Hello. At http://www.focus.it/scienza/e-cat_collezione_C9.aspx you will find
a collection of 120 images and at
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL360E4122CB586EB7feature=viewall
20 short videoclips of the E-Cat test (2011, oct. 6). The collection is not
for public purpose (despite a
Hi Robert,
If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to 124C
is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly well
insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to possibly give
the impression of a self sustaining reaction for at least 3 hours.
Am 11.10.2011 16:01, schrieb Colin Hercus:
Hi Robert,
If this excess energy over what is required to heat .9g/s of water to
124C is somehow stored in the eCAT (say, as thermal energy in a fairly
well insulated block of steel) then it would be enough energy to
possibly give the impression of
Pump capacity and pump stroke contradict 15 kg / hour. The observers twice
collected the output, and it was .91 g/s during operation, and still under 2
g/s after it was sped up during quenching.
See Robert Lynn's calculations below, with manufacturer and video reference, or
just look at the Ny
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9
(cool-down).
I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic) -- it
doesn't
Am 11.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Alan J Fletcher:
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan
At 09:37 AM 10/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter
Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9
(cool-down).
I don't think we even know what pump
Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is
my first message in this mailing list.
@Alan
I don't think we even know what pump was used (piston? peristaltic)
it doesn't show in any of the videos.
peristaltic
It is also in the Lewan's technical report.
I
At 09:51 AM 10/11/2011, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:37, schrieb
Alan J Fletcher:
At 09:19 AM 10/11/2011, Peter
Heckert wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9
Welcome Raymond!
Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable to
our discussions!
2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick zre...@gmail.com
Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick, journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is
my first message in this mailing list.
@Alan
I don't
At 10:13 AM 10/11/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
2011/10/11 Raymond Zreick
zre...@gmail.com
Hy Alan, I'm Raymond Zreick,
journalist for Focus magazine (Italy). This is my first message in this
mailing list.
Welcome to Vortex !
Some of us are still trying to figure out what happened in the
Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0
liters/h Max press 1.50 bar
So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take Lewan's
numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
12l/hr gives a maximum transfer rate of 8.8 kW -- close to the peak 7.6
Hy Daniel.
@Daniel Rocha
Your testimony of Rossi's presentation and opinions will be very valuable
to our discussions!
@Alan Fletcher
Some of us are still trying to figure out what happened in the
demonstration. It will be good to have first-hand information.
Yes, but mine are only
At 10:26 AM 10/11/2011, Robert Lynn wrote:
Peristaltic pump NSF Model #
CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50
bar
So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take
Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6 l/hr when stable.
12l/hr gives a maximum
calorimetry is plagued with
phase-change and unknown water flow, just where do we stand?
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:26:43 +0100
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3
At 10:59 AM 10/11/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 10:26 AM 10/11/2011, Robert
Lynn wrote:
Peristaltic pump NSF Model #
CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output 12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50
bar
So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we take
Lewan's numbers as a ratio -- 6
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
From: robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Peristaltic pump NSF Model # CEP183-362N3 Serial # 060550065 Max output
12.0 liters/h Max press 1.50 bar
So it was a maximum of 12 l/hr during cool-down, and if we
and 1.9 g/s (when turned up for quenching). As the
heat exchanger was probably receiving a water/steam mix, though, even these
measurements may be unreliable.
From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Date: Tue, 11
.
--
From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:02:37 -0500
The data from the September test is great, in this aspect. They did it
right.
They were filling
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
Rossi wrote: 15kg/h here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510cpage=20#comment-94236
That's 4.17 g/s -- Lewan recorded 0.9 (stable) and 1.9 (cool-down).
This is why you need
At 12:16 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed
Rothwell wrote:
I said you will never get to the
bottom of this, and it is not worth trying.
You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely qualitative
demonstration. Ah well.
It's buried in Lewan's data --
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth
trying.
You're probably right on that. So we're left with a purely
qualitative demonstration. Ah well.
It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses
to Krivit, he DID
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses to
Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the usual
drain).
He read it at the drain and also, during the video, from the flowmeter.
- Jed
-0700
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
From: a...@well.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Rossi heat exchanger fitting / SOME flow data
At 12:16 PM 10/10/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
At 11:20 AM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I said you will never get to the bottom of this, and it is not worth trying.
You're probably
At 02:09 PM 10/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Alan J Fletcher
a...@well.com wrote:
It's buried in Lewan's data -- but as he pointed out in his responses
to Krivit, he DID measure the eCat output flow twice (presumably at the
usual drain).
He read it at the drain and also, during the video,
At 02:15 PM 10/10/2011, Robert Leguillon wrote:
Look closer at this one:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RossiT2Pout.png
Let me give you a scenario. There is some back pressure on the
E-Cat, so boiling temperature rises as high as 124 degrees.
Note: This is in the believer's favor. If
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
The flowmeter and volume measurements are on the SECONDARY. The flow
results for the secondary are fine .. as is its input temperature.
He made TWO measurements on the PRIMARY flow ... one at the end of
sustaining, and one after the hydrogen was purged and the
The double flow was recorded after they began trying to quench the reaction.
Increasing the flow rate was specifically mentioned before that second
measurement, and everyone previously lauded the pump for it's accuracy during
previous demonstrations.
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
During Mat's walk through video I make it about 40+/-1 Hz, with same LMI P18
pump with 2ml max stroke (and back pressure of at least 1.3bar if making
124°C steam, pump is limited to 1.5bar)
http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf, that would suggest at
maximum 1.3g/s and probably
Let's now take this to its logical conclusion.
At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the
average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the entire
span, could not have been over 2.5 kW. Anything higher would have resulted in
higher E-Cat
The Italian rcde.it video shows that the primary loop water came out of a
large plastic garbage can parked next to the pump. It is a shame they did
not weigh the garbage can before and after. That would have given the total
amount pumped through. It may not all have been vaporized . . .
That
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote:
Let's now take this to its logical conclusion.
At a primary flow rate of .91 g/s, the evidence makes it look as though the
average power (including the power applied by the band heater) over the
entire span, could not have been over 2.5 kW.
32 matches
Mail list logo
