Hi Walter!
Am 18.09.2011 14:04, schrieb Walter Eager:
Regarding your Debunking of Steorn
You have some great theory my friend. It sure makes a lot of sense,
and I do agree with some of what you are
saying (because it makes sense).
Just one thing. Have you actually tested your theory?
No. I do
Am 18.09.2011 17:25, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson:
From Catania,
...
As I've said before I think thermal inertia neatly explains it all.
I don't know of anyone who was not disappointed in the abrupt ending of the
experiment, after input power had been turned off. Yeah, yeah,
Am 18.09.2011 19:03, schrieb OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson:
From Peter: ...
Also it shows us, the experiment still cannot run unattended.
As far as speculation goes, I find myself in sympathy with such speculation.
What I find interesting about such speculation is that it suggests to me
Am 18.09.2011 19:26, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Yes, Rossi repeatedly said selfsustained mode is unstable it can runaway.
Therefore now he runs it selfsustained only for 50% of time now.
Thats what he says. He must have done experiments for this.
He has Labview on his computer.
So I would think he
I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant.
Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar, @100 centigrade = 2675 J/g
(taken from an industrial steam table)
10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s.
Volume of steam = 1.7l / g
So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s
If the crosssectional
Am 18.09.2011 21:19, schrieb Peter Heckert:
So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s
If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the
steam speed is 6.36 m/s.
Oops immediately after posting I found an error ;-)
1l = 1000 cm^3
636000 cm^3/s / 100 cm^2 = 6360 cm/s = 63.6 m
Am 18.09.2011 23:22, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C.
The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g. If 1 MW is heating
100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s, with a
volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec. This gives a flow
Am 17.09.2011 02:05, schrieb Terry Blanton:
Exactly the suggestion I made in March, duplicating Naudin's Moller's
Atomic Hydrogen Generator (MAHG) setup:
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htm sigh T
Hey, this looks interesting!
I do however not believe the ZPE theory. I dont think energy
Hello,
I think Rossis 1MW box would need active cooling or ventilation inside.
Ok, the ecats are thermal isolated, but as repeatedly stated by Rossi
and others, no isolation is perfect.
Just watch Rossis Krivit-demonstration. When he touches the isolated
surface he pulls back his fingers fast,
Am 17.09.2011 10:05, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 17.09.2011 02:05, schrieb Terry Blanton:
Exactly the suggestion I made in March, duplicating Naudin's Moller's
Atomic Hydrogen Generator (MAHG) setup:
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/mahg/index.htm sigh T
Hey, this looks interesting!
I do however
I think the problem is, that you look too much at unimportant information.
First we must decide which of the information is imortant and which is
unimportant.
Also we must see if there is any important information missing. (This is
the most difficult part)
If nothing is missing, then we have
Am 16.09.2011 21:10, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal
obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to
be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then
superheating is the only alternative.
Quite often Rossi
Am 16.09.2011 21:20, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 16.09.2011 21:10, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
Lewan told me that Rossi insists that there are no internal
obstructions to the outlet which would cause the internal pressure to
be significantly above 1 atmosphere. If that is true, then
superheating
Am 16.09.2011 22:13, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
At 12:26 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
To maintain an internal pressure of 3 Bar (needed for 130C) you'd
need a pretty small orifice : less than 1/32 inch ?.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steam-flow-orifices-d_1158.html
(Unfortunately,
Am 16.09.2011 23:25, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
At 01:13 PM 9/16/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I'm still looking for the 'orifice' needed to create 3 Bar internal
pressure.
Napier's formula (accurate to about 3%) for steam going through an
orifice in a flat plate, to atmospheric pressure.
W
Am 16.09.2011 23:52, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
That's super-heating.
So to confirm Rossi's statements (130C, 1 Bar Pressure, No restrictor
orifice, No direct fluid overflow) we would need to show that 130C (or
maybe 120C) superheated steam (ie NO liquid water) at 11 kg/hr will
condense to
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside the
device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It
likely is directly heated by its metal surroundings. The water
pulsing out of the device is clearly not 130°C.
They did change the measuring method and Im surprised, this are very
clever changes:
1) The output hose has thermal isolation now. Also the hose is shorter.
So the hose cannot loose (much) thermal energy.
Therefore it is possible to measure the /total/ energy at the end of the
hose.
2) The
Am 15.09.2011 21:02, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com mailto:sa...@pobox.com wrote:
My concern is actually rather different.
My concern is that I suspect he knows perfectly well what the
flaws were in his analysis, and realizes that the steam wasn't dry.
Am 15.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
If as you say the heat does not balance no doubt that is because the
machine radiates a great deal and this is not accounted for. The
machine is insulated but no insulation is perfect.
The insulation is more perfect than this insulation that I have
Am 15.09.2011 21:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 22:31, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Sticking the one and only output measuring thermometer down inside
the device is still as useless as ever for calorimetry purposes. It
likely
Am 14.09.2011 01:20, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 13, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges:
Hi,
On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote:
snip calculation of lead shielding
Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source
Am 14.09.2011 02:17, schrieb Man on Bridges:
Hi,
On 14-9-2011 1:20, Horace Heffner wrote:
snip calculation
Just a thought.
Let's suppose Rossi is using a gamma radiation source as a catalyzer.
Is it then possible to determine the source (catalyzer) of the gamma
source, if the following
Am 14.09.2011 08:20, schrieb Peter Heckert:
As soon as it is totally and unmistakenly clear, this is a nuclear
reaction that produces large amounts of energy, law will stop him.
And international scientific research will start.
You cannot discover the stone of philosophers and commercialize
Am 14.09.2011 10:08, schrieb Horace Heffner:
It is not possible to put enough lead in the device to suppress the
1.33 MeV gammas from cobalt to even a non-lethal level - provided
there is enough cobalt to sustain a 15 kW reaction at one gamma per
LENR reaction.
Yes this is correct. But
Bologna April 19, 2011
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: 25 bar
Bologna April 28, 2011
Weight hydrogen bottle (attached, opened, closed, and detached):
-
Am 14.09.2011 07:08, schrieb Peter Gluck:
The 1 MW plant with 333 cats meowing in a chorus is
a blasphemy against the Goddess of Engineering who demands simple but
reliable tests with individual E-cats,
according to the very logic of the things and to the pragmatical
common sense.
Many
Am 14.09.2011 08:55, schrieb Peter Gluck:
a) See the E-cat run in the self sustaining mode
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Here my Analysis:
At the end, when the water input valve is opened, then a mixture out of
water and steam comes out with
Am 14.09.2011 21:09, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
I wrote:
I do not see what you mean. (I don't hear what you mean.) In the
video, starting around 5:00 they turn off the power. I hear the
pump still running.
I mean the video minute 5, which occurred at 23:10 real-time. The pump
sound
Hi,
Could it be that Rossi uses a Cobalt60 gamma source as catalyzer?
Cobalt 60 decays to Nickel60 and emits gamma rays. The gamma spectrum could be
just the right spectrum and energy to excite the Nickel nucleus.
Maybe it is mainly the Cobalt60 that needs screening and not the reactor? This
Am 13.09.2011 20:32, schrieb Peter Gluck:
TESTING is a problem of definition, like sex- a la Bill Clinton.
Testing is always testing for what
Is it really about a perfect experment done with hundreds of E-cats
combined;, energy out, energy in radiations out and so on..,.?
Without doubt tests
Horace,
thank you very much. I dont have the knowledge to calculate this. Only
know the very basics.
Found this via google:
http://itcanbeshown.com/NERS425/Lab5/Shielding%20-%20Final%20Version.pdf
There is data about screening.
My idea was, it could be a very small and weak source, such as
Am 13.09.2011 22:47, schrieb Man on Bridges:
Hi,
On 13-9-2011 20:44, Horace Heffner wrote:
snip calculation of lead shielding
Hmmm, is there a way to start and stop a gamma radiation source, as it
may be used only to trigger the process?
There is no other way than shielding or increasing
Am 11.09.2011 00:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I don't see why they would need to store any Hydrogen. They could
just produce
it on demand through electrolysis. If they can't do this then the
device is
worthless anyway.
It is
Am 11.09.2011 11:04, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 11.09.2011 00:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I don't see why they would need to store any Hydrogen. They could
just produce
it on demand through electrolysis. If they can't do
Am 11.09.2011 11:36, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 11.09.2011 11:04, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 11.09.2011 00:44, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
mix...@bigpond.com mailto:mix...@bigpond.com wrote:
I don't see why they would need to store any Hydrogen. They
could just produce
it on demand
Kullander and Essen reported, that the reactor was not flushed.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29.
Page 2 , Startup:
The air of atmospheric pressure was remaining in the container as a
small impurity.
Am
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Kullander and Essen reported, that the reactor was not flushed.
http://www.nyteknik.se/incoming/article3144960.ece/BINARY/Download+the+report+by+Kullander+and+Ess%C3%A9n+%28pdf%29
fond of interestingness
but NOT this kind of interestingness.
Peter
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
Am 09.09.2011 20:24, schrieb Peter Gluck:
How could they know that it was air in the reactor? I
Dont know
When cathode rays where researched, people tried to deflect the rays by
electric fields.
It was observed that cathode rays could NOT be deflected by external
electrodes.
Therefore Heinrich Hertz said, no this are not particles, this are
longitudinal waves.
He was the most famous scientist at
Am 05.09.2011 23:56, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Good question Peter,
A possible answer begins on page 7 of:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/CasimirGenerator.pdf
The lateral forces on capacitor plates is due to fringe fields. The
Casimir force is highly non-linear, so fringe forces differ
Am 06.09.2011 17:58, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 06.09.2011 02:20, schrieb francis:
Which is to say we outside the cavity appear to be the Paradox twin
approaching C and slowing down due to time dilation relative to the
modified ratio of V^2/C^2 inside the cavity.
Interesting thought.
Could
Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert:
BTW, this theory
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm
could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in nanoscaled
inhomogenous condensed matter systems, but it denies classic Casimir
Force.
So, what should I
Am 06.09.2011 21:18, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 06.09.2011 18:31, schrieb Peter Heckert:
BTW, this theory
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/prevens/casimir/casimir.htm
could possibly explain how the coloumb wall is overcome in
nanoscaled
Hi Frank,
I was thinking about this some time ago.
I see these problems:
When we make the Casimir plates then we must create two surfaces that
fit exactly together. This requires energy. There are some simple
possibilities:
1) We break a piece of metal and then we have two pieces that fit
Am 03.09.2011 22:59, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Rossi was upset by Krivit's conclusions from these interviews, and his
long report. So was I. I thought in particular he distorted Levi's
statements about the purpose of the 18-hour test, and the reasons Levi
does not plan to publish the results. As
Am 04.09.2011 09:59, schrieb Peter Heckert:
Am 03.09.2011 22:59, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTnucleartra.pdf
This event was irrefutable proof of a massive, self-sustaining
nuclear reaction. Mizuno has never had any doubt whatever about
Low Energy Nuclear Reactions = Low Probability Nuclear Reactions?
Now if these reactions are low probability, they still can happen, and
can be true, but they have no practical value...
Am 04.09.2011 16:30, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de
wrote:
This makes me a little bit sceptic about LENR. They research for
20 years now and still have no repeatable results.
That is incorrect. You need to read the literature
Am 04.09.2011 17:23, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de
wrote:
10-20% COP is easily explained as measuring error.
Not with the instruments used by McKubre or Storms. If you think it
would be easy I suggest you write a paper
Am 02.09.2011 22:04, schrieb Horace Heffner:
The above makes no sense to me. Resistor wattage ratings are merely
the maximum wattage that can be put though them without the
expectation they will be destroyed. The power ratings are not used to
compute the power or current through them. If
Am 03.09.2011 14:11, schrieb Horace Heffner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
This should be correct because the current IEC 60446 standard is
neutral-blue, line-brown, and protective-earth-green/yellow.
There appears to be some kind of short white adapter between the wall
Am 03.09.2011 14:48, schrieb Horace Heffner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistor
I have had lots of experience burning out resistors. 8^)
I too. Electronics once was my hobby, and still is my day job ;-)
Because I repair, test and develop I have seen burned devices of all
kinds ;-)
Am 03.09.2011 15:23, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 3, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 03.09.2011 14:11, schrieb Horace Heffner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8QdVwY98E
This should be correct because the current IEC 60446 standard is
neutral-blue, line-brown, and protective
Am 01.09.2011 17:27, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:
Roy Virgilio (a close source to the Piantelli group who often posted
reliable news on their ongoing work) wrote a post today in the italian
Energeticambient forum that might interest Rossi followers as well. I
will translate it below:
It seems
Am 01.09.2011 19:12, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:
- Although Rossi initially complained about it, he agreed to perform
tests without phase changes (no steam)
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully.
So they should be tested with steam, but the steam
Am 01.09.2011 20:12, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com
mailto:jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Horace wrote: «I would note that steam sparging can have large
errors due to steam escaping, due to variability in measuring the
temperature decline curve, due to
Am 01.09.2011 20:20, schrieb Akira Shirakawa:
On 2011-09-01 20:11, Peter Heckert wrote:
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully. [...]
I guess they want to remove completely any possible source of error or
ambiguity which steam brings, in a way
Am 01.09.2011 20:53, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
- Although Rossi initially complained about it, he agreed to perform
tests without phase changes (no steam)
I dont understand this. The devices where tested all the times with
steam successfully.
So they should be tested
Am 01.09.2011 21:13, schrieb Peter Heckert:
That is a good rule of thumb. However, as I said these devices have
been tested with liquid phase only. Rossi prefers steam because it is
easier, more convenient,
Yes, Rossi can look inside, but we cannot, so we cannot accept it.
Even if the pope
Am 01.09.2011 22:45, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert wrote:
Yes, Rossi can look inside, but we cannot, so we cannot accept it.
Even if the pope himself swears it on the holy bible I would not
finally believe this before I have seen it myself.
Do you mean: 1. Until you see an actual
There is some strong evidence that has been missed by most.
It is in the Essen-Kullander report. Unfortunately this was not
emphasized in the media, but if you read the report, it becomes obvious.
BTW, whatever we think about Rossi, one thing seems clear to me:
This guy is not stupid. He follows his own rules only. He must see, that
all this steam discussion helps creating publicity.
Internet and Google are full from this.
Maybe he wants just this for purpose and takes advantage from it
Am 27.08.2011 14:38, schrieb Joe Catania:
I'm glad you pointed that out because the calculation you seem to be
alluding to is incorrect. Its not correct to assume the water would be
heated evenly- it would not.
In the chapter Initial running to reach vaporization they write that
they measured
Am 27.08.2011 15:31, schrieb Joe Catania:
There isn't much mixing with that low a flow. Also cold water tends to
sink to the botton. Also steam tends to rise to the top. Also the
temperature should form a gradient from cold to hot. In short the
water is not the same temperature. But more
Am 27.08.2011 16:11, schrieb Peter Gluck:
Peter, this method was already proposed here by an other Peter (not
me) with using a dye. Rossi was not interested.
Peter
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de
mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote:
BTW
Am 27.08.2011 16:48, schrieb Peter Gluck:
Peterchen, ( I am 74 years old so you will excuse me)
I am 57 now and turn 58 in september so you almost cannot be my father ;-)
Perhaps there are more of us here, the one with the same good idea was
P.J. van der Noorden.
As regarding the October
Am 27.08.2011 17:09, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de
wrote:
BTW, there is an elegant method to see if the steam is dry:
Dissolve a marker substance in the water, salt or sugar or
something else. When the input concentration
Am 27.08.2011 17:29, schrieb Joe Catania:
Convection is irrelevant. Its obvious that heat transfer is only to a
small portion of the water.
The thermal conductivity of water is about 500 times worse than the
thermal conductivity of copper.
Hi,
I am new to this list, greet you all!
I had an idea to make an electrolytic device in order to make NiH thinfilms.
Of course the final purpose is to get NI-H fusion or nuclear reactions.
My english is not so good, but it should be obvious from the picture:
501 - 570 of 570 matches
Mail list logo
