Too bad that kinetic theory didn't lead to a combination with fluid
mechanics.
David
On Apr 18, 2011 11:22 PM, Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Until about 200 hundred years ago, there were three competing ontologies
on the
nature of heat.
1) Only cold is a real entity, so heat is the
thanks to Robin for this well grounded calculation:
in order to transfer 15 kW, the temperature differential across the steel
would have to be about 165 K. Given that the reaction occurs at many
hundreds of
degrees, and steam production would limit the cold side temperature to
about 100
Scott,
Can you fwd me the link for that paper - I saw it on my home PC
this morning but it didn't fwd to work, I think the company filters derailed it!
Thanks
Fran
From: Wm. Scott Smith [mailto:scott...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 7:39 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
This “1000 times” thing is an insane slander with no basis in fact, as are
these other silly pronouncements that you have dreamed up . . .
You said it yourself!!! Right here, 4/18/11 3:03 PM:
Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal
I quoted:
Thus there is at least a 1000:1 error in that anecdotal appraisal, which
is not a surprise . . .
Furthermore, that appraisal was done by the authors themselves, in NyTeknik.
It isn't anecdotal -- it is what they measured and reported.
- Jed
Baloney. Do you want to keep posting this crap, Rothwell?
You are completely exposed on this, and you will not get the last word in to
safe face - guaranteed
You said yourself the 130 kW was bogus - it is complete bogus, even if
second rate authors say otherwise
Jones
From: Jed
This is hilarious and indicative of a child's playground mentality . did so,
did not, did so . ROTFL
- you said yourself, on the advice of your so-called expert, that the 130 kW
was BOGUS !!
So now are you reversing direction once again, hoping to save face by using
the data you already
I love this group. It makes better viewing than a soap opera ;).
Joe
On 19 Apr 2011, at 14:58, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
This is hilarious and indicative of a child’s playground mentality … did so,
did not, did so … ROTFL
– you said yourself, on the advice of your
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
This is hilarious and indicative of a child’s playground mentality … did
so, did not, did so … ROTFL
The message is right here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45088.html
It says there is at least a 1000:1 error. Maybe you did not
I wrote:
Since the e-Cat is long and slender, I suppose the cell is also long and
slender.
That might also explain why it needs 5 heaters, where the e-Kitten needs
only one.
Rossi does not want to discuss the shape of the cell. I suppose that means
the shape is important.
- Jed
Query: is problematic Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for physically
impossible?
The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat
requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room
temperature.
130 KW was the supposed heated delivered by the
I'm hoping that Jed will soon post that Rossi Quotes .doc file, instead of
doing back'n'forth with Jonas :)
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Josef Karthauser j...@tao.org.uk wrote:
I love this group. It makes better viewing than a soap opera ;).
Joe
From Jones,
From Rothwell:
I don't bet. I debate technical issues based on experimental
evidence, not crackpot theories that predict water heaters
don't work. If you will not give us a plausible reason why
this calorimetry might be wrong by a factor of 1000 then you
lose this debate.
This
Summary: They don't have much. See:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/what-feed-in-tariffs-could-do-for-japans-electricity-shortage
The wind maps I have seen show little exploitable wind resources in Japan.
Most of the country is too far south. They have lots of solar.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:28 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
All we can really do at this point is *wait *for the Swedes to present
their findings. Perhaps we can then draw more accurate conclusions.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
Hello,
I have been looking at the calculations from Jed Rothwell, Robin van Spaandonk
and Jones Been.
I think the proposed heat transfer of 130 kW would be possible, but only with a
pressurised system (as in a nuclear reactor) to prevent steam production.
I find it difficult to understand
I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat
transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators.
The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions.
And E-cats are at the limit- E-lions must have a different internal
structure, more
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
This amount of heat would have melted over a ton of steel and Rothwell
thinks it that it represents reality in a 5 kilo reactor !
It would have melted a ton of steel if it had been used for that purpose,
but it was used to heat water instead. In 15
Let me make a slight correction for the record:
Query: is problematic Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for physically
impossible?
The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a heat
requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel from room
temperature.
P.J van Noorden wrote:
I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a
flow of 6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no
vapour explosions are heard.
Which experiment was that? You may be confused. On Jan. 14 the flow rate
was 18 L/h, power ~12 kW. On
From: P.J van Noorden
I find it difficult to understand that in the Rossi reactor with a flow of
6l/h = about 2 ml/sec and a proposed excess energy of 12 kW no vapour
explosions are heard. I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach
the boilingpoint before it reaches the end of the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
I.m.o with such a low flow rate the water will reach the boilingpoint
before it reaches the end of the nickel catalyst.
Precisely ! No steam buts this into the category as divine intervention …
And can you imagine – lo and behold NO steam
Say WHAT?
On 04/19/2011 10:23 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
Query: is problematic Rossi-speak or Rothwell-speak for physically
impossible?
The specific heat of steel is 420J/KG/Deg C - and this equates to a
heat requirement of approximately 375 KWh to melt one ton of steel
from room
I wrote:
Your assertions make no sense. You seem to think that the e-Cat should have
melted a ton of steel. How can it do that if all of the heat is being
carried off in the form of hot water?
A nuclear reactor could probably melt a ton of steel in a few seconds, but
it heats water instead.
On 04/19/2011 10:51 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
A modern day miracle !!
But -- not surprising as many are already treating Rossi as some kind
of Messiah figure who can do no wrong --
Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi?
You swallowed all the nonsense spewed out by
Stephen
To answer the first problem - I believe that the specific heat goes up as
the temperature rises, and is a higher the closer you get to m.p.
* 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh.
Only if that heat suddenly comes to a dead stop and you average over the
hour ! Not
It would be nice to be able to measure the temperature inside the reactor.
Any estimate on the mass of the stainless steel vessel?
Harry
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 11:01:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:RE: Rothwell goes into brain freeze
From: Stephen A. Lawrence
* Jones, who put such an angry bee in your bonnet over Rossi?
There is no anger - just disappointment that so many are jumping to
hyperbolic conclusions which are not justified by the record. And
disappointment that technology so potentially valuable [to
Dear Jones,
In your opinion, what exactly are Rossi's problems?
Perhaps you could use the 5 criteria of an energy source:
- intensity,
- reproducibility and controllability;
- continuity,
- safety;
- scale-up
Add to these his intellectual property problems- not only patenting here.
How do you
I think you should reexamine your calculations.
The problem is that you are confusing watts and watt*hours.
130kW is = to 130KJ/sec
130kW for 1 hour is equal to 130KW*h
15minutes of 130kW is equal to 130kW*0.25 hours or 32.5kW*H (the energy
delivered in 15 mins)
If the 130kW had continued for
Ack I am very sorry to have included the body of the email in the post.
Please excuse my error...
Dear Peter,
I wish I had enough information to answer what you ask. You probably know
more than I do anyway, with your BLP connection.
- Intensity - this is almost too high to be physical even at the 16 kW
level, let alone 130 kW. He is riding a knife edge. Look how much larger
Thanks - Right you are.
I should have realized that SAL makes no math errors, and I am trying to
compose too many posts for one morning.
To bring the original point back into focus, then - let me restate that this
amount of thermal energy will melt 500 pounds of steel in an hour or 125
At 11:27 AM 4/19/2011, Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen
To answer the first problem - I believe that the
specific heat goes up as the temperature rises,
and is a higher the closer you get to m.p.
Ø 130 KW for 15 minutes is actually 32.5 KWh.
Only if that heat suddenly comes to a dead stop
and
At 10:43 AM 4/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
It would have melted a ton of steel if it had
been used for that purpose, but it was used to
heat water instead. In 15 minutes, it heated 0.9 tons of water up to 40°C.
Hey, cool! If that's a metric ton, that's a liter
per second, right? The figure I
Maybe I need to add this one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grifo_m%C3%A1gico.JPG
-Original Message-
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Heat transfer is limited by surface area, but the
surface area for a Rossi cell might be very
high. You cannot judge it by the gross volume.
What if the cell is constructed with many channels?
Not by the volume alone, correct. This
Jed,
Yes, you are right. The waterflow was higher. During the test on january 14th
one can hear a pulsating sound.
I suspect that this is caused by a pump which infuses a certain amount of water
into the Rossi cell.
Do you know if the waterflow is continously or pulsating?
Peter
-
As regarding the patent, Rossi needs to offer something patentable different
from Piantelli's 1995 and 2010 patents. I do not see how Randy Mills' or
Mitch Swartz patents can create him problems. Because it is about bets I
don't think Rossi has a real catalyst- it is more probably some additive
The limiting factor is, of course, how hot it gets inside. I believe the
reaction works best at around 600°C and it conks out above that.
- Jed
Do you know if Rossi has ever directly measured the temperature inside his
reactor?
Harry
P.J van Noorden pjvan...@xs4all.nl wrote:
The waterflow was higher. During the test on january 14th one can hear a
pulsating sound.
I suspect that this is caused by a pump which infuses a certain amount of
water into the Rossi cell.
Do you know if the waterflow is continously or pulsating?
Dear Jones,
I see not deep similarities between the Rossi and the BLP processes
Some logical flaw here
Quite different approaches to energy generation, I think.
Rossi has to control weel the intensity, obtain even better reoroducbility
(eliminate start -up peaks), assure long term uniformity
Harry Veeder hlvee...@yahoo.com wrote:
Do you know if Rossi has ever directly measured the temperature inside his
reactor?
He told me he has, but he does not want to discuss the details.
That is how he knows the minimum operating temperature is 400°C (ref. SL). I
do not recall where I heard
From Jed:
...
... I believe the
reaction works best at around 600°C and it conks out above that.
Can someone clarify the following: What is the internal temperature
the reactor cell has to reach in order to initiate the Rossi reaction?
I thought the reaction takes over when the
Celani says he hopes to get a transcript of this, and to translate it into
English.
- Jed
See:
Takahashi, A., et al. Phenomenology of Nano-Particle/Gas-Loading Experiments
(PowerPoint slides). in ACS National Meeting. 2011. Anaheim, CA.
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TakahashiAphenomenol.pdf
Kitamura, A., et al. Hydrogen Isotope Gas Absorption/Adsorption
Charactoristics of Pd
Dear Peter,
There are differences and similarities, true - but does it really make sense
that there could be two distinct processes of nickel and hydrogen, both of
which were previously unknown to physics?
Statistically, and to the skeptic, two improbable things happening with no
Jones writes:
it was claiming that there was neither room nor extra mass for fins or
channels. I listed that as
the caveat. Rossi also says the water flow is straight thru.
Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed? The flow is
straight thru and the heat
xfer surface area is
from randi forums -- no link provided :
A new experiment seems to be scheduled for Thursday(April 21) in
Uppsala, again supervised by the Swedish scientists.
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
If it IS 400 C, it would seem to me that the reaction then increasing
to 600 C... a mere +200 C more, (before it conks out) does not strike
me as being terribly efficient.
I think it is optimum at 600°C and then it starts to go
+1
;-)
2011/4/19 Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com:
Maybe I need to add this one :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grifo_m%C3%A1gico.JPG
Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net wrote:
Ever look at how a steam locomotive boiler is constructed? The flow is
straight thru and the heat xfer surface area is many many times the surface
area of the outer enclosing cylinder. I posted a reply about this and
attached a jpeg, but I guess Bill
Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm hoping that Jed will soon post that Rossi Quotes .doc file, instead of
doing back'n'forth with Jonas :)
Shirakawa posted them here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg44890.html
Not that many.
- Jed
Right. But with pressurized H2 inside the reactor - you cannot easily risk
having lots of coolant tubes going thru, as sealing them would be a
nightmare - and the narrowness of the form-factor - at least the images
seen, do not seem to permit enough space for copper tubing around the
reactor.
The energy extraction methods are different but the rapid changes in energy
density experienced by gas atoms in motion WRT Casimir geometry is the common
denominator that they are all exploiting. Recent comments regarding
magnetostriction would seem to fit this model where magnetic fields from
can you provide links to Piantelli's patents?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 20:24, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Piantelli's
Well yes, Rossi has intellectual property problems unless he discloses his
secret additives in his patent application. That will separate his patent from
prior art. He will still owe something to previous patents regardless, as they
incorporate many of the claims Rossi has made in his
On 19-4-2011 2:47, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Regarding the choice of Wikis, I have no opinion. I will be happy to
help anyone's Wiki . . . except one connected to Wikipedia.
- Jed
Hi,
I've to agree with Jed, as it seems that unfortunately Wikipedia is
growing towards like the other hyped
From: gotjos...@gmail.com
can you provide links to Piantelli's patents?
There are two Piantelli’s with LENR IP– Francesco and Silvia, I think they are
married, but not sure
WO/1995/020816 -ENERGY GENERATION AND GENERATOR BY MEANS OF ANHARMONIC
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints
Below is the latest version. Not many changes. The original is in .docx
format. If anyone wants a copy let me know.
The purpose of this is to have a handy cheat-sheet look up what Rossi and
others have said so far. I am not trying to make sense of these claims,
judge how likely they are to be
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints
To everyone who worked on creating this Wiki Rossi Hints directory.
THANKS A BUNCH!
I would think it should be fairly easy to update it.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
RE: my source for Rossi's statement about seeing 100-300keV particles...
Sure, here it is, on March 18:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3126617.ece
Titled: And here are 36 more questions - with Rossi's answers
Specifically, here is the QA:
-
In reply to Peter Gluck's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:41:27 +0300:
Hi,
[snip]
I think the most important conclusion of this discussion- is that heat
transfer is the main obstacle in scale up of this type of heat generators.
The surface/volume ratio diminishes with increasing the dimensions.
Huh. It does not seem there is much more we can say about this other than
what I wrote:
The device produces 100 keV and 300 keV particles. (Rossi? – Iverson
reports)
We can change the citation to (Rossi, NyTeknik, 3/18/2011)
What does anyone think this means:
Rossi: No radioactivity has been
At 02:24 PM 4/19/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Below is the latest version. Not
many changes. The original is in .docx format. If anyone wants a copy let
me know.
H gas pressure in the cell
is 25 bar (~360 psi) (Rossi? Blanton)
That's from the KE report :
Startup. Prior to
startup, the hydrogen
So Rossi has gone from:
50 modules of 20 kW each
130 10 kW units
300 3 kW each
or more poetically stated, from bobcat, to tom-cat, to kitty-cat! :-)
So Steven Vincent Johnson's comment may prove insightful:
However, there is a
The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry dressed up in
black skin tight
leather as Cat-woman... Hear me roar! And e-Cats of various sizes will be
purring along all
around her.
:-)
-Mark
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
That's from the KE report :
Thanks.
- Jed
- Original Message
From: Mark Iverson zeropo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 6:41:50 PM
Subject: [Vo]: Rossi's Marketing spokes-feline
The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry dressed up
in
black skin tight
Mark - For future reference - when did he mention 50 reactors at 20 kW ?
Moving on. Awkshully, and in complete candor - as for the rest of it - this
appears to be consistent with what we would expect from the same identical
reactor as in the Jan demo, but with a present realization (or
At 12:25 PM 4/19/2011, Alan J Fletcher wrote:
from randi forums -- no link
provided :
A new experiment seems to be scheduled for Thursday(April 21) in Uppsala,
again supervised by the Swedish scientists.
Bill Conley
April 19th, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Mr. Rossi,
First of all, thank you so much for
Mar sez:
The marketing for the entire line of e-Cats will be Halley Berry
dressed up in black skin tight leather as Cat-woman...
Hear me roar! And e-Cats of various sizes will be purring along
all around her.
:-)
My kitty-cat, Zoey, has graciously volunteered to be Rossi's P-Cat, or
RE: reference for the 50 reactors at 20kW...
From the very recent posting of Rossi's Hints on peswiki that Jed and
several others have
contributed to...
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator:Rossi's_Hints
I have to take issue with your insistence that
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Again – before the flood of denials, character assassination and finger
pointing – let’s wait a couple of days for the Swedish results, please.
It might talk a bit longer. They don't actually *have* and ECat yet.
I would
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Still great but at a level which is consistent of my predicted COP in the
Swedish testing of COP of 10.
Get your story straight! Your prediction was at least 1000:1 not 10. Right
here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg45088.html
Rossi wrote:
I must correct you: the test they made had a well controlled flux.
By flux he means the water flow rate.
- Jed
I just posted this message in the blog:
I have heard that the tests at Uppsala and Stockolm Universities will begin
this week. Is that so? That’s great!
- Jed
All:
Now that the emotional vortex has subsided... Funny, so have the atmospheric
vortices in the
southeast USA! Nah... No possible connection there... Right?
I share Jones' frustration in that here we have what is very likely a valid new
discovery that we've
ALL been waiting for, for
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:27:37 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
.plus, stainless conducts heat so poorly that a 5 KG reactor would surely
melt before that rate of energy release could be sustained for 15 minutes
anyway - do you really doubt that?
Please see attached.
Regards,
Robin.
My initial reaction is that the assumptions could be way off.
The delta-T of 500K is too large, and the wall thickness of 2 mm is thin for
this application. There could be other problems too.
For 25 bar pressure, how are you going not to get by with 2 mm walls - more
like 6. If the temp
Expert opinion, indeed. Not bad enough that the box is black but we're reacting
to a secret report shown only to Levi, the contents of which can only be
guessed at?
Sent from my iPhone.
On Apr 20, 2011, at 0:14, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Robin.
My initial reaction is that
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 19 Apr 2011 21:14:06 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin.
My initial reaction is that the assumptions could be way off.
They probably are off to some extent, but I don't think they are way off.
The delta-T of 500K is too large,
This is based on an internal
83 matches
Mail list logo
