Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil wrote: By the way, IMHO, no industrial heat boiler is restricted to producing a > constant amount of heat. These units are "heat on demand" systems. > Yes, of course. Those are actual, real-world boilers. Rossi's device is fake. The data shows it produces the same

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

By the way, IMHO, no industrial heat boiler is restricted to producing a constant amount of heat. These units are "heat on demand" systems. A thermostatically controlled valve controls the flow of steam into the customer's process. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil wrote: When steam is required, water is removed from the circuit and sent to the > customer, then that condensed water from condensed steam is return to the > circuit. > Perhaps you are suggesting that heat not needed is dumped out. The imaginary heat rate is 1 MW

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

When steam is required, water is removed from the circuit and sent to the customer, then that condensed water from condensed steam is return to the circuit. This simplifies the "steam on demand" control logic and does not effect the pump speed. The only component that the logic effects is a water

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

The flow meter flow values implies that the steam flow control logic might not have affected the pump speeds used to circulate water between the reactor and the company. Do you have the piping layout? On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter-- Me thinks arrogance and stupidity are brothers in the same family. Bob Cook From: Peter Gluck <peter.gl...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 7:50 AM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell w

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil wrote: > There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the customer > and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the "maximum heat > production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi's reactor > control mechanism must

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

The water warmed from 13C to 75C at 1 MW/second is 3.66 gallons per second. There must have been an "heat on demand" relationship between the customer and the reactor such that the demand for heat varied with the "maximum heat production rate" being limited to 3.66 gallons per second. Rossi's

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Andrea Rossi April 8, 2016 at 9:54 AM Teemu: I knew the Customer in the office of my Attorney Henry Johnson. They were enthusiast to test our 1 MW plant, to see if it really worked, because they were ( and are ) interested to buy more plants for their facilities in Europe. They wanted not to be

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

http://joam.inoe.ro/arhiva/pdf6_3/Lucaci.pdf A NEW FAMILY OF NICKEL POWDER FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS Quote: "The specific surface area values using BET method show that the chemically processed Ni powders have a very high specific surface area (> 60 m 2 /g), which recommend them

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Not a good idea for both of us, given that neither of us can do that. 2016-08-15 19:09 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > Good idea. >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

See if you can get the water bills of JM products. Good idea. Also the list of the personnel, shipments received and sent and so on. Easily subpoena documents. Rossi should get them to defend himself and IH to make a strong case against Rossi. I just hope IH doesn't settle just to get rid of

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Occam razor demands nothing here. 2016-08-15 19:00 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > > Occam'razor basically demands that Rossi=customer= no heat produced. > > >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Finally Axil-Axil arrived and he brings with him the usual fantastic speculations. Axil-Axil, IH bought all the eCat related IP from Rossi. If the creation of the catalyst is essential to the eCat working properly Rossi had to reveal the production of the catalyst by contract. Keeping it secret

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

See if you can get the water bills of JM products. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Axil Axil wrote: > > How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding >> their technology very closely? >> > > It is

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

1.It's on google earth, the exit. 2.The same. 3. Check 1 2016-08-15 18:22 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > You need to address the technical issues. You have not done this. > > >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil wrote: How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding > their technology very closely? > It is obvious how he became familiar with the customer. The customer is Rossi's own lawyer! They made up the stuff about closely held technology. There

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

The reaction that Rossi's customer has come up with is just as mysterious as the one that Rossi is using. How did Rossi become familiar with this customer who is really holding their technology very closely? A SPECULATIVE answer to this might be that Rossi is a customer of this secretive

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Daniel Rocha wrote: Who cares who cooled 1MW? It can be cooled. > Sure. If you have very large vents, or a chiller the size of a truck, 1 MW can be cooled. No one disputes that. The problem is: there is no such equipment at this site. No one saw it. It does not show up

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Daniel Rocha wrote: That is a fixed idea of yours, I can't argue with that. > You can easily argue with this. Just show: 1. How is it possible to cool the warehouse with equipment shown in the photographs. 2. What endothermic industrial process can remove nearly all

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

*Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor?* Why Rossi says works just when sometime and other when he makes no sense at at all it doesn't matter? That is what he says, that the heat was mostly used for an endothermic reaction. I have explained that if you do the math you get tons

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Who cares who cooled 1MW? It can be cooled. 2016-08-15 18:05 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi : > Who cooled? >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

That is a fixed idea of yours, I can't argue with that. 2016-08-15 18:04 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > He never produced more than 20 kW in Florida and he never cooled anything > larger than that. > >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Who cooled? You believe anything Rossi says? On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? Endothermic can > just mean anything that cools the input. He cooled 500kw-1000MW before. Not > a big deal. > >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Daniel Rocha wrote: Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? > That is an inside joke. Some people here and elsewhere insist there can be an industrial endothermic process that magically swallows up all of the heat. That is impossible. > Endothermic

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Why are you insisting with a "magic" endothermic reactor? Endothermic can just mean anything that cools the input. He cooled 500kw-1000MW before. Not a big deal. 2016-08-15 17:40 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > > More to the point, why would Rossi hide this equipment? It

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Daniel Rocha wrote: It fits well inside the room. > What fits well inside a room? A vent? You have to put on the roof or does no good. It is the size of a person, as I noted. A water or air-cooled chiller of 1 MW capacity is the size of 2 or 3 automobiles. You could put

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

It fits well inside the room. It looks like Rossi used something of these in his filmed 1MW experiment. The exist vent was quite of the same size of that one in google maps. 2016-08-15 16:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > > Needless to say, there is no such machine outside the

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Rather, not easier, but 1MW is not too much 2016-08-15 16:54 GMT-03:00 Daniel Rocha : > I think the problem is keeping T0 constant or low. Suppose T0=20C, T1=100, > T2=70 > > 10^6=4^10^2*D*L*(100-60)/(log((100-20)/(70-20))~1.0*10^8 > > D*L~40 > > The higher the energy to

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

I think the problem is keeping T0 constant or low. Suppose T0=20C, T1=100, T2=70 10^6=4^10^2*D*L*(100-60)/(log((100-20)/(70-20))~1.0*10^8 D*L~40 The higher the energy to be exchanged, the easier is to build the system. 2016-08-15 13:41 GMT-03:00 Giovanni Santostasi :

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

I wrote: > A normal commercial building in Florida has a 2" water supply pipe, which > is not large enough for the flow of water you need to keep the temperature > below the legal maximum of 80°C, with 1 MW of heat. > > 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

One more calculation. Using equation given in previous message, if you are using pipes with one cm diameter and a differential between in and out temperatures of 60 degrees, you need 12 km worth of pipes to get rid of 1 MW. Please check my calculations but again if this is true it gives a good

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

So actually the solution for the differential equation of a heat exchanger is the following: dQ/dt=h*D*L*(T1-T2)/log( (T1-T0)/(T2-T0)) where Q is the heat exchanged, h is the heat transfer coefficient (if you have a pipe made of steel and water is the cooling material h=400 W/m^2 K), D is the

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter: *very simple in principle and the drain carries so much warm water with ease in an industrial area.* It is NOT an industrial area. And that is an essential part of what Jed and I are communicating over and over. On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Giovanni Santostasi

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Jed calculations is an order of estimate but actually on the conservative side: 1 MJ/s = 239,000 calories/s. 80°C - 20°C = 60°C. 239,000 calories / 60°C = 3,983 g/s = 239 L/min (61 gallons), which far exceeds the capacity of the entire building. It would take time to heat up the water to 80

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter, Nonsense. Jed just told you. You need to have this setup in an industrial zone with a river near by or swimming pools of steaming water outside. Again, do not close your eyes. Go and look at the building online. It is a small warehouse in a commercial area, with retailers around. Porca

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote: Thsnk you for your help, you got the idea, it si a problem of design, one > great or more smaller heat excghangers working counter- or equicurrent. > Okay so instead of using these three gigantic exchangers you would need, let us say, fifty small ones.

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter, Porca miseria !!! Use some basic physics please. Can you show the detailed calculations? When I do them (please see my thread "customer warehouse") I cannot get out of the fact you need to process 30 tons of material every week to account for the energy involved in this "experiment". No

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Thsnk you for your help, you got the idea, it si a problem of design, one great or more smaller heat excghangers working counter- or equicurrent. Just see that it s very simple in principle and the drain carries so much warm water with ease in an industrial area. THERE IS NO UNMANAGEABLE HEAT

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote: who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water drained. > Okay if it does not reduce the volume, what is the point of using multiple exchangers? Why not use a single heat exchanger enough capacity to cool 1 MW? Or a chiller. Here is

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

who has inspired you to this idea of reducing the volume of water drained. No, with the know n data 10-20 cu.m of warm 40-50 cu.m water will be drained per hour I am traanslating a long Russian ppaer fror my Blog when ready will make calculations. Go to ECtaWorld you will see more considerations-

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote: please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat > exchangers work. > Explain how a heat exchanger would reduce the total volume of water needed to remove the heat. With 1 heat exchange, to cool 1 MJ down to the legal limit of 80°C

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Daniel, please do not insult Jed! He simply does not understand how the heat exchangers work. peter On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > I think you are running out of your quota of arrogance. > > 2016-08-15 11:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Daniel Rocha wrote: > I think you are running out of your quota of arrogance. > Okay, so you should please explain how a heat exchanger, or a series of exchanges, would cause the heat to vanish or reduce the amount of water needed to flush it down the drain. If I am

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

I think you are running out of your quota of arrogance. 2016-08-15 11:17 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell : > Evidently you do not understand the conservation of energy or > thermodynamics. > >

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote: > Both, Jed and goiovanni are trying to show tht they are not understanding > what I have told about the energy: the cut the Gordian solution of > consuming the energy is to pass the steam pipe through a system of heat > exchangers where it heats water.

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Exactly as privileges are always stronger than rights, certainties once irreversibly acquired are stronger than facts and logic. Both Jed and Giovanni- a relatively new kid on the block have certainties: zero excess heat and Rossi scammer. Difficult to discuss with such people. For me, Rossi has

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Can you comment on this? > I do not know anything about it. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield wrote: > So far there is only speculation about both sides. I prefer to wait for > more solid data. > You have solid data, in Exhibit 5. You prefer to say it is lie, and ignore it. Exhibit 5 is not speculation at all. It is fact. - Jed

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Jed, This report is very interesting. It is obvious that the two physicists should be believed vs Rossi. They had absolutely no reason to claim that Vaughn said "Rossi is not credible". What I don't understand is why it seems that the R & D building had not trace of Rossi's work (not necessarily

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Eric, I was impressed by Darden's speech and later interview. I know nothing about Vaughn although I recall he wrote a positive message about Rossi to Acland, in Feb 2015 while saying something quite different to the nuclear inspectors.Rossi has refrained from talking much It is not IH

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

I wrote: > While this was happening, they told a local reporter in North Carolina > they doubted Rossi, and they me and many other people, so I think we can > assume they also told the investor. > Now I cannot find that article. I find this letter from 2015 quoted Vaughn as saying Rossi is not

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

I have the impression that IH had significant worries about Rossi from 2014 on. But, as their Answer says, they also had several reports from teams of scientists with far more knowledge then them that seemed to substantiate some of Rossi's claims. If they were straightforward with prospective

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Jed, That is a good point and very reassuring. If IH told of their doubts to the investors, or if their position was easy to find online then it was just due diligence of the investors to understand the risks involved. As I said if they were not 100 percent sure about Rossi being fraudulent

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote: > How do you explain the very late reaction of IH? > It was not a late reaction. They reacted from the start of the test. > Couldn't they observe zero excess heat in few days after the strat of the > test? > Yes, they did. > Do you like Jed's

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Giovanni Santostasi wrote: Eric, > The only thing that I would complain about IH is that they trusted Rossi > too much. He is using this against them. > > > If it is true that IH received money from investors while they were > doubting Rossi veracity then it is somehow a

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Eric, The only thing that I would complain about IH is that they trusted Rossi too much. He is using this against them. If it is true that IH received money from investors while they were doubting Rossi veracity then it is somehow a problem for them even if not fatal. They could have thrown their

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

"Just - to mke a 6 years fraud when you have no trace of excess heat is a performance!" Peter.. Yes, it is "masterpiece" using one of Rossi's favorite expression. A masterpiece of fraud. But not at all impossible if you are a fraudster and you have a lot of believers. That is the problem with

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: IH is not a saint but it is clear who is the worst scammer here. > Honestly, I haven't seen anything other than speculation that IH have done anything improper. They've been admirably quiet this whole time.

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter Gluck wrote: > a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy > makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more > heat exchangers- steam water is in a closed circuit > It is impossible to "throw away" heat. That

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter, If I'm correct you are assuming that is was ok to waste energy because in the end IH would pay 89 millions so the "customer" could be reimbursed by that. Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that the "customer" and Rossi were working together. Even if the intention was to

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

it is rather late but I will answer to this tomorrow. Just - to mke a 6 years fraud when you have no trace of excess heat is a performance! peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Also Peter, > I resent that you attack Jed and dismiss him as

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Giovanni, Let's repeat: a) the test does not depend on what the Customer makes with the nergy makes useful things as chemicals or throws it away- via a sytem of more heat exchangers- steam water is in a closed circuit I told clearly consumed= extracted and removed. At such a high value experiment

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Also Peter, I resent that you attack Jed and dismiss him as a defender of IH. You call him in a satirical way IHoptimist. I don't think at all that people like Jed and others like me that despise the way Rossi behaves as shrills of IH. IH is not a saint but it is clear who is the worst scammer

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

A part of the energy. And that needs to be demonstrated by Rossi. It is not trivial. And Rossi didn't say that is the case, he said it was used in chemical reactions. That makes no sense. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > But I have explained

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter, I read it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Please explain how energy can be "consumed". Energy is always transformed in a form to another. This is elementary physics. Unless they used some crazy unknown process to store energy the energy would be radiated soon or later. Did the

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

By the way even black holes eventually radiate their energy though Hawkins radiation. On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Peter, > I read it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. Please explain how energy > can be "consumed". Energy is always

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

But I have explained about the heat exchangers. Energy consumed and sent underground. Do you exclude this simple possibility for apart of energy? peter On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 9:59 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Also Peter can you explain the difference between use and consumed? What that means? Unless there was a black hole inside the building of the "customer" doesn't matter what you do with the energy eventually the energy needs to be somehow radiated or removed from the building to the outside

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Caro Giovanni you had not understood well, it is assoluttamente irrelevant what happens with the energy what counts is the energy balance. The Customer can waste, dump the energy this does not change a iota from the test. Prego read with more attention what I have written, 'Grazie, peter On Sun,

Re: [Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

Peter, It is not a straight answer at all. Where is Rossi evidence that there was a real chemical plant having any use of the energy at all? Yours are just incredible speculations. Giovanni On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > when things go too far,

[Vo]:LENR energy dispute, straight answer to Jed Rothwell

when things go too far, they must be stopped, situation calmed down http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/08/aug-14-2016-lenr.html -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com