible for a noticeable error because thermocouple
measurements, particularly when measured with systems that accommodate
more than one thermocouple, make the measurements differentially. I.E.
the
Hi David,
Yours was a very thoughtful post. It has taken some time to digest, and I can
say I have not fully evaluated the implications across the whole experiment.
However, I don’t think something so complicated need be invoked to explain the
power spike immediately after shutdown.
My PV system uses a 5kW grid tie DC-AC inverter that is all solid state,
no moving parts (not even a fan), and is 96% efficient. It has been
working beautifully for the last 3 years.
Note that unless you make a provision to throttle the E-cat, you will
have to at least provide a sacrificial
/Superconducting_Radio_Frequency
mic
2011/10/19 Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com:
Say that initially the superconductor was brought into its SC state not in
the presence of magnetic fields. At that time there are nominally no
supercurrents. As you bring the SC into the presence of a magnet
Note that superconductors have zero resistance only for DC. At all frequencies
above DC, the resistance is finite and there is penetration. Consider also
that true DC extends from time -infinity to +infinity as a constant. Moving
the superconductor in a magnetic field does create resistance
?
How are S-C currents not DC?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum levitation
From: fznidar...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:19:59 -0400
thanks for the info
-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003 bob.higg...@motorolasolutions.com
The reason that I included the pressure regulator in the diagram of the output
of the E-cat was based on two pieces of evidence. First, the temperature, T2,
in the 10/6 test gets too hot for room temperature boiling water, but is about
right for water at 1 bar (gauge). Second, if you look at
Since the E-cat was leaking, it is likely that the insulation was
saturated with water by the end of the experiment. Could that account
for the gain in weight?
Bob Higgins
-Original Message-
From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Alexander Hollins
Sent:
As I recall, at the same time the hydrogen was discharged, the water flow rate
was increased - basically being doubled. This caused short term stored energy
(hot water) to be pushed out of the E-cat output and then measured in the heat
exchanger. If you look at the reactor temperature, it
I was concerned about the high temperatures being seen in the E-cat which were
not plausible without elevated pressure. I remembered seeing an account on the
web (can't recall where at the moment) where there was mention of a visible
spring used in a pressure limiter (think of a pressure
The drawing I included is only meant to be a diagrammatic/schematic
representation to help understand the quantities being considered.
Regards, Bob Higgins
-Original Message-
From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 4:27 PM
To:
Hi Mark,
I will consider such a drawing. However, the present diagram is not
geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the
cross-section so as to highlight the fins. What is needed is a proper
drawing from the pictures. I just don't know what useful insight would
be obtained from
At this point, I can only say that my involvement is personal. I was
around in those Patterson days and was part of a panel that considered
Motorola's involvement. Unfortunately, I am one of the few from that
group that is still with the company. Patterson really didn't want
Motorola's
: Thursday, October 13, 2011 7:20 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Analysis by Bob Higgins
At 03:26 PM 10/13/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote:
Hi Mark,
I will consider such a drawing. However, the present diagram is not
geometrically correct - the internal unit is rotated in the
cross
21 matches
Mail list logo
