At 06:54 PM 10/24/2011, Colin Hercus wrote:
The primary flow is interesting problem. Rossi states 4g/sec which
is close to 15 kg/h. The specs of the pump give a maximum of 12kg/h
at 1.5 bar so if we believe Rossi then the pump must have been
running at maximum volume but then how can we explain
o.com"
Datum: 25.10.2011 09:50
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
> Mats Lewan said that the pump was calibrated before the test and the flow
> rate was about 13 kg/h. This was not against pressure and as we know from
> previous tests, flow rate will dec
Mats Lewan said that the pump was calibrated before the test and the flow
rate was about 13 kg/h. This was not against pressure and as we know from
previous tests, flow rate will decrease when pressure is increasing.
—Jouni
information from this.
- Original Nachricht
Von: Colin Hercus
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum: 25.10.2011 08:22
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
> Hi Peter,
>
> I know Rossi said this but I also know Mats measured a lower rate (0.9g/m
this contradictory information.
Best Regards, Colin
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:14 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> - Original Nachricht
> Von: Colin Hercus
> An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Datum: 25.10.2011 03:54
> Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power R
- Original Nachricht
Von: Colin Hercus
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Datum: 25.10.2011 03:54
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
> Hi Peter,
>
> The primary flow is interesting problem. Rossi states 4g/sec which is close
> to 15 kg/h.
Hi Peter,
The primary flow is interesting problem. Rossi states 4g/sec which is close
to 15 kg/h. The specs of the pump give a maximum of 12kg/h at 1.5 bar so if
we believe Rossi then the pump must have been running at maximum volume but
then how can we explain the flow rate of the peristaltic pum
-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 7:04 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Hi David,
Thought experiments are good and I like the your analysis because it causes us
to consider another possible effect. I
Am 23.10.2011 13:15, schrieb Higgins Bob-CBH003:
It would be worth a verification experiment. Absent that, I believe
that measurement errors from the two thermocouples "touching" the
electrically conductive heat exchanger in two different places and
possibly with two different metals will be
2, 2011 7:12 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Why should it be assumed that improper equipment been used in these
tests? The meter used with the thermocouples is listed in Mats
Lewan's report:
* Temperature logger Testo 177-T3 0554 17
(as was used).
Bob
From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:12 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Why should it be assumed that improper equipment been used in these
tests? The meter
2:23 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Hi Bob,
I appreciate your response to my post. It is important to me that I have a
clear understanding of the relationship between the real output power delivered
to the heat exchanger and
be a professional meter.
This issue would be resolved if it is determined that the
thermocouples are isolated.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, sc
t the thermocouples are
isolated.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Peter Heckert
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Peter Heckert:
It is common in science and technics, some people repea
Peter Heckert wrote:
> We know there was energy and we know there was a heater.
> Nobody denies there was energy.
> You cannot make a conclusion from heat to anamolus energy. This is junk
> [science].
>
Yes, you can make this conclusion. That is why Curies knew that radium
cannot be undergoing
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Peter Heckert:
It is common in science and technics, some people repeat the same
error over and over because they refuse to think and instead judge
from experience and belief. They think if it worked 3 times for then
it will work 100 times for others.
But thi
Am 22.10.2011 19:49, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
Peter Heckert mailto:peter.heck...@arcor.de>>
wrote:
This discussion about "close contact to the metal" and
"chemogalvanic or electroosmotic voltages" is blather. I am sorry
to be harsh, but it is irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather.
is important to understand that I am assuming that the ECAT is not full of
water and capable of overflow when this process occurs.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Higgins Bob-CBH003
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 9:26 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power
I meant to write:
> You misunderstand. It is blather because it is not important. Even if you
> right, it does not affect the conclusion, and it does NOT reduce confidence
> in the results.
>
You fail to understand that when the s/n ratio is gigantic, you do not need
precision to be sure the res
Alan Fletcher wrote:
>
> We have no information for or against water overflow for the October
> experiment.
>
Yes, we do. The fact that the outgoing flow rate varied while the pump
remained steady shows that it was not overflowing. The fact that it
correlated with the power level shows that it w
Peter Heckert wrote:
>
> This discussion about "close contact to the metal" and "chemogalvanic or
> electroosmotic voltages" is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it is
> irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather.
>
> It is not.
> Put 2 identical copper electrodes in water. Heat one, and the othe
> The Excel simulation that I developed strongly supports the contention that
> there is no overflow of water through the output port of the ECAT. There must
> be a logical reason for the false secondary thermocouple reading peak at ECAT
> turn off that does not include water pulses or overflow
Am 22.10.2011 16:32, schrieb Jed Rothwell:
This discussion about "close contact to the metal" and "chemogalvanic
or electroosmotic voltages" is blather. I am sorry to be harsh, but it
is irrelevant, evasive, nitpicking blather.
It is not.
Put 2 identical copper electrodes in water. Heat one, a
1) I am not discussing if it was some excess heat the problem is its
control. In order to achieve some degree of control, Rossi has sacrificed
some basic parameters, reducing performance- power from 12-15 kW to 2-6 and
O/U from 200: 1 to 6:1 (actually less than 2:1 as value of the energy,
electric
mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Peter Gluck wrote:
And a reason more to use a simple steam water mixing device (valve) to
condensate steam in the place of this finicky heat exchanger-
There is nothing finicky about the heat exchanger. It is an industrial product.
It is simple
Peter Gluck wrote:
> And a reason more to use a simple steam water mixing device (valve) to
> condensate steam in the place of this finicky heat exchanger-
>
There is nothing finicky about the heat exchanger. It is an industrial
product. It is simple, reliable, predictable and well characterize
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. Accordin
There are other possible sources of error:
So far I have seen, electrical non-insulated NiCrNi Thermoelements where
used.
If these have not close thermal contact to the metal, they will
partially measure the ambient air temperature.
If the air temperature is the average between hot steam 100° a
Very interesting, thanks!
And a reason more to use a simple steam water mixing device (valve) to
condensate steam in the place of this finicky heat exchanger- as I have
suggested
months ago, Rossi has ignored this idea, complexity is part of his game.
Peter
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Dav
The ECAT measurements conducted on October 6, 2011 have several discrepancies
that have made it extremely difficult for us to understand. I would like to
offer the following possible mechanism for consideration to the group of
experts assembled on the edge of the vortex.
As I think about the
30 matches
Mail list logo
