In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:48:24 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Multiple reports exist of varying power output from the device. Such
variability wouldn't be acceptable in a commercial device. By ganging a
hundred units together, the variability tends to average out resulting in a
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 4 Mar 2011 06:55:09 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the cascade was the only
rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+
modular units.
[snip]
Multiple reports exist of varying power output from the
In reply to Dennis's message of Fri, 4 Mar 2011 08:57:50 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
I had the feeling that the heating was by directly passing the current
through the metal bed - that would make for very fast transfer.
I doubt it because there are 5 controllers for the device. If the current were
passed
-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com
In reply to Jones Beene's message
In trying to look at it from Rossi's POV, the cascade was the only
rationale which made logical sense to me - as to why he would go 100+
modular units.
Multiple reports exist of varying power output from
to be reactivated after use.
Regards
Fran
From: Dennis [mailto:den...@netmdc.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:37 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW
demonstration
Yes, I meant that it would be more convincing if a smaller device
- trying to balance
the once initiated reaction with the cooling rate would be almost impossible
because you still need a PWM scheme relative to the threshold to repeatedly
take you into and out of reaction.
Regards
Fran
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is
likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he
would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC.
I think you are exaggerating the
Roarty, Francis X francis.x.roa...@lmco.com wrote:
I agree the “explosion “ scenario is unlikely but I could see a loss of
catalytic properties . . .
I do not know of any reason to think that there might be a nuclear explosion
but based on the 130 kW heat excursion with the small unit I
Dennis den...@netmdc.com wrote:
I don't see much advantage in going from an uncontrolled 10 kW demo with no
control and little
instrumentation to a 1MW device with no control and even less
instrumentation with no
chance of independent verification of the measurements and check by first
: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is
likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing
From Jones
...
Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely
unplugged makes me nervous.
Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want
to live near one.
Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering
(and theory) involved
From Jones
...
Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely
unplugged makes me nervous.
Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want
to live near one.
Indeed, the current lack of a clear understanding of the engineering
(and theory) involved
to repeatedly take you into and out of reaction.
Regards
Fran
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW
demonstration
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told.
However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing
to construct a machine which has
From Jed:
From Jones:
Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA,
and that is likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not
doing it here. He knows he would not see this device sold
here during his lifetime, due to the NRC.
I think you are exaggerating the power of the
Yes, the system tends toward inaction instead of action.
Like in Wisconsin, some senators ran away to avoid voting and acting
while there is great pain and hostility developing from their avoiding
the democratic process. People tend to do nothing instead of acting.
I fear that the system when
On Friday, March 04, 2011 9:55 AM Jones Beene wrote
I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a
pulse wave is involved in the operation.
Jones,
I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC
heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough. If the
PWM
On Friday, March 04, 2011 9:55 AM Jones Beene wrote
I wonder if a magnetic pulse, or a
pulse wave is involved in the operation.
Jones,
I am now coming to this same conclusion, thermal transfer rates from 5 PLC
heaters spread throughout 1 liter of powder doesn't seem fast enough.
Americans spend $2500 per capita on energy. $10,000 per year for a family of
four. When every person in the US fully realizes that we can reduce that
cost a few dollars per year, and that people in China and every other
country art rapidly doing that, there is absolutely positively no force on
Fran,
Yes you could be exactly right! Nanopowder or nickel black or Raney is poor
for heat transfer, and passing current through it as Dennis suggests, could
risk damaging the nanostructure. It would not be very conductive
electrically anyway.
This may indeed be one major key to the
I meant to say that any military OFFICER will see the advantages of cold
fusion powered equipment, such as aircraft and tanks. A cold fusion
powered nuclear bomb would not be necessary and I doubt such a thing is
possible. Direct use of cold fusion energy to destroy objects with
lasers, heat
and I would like to see what he will use as his control.
Dennis
--
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Dennis wrote:
and I would like to see what he will use as his control.
I am more concerned about control in the other sense -- can he can
keep it under control.
Seriously, a thing like this does not need a control (null comparison).
A null is vital for small scale experiments -- under ~10
Dennis,
Indeed . And that would be controls.
It might be a minority view; several controls are needed.
He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time
and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat
deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve
in the steady state,
, he should have
enough
gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates.
D2
--
From: Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 6:06 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW
Mitchell Swartz m...@theworld.com wrote:
He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time
and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat
deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve
in the steady state,
Ah. That is a skeptical objection I did not anticipate.
I
Having said all of that . . . Looking back at my notes from Hydrodynamics
and the County Facility engineer who measured excess heat from the gadget
installed in the Fire Department, I should report their methods could not be
simpler. In the case of the Fire Department, they did the following:
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told.
However, one thing everyone seems to be overlooking in why Rossi is choosing
to construct a machine which has a large number of modular units - is that
it lends itself to the energy cascade, with extremely high iterative gain.
A cascade will allow his
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told.
I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and
make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims are real, he
should have enough gain for that even at only 5% conversion rates.
If you talking about closing the loop, then the Stirling engine is a good
choice. Here is one he could use.
http://www.whispergen.com/main/PRODUCTS/
If I am correct about the cascade, then a Stirling can provide about 15%
conversion of heat to electricity (due to the low Carnot spread) but
At 09:21 PM 3/3/2011, Jones Beene wrote:
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told.
Others apparently feel as I do, that a device that cannot be safely
unplugged makes me nervous.
Yes. Nuclear reactors (fission type) make me nervous. I wouldn't want
to live near one.
Yes. Your fear would be shared by the majority in the USA, and that is
likely to be the major reason that Rossi is not doing it here. He knows he
would not see this device sold here during his lifetime, due to the NRC.
At some level, one's tolerance level for risk is proportionate to the
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
He cannot safely unplug it, we are told.
I think Cravens meant Rossi should use the heat to generate electricity and
make the device self-sustaining. He added: If his claims
32 matches
Mail list logo
