Re: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and Government Taxation
- Original Nachricht Von: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 26.10.2011 23:07 Betreff: [Vo]:Cold Fusion and Government Taxation Greetings Vortex, IF Rossi is successful , as I expect, I wonder what will the world governments will do on taxation? Governments cannot resist. Will almost free energy be killed by taxation. I think the fuel cannot been taxed, because the amounts are so small, commonly available and impossible to control. It doesnt produce CO2, so this cannot been taxed. It does however produce waste heat and this /should/ be taxed. Already now biological damage was done to rivers when cole and nuclear power plants heated them too much. The amount of hot water and steam released into environment must be taxed. Now what will happen if anybody can produce unlimited amounts of waste heat? Any kind of antisocial egoistic capitalistic abuse will happen. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer
- Original Nachricht Von: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 27.10.2011 06:47 Betreff: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer Like usually, Daniele is misinformed with his rumors. The real Customer is Maddelena! He is not misinformed. He is good friend to Guiseppe Levi and to Rossi. He has more access to infos than most, but he is scientifically and technologically ignorant and they can easily fool him. He does purposely forward unchecked and untrue or faked information, to do a favor to Rossi and others. Remember the misinformation about Brian Josephson. He should have known better because he had contact to all involved people. His Blog is shining and is awarded, and has good design but false information is spreaded. ?Jouni PS. please clean up the subject line, before sending the message. For messages with reply only Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer, is enough. Having Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer is certainly overdoing it, because [Vo]-tag is only needed to express once for the mail-server. 2011/10/27 ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com: Daniele Passerini has reported that the customer interested in the MW reactor it is a well-known and largest industrial group http://freeenergytruth.blogspot.com/2011/10/ecat-customer-is-large-well-know n.html Perhaps GE or Siemens? Speculations? - Brad p.s. Rossi said on his blog that the 1MW reactor would burn 10kg Ni and 18kg of H2 if ran for 180 days. Interesting! http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=510
Re: [Vo]:An interesting Steve jobs quote for Professor Rossi
You forget something that Jobs and others have demonstrated: Crazyness and ingnorance are not enough to change the world. Most who are crazy are not genius and not capable.. - Original Nachricht Von: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 27.10.2011 04:14 Betreff: [Vo]:An interesting Steve jobs quote for Professor Rossi Here?s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes? the ones who see things differently ? they?re not fond of rules? You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can?t do is ignore them because they change things? they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.? ? Think Different, narrated by Steve Jobshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwsuXHA7RA Ron Kita, Chiralex
[Vo]:How Much is One (1) Megawatt
How Much is One (1) Megawatt http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:How_Much_is_One_%281%29_Megawatt
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer
- Original Nachricht Von: peter.heck...@arcor.de An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 27.10.2011 11:49 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer Possibly he has no customer. This big demonstration with world top class scientists and journalists from top scientific magazines will not happen, this seems rather clear to me. I wouldnt be too surprised if he plans to blow up the 1 MW plant in a big bang and then claim nuclear energy. This would solve the problem for him and the story can go on. At Monday 3:00 in the morning, clocks are readjusted, because wintertime begins. No, I dont think bad about him. Nobody will be hurt, because nobody is there and he can say it was a unforseeable software problem ;-) I have predicted some months ago, that he will be unable to go over customs with this system without opening the reactors and this is still true.
Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer
2011/10/27 peter.heck...@arcor.de I wouldnt be too surprised if he plans to blow up the 1 MW plant in a big bang and then claim nuclear energy. This would solve the problem for him and the story can go on. It recalls how ended up the TEG story with DoD. *After this initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices. *
Re: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer
- Original Nachricht Von: Susan Gipp susan.g...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 27.10.2011 13:01 Betreff: Re: [Vo]:RE: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer 2011/10/27 peter.heck...@arcor.de I wouldnt be too surprised if he plans to blow up the 1 MW plant in a big bang and then claim nuclear energy. This would solve the problem for him and the story can go on. It recalls how ended up the TEG story with DoD. *After this initial success, and a fire that destroyed his Manchester, NH location, Dr. Rossi returned to Italy to continue the manufacture of the TE Devices. * I dont know what is true about this. But I know, he was accused for money washing and gold smuggle and so he can probably not easily go over customs with this big box. Regardless if this accusation is true or not. He always does what I would have done if I where in a bad dream and in his situation, if I think back ;-) A hydrogen explosion would be nice, we have seen what this can do in Fukushima. And it is impossible to proof, because the hydrogen could also have been made by nuclear overheating in the reactor. BTW, I was in error, european wintertime adjustment is at sunday morning 3 o' clock. This is the best time, nobody there and he can claim a software error.
[Vo]:Update to Rossi 6 Oct 2011 Experiment Data Review
My review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf has been updated. Improved graph formats were provided. I will be available to discuss this once my finite element analysis is done. Meanwhile, I'll hopefully resume lurk mode. A significant part of the update is inclusion of the following sections: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACTIVE CONTROL To make any sense of the data with a non-nuclear explanation, it appears the electric heating power is separated into two parts, one part which heats the water directly, and one part which heats an internal metal mass. In addition, it appears there needs to be an active control which affects the thermal conductivity between a large thermal mass and the water, and thus division of the input power into a third part. This control must produce minimum thermal resistance between a hot thermal mass and the water when no power is applied to it. Further, it must be controlled with about 300 mA * 240 V = 7.2 watts of power, because the power from the “frequency generator” must be enough to regulate the thermal output power. When main heater power was cut and when the “frequency generator” power was cut, there was an immediate surge of thermal power out. In both cases, a power cut to the heater(s), and a power cut to the frequency generator, a large thermal pulse resulted immediately upon the power cut. One means of achieving the necessary power control is to use the actuator from a zone valve to make or release contact between large area (e.g. 29 cm by 29 cm) slabs of thermal conductors. This can be accomplished by spring loading the slabs to a closed position and using the actuator from a zone valve (.e.g. Taco Power Head) to press the plates apart. A typical US residential zone valve operates in the appropriate power range, and is activated by about 10 V at 1 A. The power is applied to a resistive material which expands thermally to open a zone valve. In a hot environment such an actuator could expand with less than normal power. An alternative to changing slab separation is to control convective flow of a thermal transfer fluid. In this case when power is applied then flow must be cut off. DYNAMIC FEA SIMULATION A dynamic linear FEA simulation program is being developed to look at potential thermal storage mechanisms. A sample of some run input data is located here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptR4 Report of the results will be made separately from this review. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi?s customer
2011/10/27 peter.heck...@arcor.de I dont know what is true about this. You can judge bay yourself reading the DoD report dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo(2004).pdfhttp://dodfuelcell.cecer.army.mil/library_items/Thermo%282004%29.pdf
[Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi October 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM Dear Thomas Blakeslee: Grams/Power for a 180 days charge Hydrogen: 18000 g Nickel: 1 g Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. At atomic weight of 1.0079 the 18000 gm of H is 1786 mols. At an atoommic weight of 58.69 the 10,000 gm of Ni is 170.4 mol. This means 10.48 atoms of H need be provided per 1 atom of Ni. Assuming the reaction is Ni-H, as claimed, only about 1 in 10 atoms of H is consumed, thus 170.4 mols of H and a170.4 mols of Ni are consumed, maximum. This involves the obviously wrong assumption that all the Ni atoms are transmuted, not a more realistic 3 percent. There is also an outside possibility the H reacts with daughter products, giving the possibility of 10 subsequent daughter reactions per primary Ni+H reaction. Three such reactions is an outside possibility. One MW for 180 days is 1.556x10^13 J, or 10^7 MJ. That is (6.241x10^24 eV/MJ)*(1.556x10^13 J)/(170.4 mol * 6.022x10^23 atoms / mol) = 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom). If there is one reaction per atom and all Ni is consumed by single reactions than that is 0.9464 MeV per Ni-H event. The gammas from this would be lethal at short range, even through 2 cm of lead. If it is assumed that 3% of the Ni is consumed then that is 0.9464 MeV/0.03 = 31.5 MeV per reaction. If there are an average of 3 daughter reactions per primary reactions that is about 10 Mev per reaction. If 10 MeV gammas are produced then 5 cm of lead shielding will be of no use in protecting the operators. If near 1 MeV gammas are produced the lead shielding is inadequate. One MW of gammas is 6.241x10^24 eV/s, or, for 1 MeV gammas, 6.24x10^18 gammas per second. using: I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L) where mu for 1 MeV is 0.02 cm^2/gm), and density of lead 11.34 gm/ cm^3, we have for 5 cm of lead: I = (6.24x10^18 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5 cm)) I = 2x10^18 free gammas per second. About half that, or 10^18 gammas/s would be directed toward the interior of the container housing the E-cats, and most of the 2x10^18 gammas per second would end up escaping the container. This is an approximate calculation. Even if it is off by an order of magnitude, this kind of 1 MeV gamma flux, even 1/32 of it from one E-cat, would be readily detected by a geiger counter at significant range. It does not seem credible the energy from a Ni-H reaction, at least in the form of one gamma per reaction, provides any explanation for 1 MW of heat, if that thermal power is in fact achieved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:An interesting Steve jobs quote for Professor Rossi
notice R. Buckminster Fuller in that video. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com wrote: Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.” – Think Different, narrated by Steve Jobshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwsuXHA7RA Ron Kita, Chiralex
[Vo]:The Newspaper Whoresand Cold Fusion
Greetings Vortex, Yes, the Newspapers have been real whores in their treatment of Cold Fusion /Fleischmannn and Pons et al, and yet they will take the money from advertising cold fusion products in the future. I should be corrected: Prostitution does provide a service for money- and they are a high percentages of satisfied customers. So..newspapers are worse than whores. Belles d Nuit accept my apologies. My local newspapers have informed me that they are not interested in covering Cold Fusion, since it is not local news. Perhaps should an errant 100 mile diameter comet be predicted to hit California- this also would not be worthy of coverage. For years , I have been a reader of Popular Science. mark.jan...@bonniercorp.com I sent him endless e-mails on the topic. Also anytime I saw a Bloomberg Oil article or a Wall Street Journal x...@wsj.com or madmo...@cnbc.com .. I would send the best CF report available..and never a comment or reply. Mark Gibbs of Forbes has been a breath of fresh air. I even got thank you replies, and I await his timely coverage. With newspapers, they usually call the chemistry or physics department of a large university for comments on a new technology. These reporters..stop..at the first call of rubbish. Local newspapers are good for covering mindless-endless solar energy articles, windmill articles, scandals, rape, personal misfortunes and the like. As for getting an insight into our future or inspiring new scientists ..poor..would be a most inadequate description. My hope is that my local newspaper spells my name correctly in the obiturary section- I cannot expect anything more from them. The Truth is Out There, Ron Kita
Re: [Vo]:The Newspaper Whoresand Cold Fusion
Greetings Vortex, Yes, the Newspapers have been real whores in their treatment of Cold Fusion /Fleischmannn and Pons et al, I can not see that newspapers have been derelict in their reporting duty when it comes to cold fusion. There must be hundreds of crackpots and conmen out there who are doing 'experiments' on anti-gravity, time travel, cold fusion - you name it. Serious newspapers can not cover all that rubbish, nor should they. As for Rossi, he has done 12 out of 12 inconclusive, farcical demos; why should any newspaper give him space? The latest one, on October 6, was stopped after 3 hours of self-sustaining. What a farce that he would stop it then, leaving it ambiguous as to whether anything unusual happened, when he could, supposedly, have let it run for 30 hours or 300 hours and removed most doubts about whether or not the device was producing more energy than could be accounted for by a normal chemical reaction. No reputable newspaper would report on such nonsense except to poke fun at it. The demo scheduled for tomorrow will almost surely be the same murky thing. He has a customer who might be himself, and no information will come out of it except what Rossi decides to report. Rossi's report will be about as trustworthy as a report from Joe Newman on his accomplishments.
[Vo]:micro-grids
There is now tremendous interest in demoing micro-grids for US domestic and military use. GE politically and positionally would be a very logical candidate to utilize a working 1MW steam generator in one of the already planned micro-grid demonstrations. A working 1MW unit could be plugged into the demonstration with little engineering risk, giving GE a very large head start on market share for the US market.Timing right now favors such a demo, because there is enormous pressure on the current administration to address the poor economy - so this scenario favors large political as well as large monetary interests.
RE: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
On Thurs Oct 27, 2011 Horace said [snip] It does not seem credible the energy from a Ni-H reaction, at least in the form of one gamma per reaction, provides any explanation for 1 MW of heat, if that thermal power is in fact achieved.[/snip] Horace, Assuming the thermal power is in fact achieved, and the reaction is not Ni-H, what do you feel is the next most credible theory ? Fran -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 7:49 AM To: Vortex-L Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi October 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM Dear Thomas Blakeslee: Grams/Power for a 180 days charge Hydrogen: 18000 g Nickel: 1 g Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. At atomic weight of 1.0079 the 18000 gm of H is 1786 mols. At an atoommic weight of 58.69 the 10,000 gm of Ni is 170.4 mol. This means 10.48 atoms of H need be provided per 1 atom of Ni. Assuming the reaction is Ni-H, as claimed, only about 1 in 10 atoms of H is consumed, thus 170.4 mols of H and a170.4 mols of Ni are consumed, maximum. This involves the obviously wrong assumption that all the Ni atoms are transmuted, not a more realistic 3 percent. There is also an outside possibility the H reacts with daughter products, giving the possibility of 10 subsequent daughter reactions per primary Ni+H reaction. Three such reactions is an outside possibility. One MW for 180 days is 1.556x10^13 J, or 10^7 MJ. That is (6.241x10^24 eV/MJ)*(1.556x10^13 J)/(170.4 mol * 6.022x10^23 atoms / mol) = 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom). If there is one reaction per atom and all Ni is consumed by single reactions than that is 0.9464 MeV per Ni-H event. The gammas from this would be lethal at short range, even through 2 cm of lead. If it is assumed that 3% of the Ni is consumed then that is 0.9464 MeV/0.03 = 31.5 MeV per reaction. If there are an average of 3 daughter reactions per primary reactions that is about 10 Mev per reaction. If 10 MeV gammas are produced then 5 cm of lead shielding will be of no use in protecting the operators. If near 1 MeV gammas are produced the lead shielding is inadequate. One MW of gammas is 6.241x10^24 eV/s, or, for 1 MeV gammas, 6.24x10^18 gammas per second. using: I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L) where mu for 1 MeV is 0.02 cm^2/gm), and density of lead 11.34 gm/ cm^3, we have for 5 cm of lead: I = (6.24x10^18 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5 cm)) I = 2x10^18 free gammas per second. About half that, or 10^18 gammas/s would be directed toward the interior of the container housing the E-cats, and most of the 2x10^18 gammas per second would end up escaping the container. This is an approximate calculation. Even if it is off by an order of magnitude, this kind of 1 MeV gamma flux, even 1/32 of it from one E-cat, would be readily detected by a geiger counter at significant range. It does not seem credible the energy from a Ni-H reaction, at least in the form of one gamma per reaction, provides any explanation for 1 MW of heat, if that thermal power is in fact achieved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Hello, I had a thought about the self sustained Mode: If the power was not continuously monitored, then Rossi could have a remote switch in his pocket or elsewhere. The italian grid and the plug can supply 16 Amps @230V. This are 3.68 kW. If he activates the switch always when nobody is looking to the powermeter and if this makes 50% of time then this makes 1.84 kW and together with errors in temperature measurement this could make up the energy observed. Peter
[Vo]:Video of Miley answering questions at recent conference
See: http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay
Re: [Vo]:Making Sense of ECAT Water Pump Flow Rate
Colin Hercus wrote: The manufacturers data sheet indicates it has variable rate and *variable stroke* pump and doesn't indicate that a tube can be replaced or even that it's a peristaltic pump. I believe it is a constant displacement pump, not peristaltic. Peristaltic pumps do not have variable strokes. The rotor goes full circle every time and pushes more fluid up the tube. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If the power was not continuously monitored, then Rossi could have a remote switch in his pocket or elsewhere. The italian grid and the plug can supply 16 Amps @230V. This are 3.68 kW. If he activates the switch always when nobody is looking to the powermeter and if this makes 50% of time . . . This is highly unlikely for several reasons: The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input with the joule heaters. There was anomalous heat when the heaters were turned on, which produced considerably more heat than the heaters alone delivered. In previous tests the power has been monitored consistently and these tests also produced excess heat. This method would produce easily detected waves of heat. Rossi would have to watch the power meters the whole time to make sure no one approached them. Someone would notice that he is doing that. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Manifold mispositioning makes measurements meaningless
This is a lot of good work, Alan. I am amazed at the number of high quality posts on Vortex. I am having trouble keeping up because each post warrants a good deal of thought. I examined pictures of the manifold and created a diagram to capture the important features. [I made a small .png version of the diagram that I am trying to include.] I am not sure it is schematically correct yet. A characteristic that I believe is very important in the analysis of the possible temperature contamination is the issue of the fittings used in the manifold. These use pipe threads, and appear to be NPT because of the use of pipe dope. At each junction of pipe threads, there will be a large thermal resistance compared to continuous brass. Analysis of these across-the-thread resistances are going to be hard, particularly with pipe dope and or Teflon tape present as is required to seal NPT. The resistance across the thread boundaries will be high and the net effect will be to significantly decouple the Tout thermocouple from the manifold. These thread boundary effects don't appear to be included in your model. If the 35kB .png of the diagram I created doesn't make it through the thread, email me and I will send it to you direct. Regards, Bob Higgins -Original Message- From: Alan J Fletcher [mailto:a...@well.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 6:49 PM I have built a SPICE circuit simulation model of the manifold --- and the results are VERY BAD An initial small-scale model indicates that the ENTIRE top of the manifold is contaminated by the HOT side. Even with a stepped manifold (representing the various pipe fittings) , and with the thermocouple at the END of the tube, I get a 10 C ERROR ! My preliminary results are at : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php I can make a more accurate model with Spice, but a Finite Element Model is clearly needed. attachment: ExchangerManifold_sm.png
[Vo]:
Many people accept the concept of Casimir geometry achieving peak activity in the range of low nanometers. The Casimir formula doesn't seem to make this distinction although the force under consideration in these anomalies also includes the gas atoms upon which the Casimir force must operate... that said is this assumption based on the amount of force that can be brought to bear on the surface area of a gas atom? I can see where the ratio of Casimir plate area/ spacing to the atoms surface area would have an optimum value for a static surface area of a hydrogen atom but I think Inverse Rydberg Hydrogen would be an exception to this rule where effective surface area of the H atom is reduced and the ratio for Casimir geometry can therefore also be further reduced. My pet theory would argue the atom's are actually relativistic and locally the surface area remains unchanged but the atom exists in a different , time dilated, inertial frame such that it appears contracted... the Casimir ratio [plate area/spacing] is allowed to climb and whether you believe the displacement of the atoms relative to the plates is maintained thru true contraction or relativistic contraction doesn't matter because either way Casimir force between the plates is allowed to increase... even possibly to the point where separation is less than the atomic diameter of normal hydrogen. If you eliminate the Ni-H reaction based on lack of radiation there still exist other nuclear solutions to this mystery like Beta decays and slow neutrons but I think the pendulum is finally swinging back toward ZPE as a viable candidate. In the past the H1H2 oscillation powered by ZPE has been dismissed as too low in energy output to explain the amount of power generation claimed. A relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect could explain a much larger excess energy - an ultra catalyzer where a reversible reaction between atomic and molecular hydrogen occurs more and more rapidly from our perspective inverse to the local plate spacing. Fran
[Vo]:Rossi's customer
I have no idea who this customer might be. I do not like to guess, speculate or read the tea leaves when I have no information, but I believe it is unlikely that a major corporation is involved. I say this for the following reasons: Several large corporations and institutions such as Georgia Tech have contacted me about this test. They say it would be unwise to test such a large reactor without first doing a series of small-scale tests at lower power levels. Jumping up to high level without first doing these tests would be dangerous. They are baffled by this plan. I have echoed their remarks here. So I do not think they would countenance such a large increase. I asked Rossi whether he has a permit to do this test. He did not respond. I do not know whether he has one or not, but it seems unlikely to me. I simply cannot imagine that any sane government official would issue one. I hate to speculate about these things but that seems impossible. Large corporations are sticklers for the rules. They *write* the rules, in cooperation with government regulators. I doubt they would get involved in a test of a large nuclear reactor that is probably an egregious criminal violation of health and safety standards. I do not know about Europe but in the US or Japan this would cause a major scandal, with people being arrested and perp-walked in front of reporters. This is not something GE or Mitsubishi would let themselves get involved in, ever, under any circumstances. If a subordinate at GE were to suggest getting involved, I suppose management would demand a copy of the permits and certifications for the reactor as the first step. They would demand technical documents showing that the reactor was designed by a professional engineering firm that specializes in pressure vessels. They would want to see computer simulations of pressure and heat conditions, and certificates showing that the welding was done by certified experts. I sure as heck would. Testing a laboratory scale device is one thing; industrial equipment is quite another. A machine of this size and power is dangerous, even when it is designed with the best modern computers and simulations, and when it is fabricated by experts and then carefully examined by an inspector. A conventional combustion reactor of this size is dangerous. If a hose connection fails, the hose may fly off with enough force to crush someone's skull, and the steam may scald them to death. This is not a damned toy, or something you casually turn on after a few weeks of partial testing. The test on October 6 clearly did not involve any professional engineering or instrumentation such as a corporation would bring. Terry Blanton remarked that a corporation would use large, professional grade instruments with recent NIST certification stickers. You can recognize this kind of thing. I did not see any. They did not even have a computer or flow meters for some of the critical data. To be blunt, the October 6 test was so half-assed, the students at my local high school could have done a better job. (Granted several of those kids got into MIT and Georgia Tech.) I find it hard to believe that a major corporation would jump into this project and be prepared for a 1 MW test three weeks after the test that produced somewhere between six and 10 kW but you can't tell because the instruments were so bad. Videos and photographs of the equipment outdoors to not show any sign of professional instrumentation being deployed around it. Again, I do not think that a professional organization would jump in and be prepared to do a major test with the outside equipment in three weeks. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Am 27.10.2011 15:52, schrieb Jed Rothwell: peter.heck...@arcor.de wrote: If the power was not continuously monitored, then Rossi could have a remote switch in his pocket or elsewhere. The italian grid and the plug can supply 16 Amps @230V. This are 3.68 kW. If he activates the switch always when nobody is looking to the powermeter and if this makes 50% of time . . . This is highly unlikely for several reasons: The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input with the joule heaters. There can be a secret heater. These are available here in small size with amazing power: http://www.rotfil.com/public/downloads/PDF-CAR-017-E.pdf Also note, the official current rating of the italian grid is 16A. Depending from the fuse, the current can be much higher for short periods of time. This is not a problem, if all cables and plugs are new and high quality then there is a very high security margin. There was anomalous heat when the heaters were turned on, which produced considerably more heat than the heaters alone delivered. This is easily explained with errors in temperature measurement or/and with a secret additional heater. In previous tests the power has been monitored consistently and these tests also produced excess heat. In which tests? At least during the Essen Kullander test it was only spotted at, but not automatically logged. The better multimeters have a recording possibility. It should be recorded and timestamped. This method would produce easily detected waves of heat. No. the temperature inside the e-cat would not change, only the amount of boiling. Also I think the thermal time constant should be rather large, more than some 10 minutes. Rossi would have to watch the power meters the whole time to make sure no one approached them. Someone would notice that he is doing that. No, if a trained person does this, nobody would notice. Think what magicians can do. Also he can use an automated person distance detection system or both in combination or another person does it. He could have the switchbutton in his shoe, for example. If somebody sees something unusual, this can be explained by the new high frequency device. Rossi always finds an explanation he is trained for 40 years or more. Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional, then they work or not work 3-4 hours and it is over.. Who can accept such a test? Why? This Partner has not helped Rossi who was forced to sell his house in order to continue. The most probable is that the test will be done by the inventor's people from his US company and by some specialists hired by Ampenergo- i.e. NO real partner exists. The identity of the experimenters will not be revealed probably and we will receive results from Rossi, as he wish. We will see no instruments and no steam commensurate with 1 MW heat. My bet is NO REAL CUSTOMER. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I have no idea who this customer might be. I do not like to guess, speculate or read the tea leaves when I have no information, but I believe it is unlikely that a major corporation is involved. I say this for the following reasons: Several large corporations and institutions such as Georgia Tech have contacted me about this test. They say it would be unwise to test such a large reactor without first doing a series of small-scale tests at lower power levels. Jumping up to high level without first doing these tests would be dangerous. They are baffled by this plan. I have echoed their remarks here. So I do not think they would countenance such a large increase. I asked Rossi whether he has a permit to do this test. He did not respond. I do not know whether he has one or not, but it seems unlikely to me. I simply cannot imagine that any sane government official would issue one. I hate to speculate about these things but that seems impossible. Large corporations are sticklers for the rules. They *write* the rules, in cooperation with government regulators. I doubt they would get involved in a test of a large nuclear reactor that is probably an egregious criminal violation of health and safety standards. I do not know about Europe but in the US or Japan this would cause a major scandal, with people being arrested and perp-walked in front of reporters. This is not something GE or Mitsubishi would let themselves get involved in, ever, under any circumstances. If a subordinate at GE were to suggest getting involved, I suppose management would demand a copy of the permits and certifications for the reactor as the first step. They would demand technical documents showing that the reactor was designed by a professional engineering firm that specializes in pressure vessels. They would want to see computer simulations of pressure and heat conditions, and certificates showing that the welding was done by certified experts. I sure as heck would. Testing a laboratory scale device is one thing; industrial equipment is quite another. A machine of this size and power is dangerous, even when it is designed with the best modern computers and simulations, and when it is fabricated by experts and then carefully examined by an inspector. A conventional combustion reactor of this size is dangerous. If a hose connection fails, the hose may fly off with enough force to crush someone's skull, and the steam may scald them to death. This is not a damned toy, or something you casually turn on after a few weeks of partial testing. The test on October 6 clearly did not involve any professional engineering or instrumentation such as a corporation would bring. Terry Blanton remarked that a corporation would use large, professional grade instruments with recent NIST certification stickers. You can recognize this kind of thing. I did not see any. They did not even have a computer or flow meters for some of the critical data. To be blunt, the October 6 test was so half-assed, the students at my local high school could have done a better job. (Granted several of those kids got into MIT and Georgia Tech.) I find it hard to believe that a major corporation would jump into this project and be prepared for a 1 MW test three weeks after the test that produced somewhere between six and 10 kW but you can't tell because the instruments were so bad. Videos and photographs of the equipment outdoors to not show any sign of professional instrumentation being deployed around it. Again, I do not think that a professional organization would jump in and be prepared to do a major test with the outside equipment in three weeks. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
[Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. Here is my prediction, mostly taken from comments on Rossi's blog. He starts a group of 6 reactors and waits until they are ready for self-sustaining mode, probably 3 reactors per side. Each reactor group will start quickly, perhaps less than 15 minutes, as the system will not be ice cold. Each successive group of reactors will be kept running with minimum power input as a new group starts. The steam will be condensed in dissipaters and recycled to the plant. Safety mechanisms will be in place to prevent an explosion and everyone will be kept at a safe distance. The 1MW plant will create 1.2MW+ power with less than 2MW sustained input for over 8 hours. Rossi may decide to keep the plant running indefinitely. (At one time he claimed for 2 months.) Rossi claims he has made much more progress than what has been seen in public demonstrations. This is the first big unveiling. My prediction is 90 -- major success but with some details remaining unknown or unverified. - Brad p.s. I've been collecting information from people interested in replicating the e-cat technology. Please email me or reply if you know others attempting replication.
[Vo]:RUNNING COST FOR THE 1MW E-Cat
RUNNING COST FOR THE 1MW E-Cat: A lot have been written the last 2 days (on E-Cat blogs web sites) about the running cost of the 1 MW E-Cat Power Plant that has only focused on the cost of the nickel hydrogen fuel used. One should not forget that the I MW E-Cat Power Plant will not run in self-sustained mode due to safety issues. There will be a general minimum 1 to 6 gain in energy from the plant. I.e. the 1 MW E-Cat Power Plant will require a maximum of 167 kWh to run during the 6 months. So in addition to the fuel cost of 10 kg modified Nickel micro powder and 18 kg hydrogen gas one need to add the cost of purchasing 167 kWh for each hour the plant is running during the 6 months. This el-power running cost is much larger than the cost of the Nickel / Hydrogen fuel used. Se today's recent Andrea Rossi answer to my questions re. running cost of the 1 MW E-Cat Power Plant: Jorn Erik Ommang October 26th, 2011 at 3:50 PM Dear Andrea Rossi, Congratulation from Norway, Spain UK! 1.0 Is it correct that Your 1 MW E-Cat Container will require a maximum of 167 kW in el-power to run and generate the 1 MW of heath (a minimum 1 to 6 energy gain) (1 to 6 energy gain = 167 kW el-power in and 1 MW heat out)? 2.0 Will the cost of this el-power (maximum 167 kWh for 6 months) come in addition to the cost for fuel (10 kg nickel 18 kg hydrogen pr. 6 months)? I have been working as consultant in New Energy (since 1994) for management of Oil and Energy Companies in Norway (including Europe¹s largest renewable energy company) as well as work the Government. The Consultant work has included training top management in what will come in the clean new energy field and have followed Your great work for a long time. Have also long time experience as Project Manager in the Norwegian Oil Gas Industry and as technical auditor for Shell Statoil. 3.0 I am interested in linking Norwegian, Spanish and UK Oil, Gas and Energy Companies to Your products to prepare for when Your revolutionary products come on the marked. Please advice how best to contact You for my contacts within these areas for purchasing MW-units and licenses. 4.0 Have You chosen the date of 28.09.2011 for Your demo for a special reason (i.e. are You aware that this date is one of the major dates for positive changes in alternative thinking)? All the best with Fridays major demonstration, verification testing Sincerely, Jorn-Erik Ommang, Engineer New Energy Specialist Enerley.com Spain / Norway / UK Andrea Rossi answered: October 27th, 2011 at 3:47 AM Dear Jorn Erik Ommang: 1- yes 2- yes 3- OK 4- Just a case Warm Regards, A.R.
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
Well, I will bet 25! 2011/10/27 ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. Here is my prediction, mostly taken from comments on Rossi's blog. He starts a group of 6 reactors and waits until they are ready for self-sustaining mode, probably 3 reactors per side. Each reactor group will start quickly, perhaps less than 15 minutes, as the system will not be ice cold. Each successive group of reactors will be kept running with minimum power input as a new group starts. The steam will be condensed in dissipaters and recycled to the plant. Safety mechanisms will be in place to prevent an explosion and everyone will be kept at a safe distance. The 1MW plant will create 1.2MW+ power with less than 2MW sustained input for over 8 hours. Rossi may decide to keep the plant running indefinitely. (At one time he claimed for 2 months.) Rossi claims he has made much more progress than what has been seen in public demonstrations. This is the first big unveiling. My prediction is 90 -- major success but with some details remaining unknown or unverified. - Brad p.s. I've been collecting information from people interested in replicating the e-cat technology. Please email me or reply if you know others attempting replication.
[Vo]:Crazy Ideas canhave merit; Crazyiness? probably not!
Crazy Ideas canhave merit; Crazyiness? probably not! Crazy ideas are part of the creative process; even the unworkable crazy ideas can lead us down new paths that do have unexpected good solutions. Perhaps some people have a sort of controlled or intermittent craziness. It is really hard for me to believe that Alice in Wonderland was not to some degree a result of psychotic experiences, or drugs, or perhaps accidental ingestion of shrooms. From any standpoint, thinking out of the box must inherently involve considering things that you and/or most people have already thrown out of the box, or things that were never allowed into the box in the first place. This is because the box already contains all of the sane , relevant, useful, etc-ideas. Scott Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:02:56 +0200 From: peter.heck...@arcor.de To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:An interesting Steve jobs quote for Professor Rossi You forget something that Jobs and others have demonstrated: Crazyness and ingnorance are not enough to change the world. Most who are crazy are not genius and not capable.. - Original Nachricht Von: Ron Kita chiralex.k...@gmail.com An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Datum: 27.10.2011 04:14 Betreff: [Vo]:An interesting Steve jobs quote for Professor Rossi Here?s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes? the ones who see things differently ? they?re not fond of rules? You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can?t do is ignore them because they change things? they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.? ? Think Different, narrated by Steve Jobshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rwsuXHA7RA Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
Am 27.10.2011 17:44, schrieb ecat builder: Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. 25 or 50. The plant will fail or blow up by hydrogen at saturday night/sunday morning, when nobody is there. Or it will vanish with unknown destination. Possibly a helicopter comes and takes it away to heaven and it vanishes in the clouds. Peter ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
A huge nuclear explosion with a lot of tritium and cobalt 59 fall out would make me happy! At least it would show to all mankind that LENR is a true phenomenon. 2011/10/27 Peter Heckert peter.heck...@arcor.de Am 27.10.2011 17:44, schrieb ecat builder: Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. 25 or 50. The plant will fail or blow up by hydrogen at saturday night/sunday morning, when nobody is there. Or it will vanish with unknown destination. Possibly a helicopter comes and takes it away to heaven and it vanishes in the clouds. Peter ;-)
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. I'll go with the prediction of 0 as stated on the ecatnews.com forum: It is October 28 and Rossi stands before the video cameras and a small crowd of guests. Beside him is one of the ecats from the shipping container behind him. He looks into the camera and says: “Lissen a me: dissa whole ecata stuff is justa kidding you. Ifa you wanna heata your house, you buy the oil! justa likea you always do!” “Ima worka for Big Oil alla the time! Here isa your stupido ecat!” And he picks up the ecat and crushes it into a ball – it is made of aluminium foil! “Now you getta offa my lawn!” And he throws the crushed ecat at the guests, and starts crushing one after the other, throwing them and yelling incoherently.
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
33.33 - some excess heat, not controllable, cannot be maintained for long. insufficient steam, far from a Energy Source, inexistent Customer, technical problems, a few dead E-cats. I hope NO explosion, NO leaks, No blackout in the area. Romanian expression a bit improved describing the event Jumping like a lion, falling like a brick! On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. I'll go with the prediction of 0 as stated on the ecatnews.com forum: It is October 28 and Rossi stands before the video cameras and a small crowd of guests. Beside him is one of the ecats from the shipping container behind him. He looks into the camera and says: “Lissen a me: dissa whole ecata stuff is justa kidding you. Ifa you wanna heata your house, you buy the oil! justa likea you always do!” “Ima worka for Big Oil alla the time! Here isa your stupido ecat!” And he picks up the ecat and crushes it into a ball – it is made of aluminium foil! “Now you getta offa my lawn!” And he throws the crushed ecat at the guests, and starts crushing one after the other, throwing them and yelling incoherently. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
50: High input for the run. The run will be too short. There will be too many unresolved variables. Same as always... The easiest thing for me to believe is that he DOES have a working Ni-H cold fusion method, but nothing will be proven until the device gets into the hands of individual scientists, skilled in the art. Only then will we know. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
I predict that the test will perform as expected. The power output will be 6 + times the power input and we will all celebrate. The product will need to be cleaned up in order to be produced properly. The system being tested is still a prototype and Mr. Rossi is constantly improving the ECAT as he proceeds. Future generations will have much larger power gain unless the energy produced by the reaction has a bad mix of output types. In this case the term bad mix refers to the ratio of normal conductive heat compared to that which is transmitted in the form of radiation. A good design would separate these two energies with an insulation that passes radiation but restricts conducted heat. I would give it a 90 by your scale. My only reservation is that this is a prototype and needs to be prepared for production. This is just the beginning of a revolution in energy production. It is coming just in time as fossil fuels are getting much too rare and expensive as well as damaging to the environment. I just hope we will figue out how to phase LENR into our lives without too much disruption. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
you know peter,since youre always so negative about rossi and now you say theres no customer, i#m going to be overtly positive and guess its Apple. i hope these two messages cancel eachother out. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional, then they work or not work 3-4 hours and it is over.. Who can accept such a test? Why? This Partner has not helped Rossi who was forced to sell his house in order to continue. The most probable is that the test will be done by the inventor's people from his US company and by some specialists hired by Ampenergo- i.e. NO real partner exists. The identity of the experimenters will not be revealed probably and we will receive results from Rossi, as he wish. We will see no instruments and no steam commensurate with 1 MW heat. My bet is NO REAL CUSTOMER. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I have no idea who this customer might be. I do not like to guess, speculate or read the tea leaves when I have no information, but I believe it is unlikely that a major corporation is involved. I say this for the following reasons: Several large corporations and institutions such as Georgia Tech have contacted me about this test. They say it would be unwise to test such a large reactor without first doing a series of small-scale tests at lower power levels. Jumping up to high level without first doing these tests would be dangerous. They are baffled by this plan. I have echoed their remarks here. So I do not think they would countenance such a large increase. I asked Rossi whether he has a permit to do this test. He did not respond. I do not know whether he has one or not, but it seems unlikely to me. I simply cannot imagine that any sane government official would issue one. I hate to speculate about these things but that seems impossible. Large corporations are sticklers for the rules. They *write* the rules, in cooperation with government regulators. I doubt they would get involved in a test of a large nuclear reactor that is probably an egregious criminal violation of health and safety standards. I do not know about Europe but in the US or Japan this would cause a major scandal, with people being arrested and perp-walked in front of reporters. This is not something GE or Mitsubishi would let themselves get involved in, ever, under any circumstances. If a subordinate at GE were to suggest getting involved, I suppose management would demand a copy of the permits and certifications for the reactor as the first step. They would demand technical documents showing that the reactor was designed by a professional engineering firm that specializes in pressure vessels. They would want to see computer simulations of pressure and heat conditions, and certificates showing that the welding was done by certified experts. I sure as heck would. Testing a laboratory scale device is one thing; industrial equipment is quite another. A machine of this size and power is dangerous, even when it is designed with the best modern computers and simulations, and when it is fabricated by experts and then carefully examined by an inspector. A conventional combustion reactor of this size is dangerous. If a hose connection fails, the hose may fly off with enough force to crush someone's skull, and the steam may scald them to death. This is not a damned toy, or something you casually turn on after a few weeks of partial testing. The test on October 6 clearly did not involve any professional engineering or instrumentation such as a corporation would bring. Terry Blanton remarked that a corporation would use large, professional grade instruments with recent NIST certification stickers. You can recognize this kind of thing. I did not see any. They did not even have a computer or flow meters for some of the critical data. To be blunt, the October 6 test was so half-assed, the students at my local high school could have done a better job. (Granted several of those kids got into MIT and Georgia Tech.) I find it hard to believe that a major corporation would jump into this project and be prepared for a 1 MW test three weeks after the test that produced somewhere between six and 10 kW but you can't tell because the instruments were so bad. Videos and photographs of the equipment outdoors to not show any sign of professional instrumentation being deployed around it. Again, I do not think that a professional organization would jump in and be prepared to do a major test with the outside equipment in three weeks. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
My two cents: I don't doubt most of Jed's assessments and the subsequent concerns he has voiced concerning Rossi's approach. Some of the issues that have made this so frustrating for most of us has been the fact that (one) we really don't know what's going on, and (two) who is this allegedly well-know known company that Rossi has constantly alluded to. My interpretation of the pending demo would suggest, at least to me, that the 1 MW prototype is just that: Nothing more than a really BIG prototype. IOW, it's actually not ready for commercial industrial applications - at least not the current incarnation that we've seen photos and videos of. ...the point being: It appears not to have been thoroughly tested, and as such, is too dangerous. This has often lead me to speculate that what Rossi is actually trying to do is prove to prospective investor(s) that his ambitious 1 MW prototype could be commercialized if he could just get enough investors to sign on the bottom line and commit additional RD funding. While I continue to wish Ross Co. the best of luck it would probably be prudent for prospective investors to observe the prototype from a safe distance when he flips the switch. Which brings me to additional speculation - just what the hell is DGT up to? The rumor that seems to be going around these days is that DGT plans to perform some kind of a demo in November. Please correct me if I am in error on this point. When compared to Rossi, DGT has certainly behaved more like what one would expect from a corporation pursuing a secret development program. They give stingy carefully parsed press announcements - just enough wording that hopefully won't be responsible for generating unwanted rumors and baseless speculation. That certainly has not been Rossi's approach! ;-) I suspect that what DGT eventually unveils to the public will turn out to be significantly smaller in scale and ambition than Rossi's megawatt monstrosity. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
Thank you. Esa for your attention to my message. The truth is that I have lost two friends for thinking thta the Rossi E-cat gives some excess heat. I don't like his strategy, his experimental methods, I very strongly dislike The idea of combining 156 cores in the setup thta will be tested tomorrow. I am very tolerant toward opinions that are different or even opposite to my opinions and I am not angry with those who have these opinions. I will confess you (but do not tell it to anybody - I am not inerrant. You will see it tomorrow night the latest. Peter On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Esa Ruoho esaru...@gmail.com wrote: you know peter,since youre always so negative about rossi and now you say theres no customer, i#m going to be overtly positive and guess its Apple. i hope these two messages cancel eachother out. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.comwrote: At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional, then they work or not work 3-4 hours and it is over.. Who can accept such a test? Why? This Partner has not helped Rossi who was forced to sell his house in order to continue. The most probable is that the test will be done by the inventor's people from his US company and by some specialists hired by Ampenergo- i.e. NO real partner exists. The identity of the experimenters will not be revealed probably and we will receive results from Rossi, as he wish. We will see no instruments and no steam commensurate with 1 MW heat. My bet is NO REAL CUSTOMER. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I have no idea who this customer might be. I do not like to guess, speculate or read the tea leaves when I have no information, but I believe it is unlikely that a major corporation is involved. I say this for the following reasons: Several large corporations and institutions such as Georgia Tech have contacted me about this test. They say it would be unwise to test such a large reactor without first doing a series of small-scale tests at lower power levels. Jumping up to high level without first doing these tests would be dangerous. They are baffled by this plan. I have echoed their remarks here. So I do not think they would countenance such a large increase. I asked Rossi whether he has a permit to do this test. He did not respond. I do not know whether he has one or not, but it seems unlikely to me. I simply cannot imagine that any sane government official would issue one. I hate to speculate about these things but that seems impossible. Large corporations are sticklers for the rules. They *write* the rules, in cooperation with government regulators. I doubt they would get involved in a test of a large nuclear reactor that is probably an egregious criminal violation of health and safety standards. I do not know about Europe but in the US or Japan this would cause a major scandal, with people being arrested and perp-walked in front of reporters. This is not something GE or Mitsubishi would let themselves get involved in, ever, under any circumstances. If a subordinate at GE were to suggest getting involved, I suppose management would demand a copy of the permits and certifications for the reactor as the first step. They would demand technical documents showing that the reactor was designed by a professional engineering firm that specializes in pressure vessels. They would want to see computer simulations of pressure and heat conditions, and certificates showing that the welding was done by certified experts. I sure as heck would. Testing a laboratory scale device is one thing; industrial equipment is quite another. A machine of this size and power is dangerous, even when it is designed with the best modern computers and simulations, and when it is fabricated by experts and then carefully examined by an inspector. A conventional combustion reactor of this size is dangerous. If a hose connection fails, the hose may fly off with enough force to crush someone's skull, and the steam may scald them to death. This is not a damned toy, or something you casually turn on after a few weeks of partial testing. The test on October 6 clearly did not involve any professional engineering or instrumentation such as a corporation would bring. Terry Blanton remarked that a corporation would use large, professional grade instruments with recent NIST certification stickers. You can recognize this kind of thing. I did not see any. They did not even have a computer or flow meters for some of the critical data. To be blunt, the October 6 test was so half-assed, the students at my local high school could have done a better job. (Granted several of those kids got into
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Hi, On 27-10-2011 17:35, Peter Heckert wrote: No, if a trained person does this, nobody would notice. Think what magicians can do. So now you think Rossi is an illusionist a-la David Copperfield or someone else who is attending ? Do you really think that this fits with Rossi's flamboyant behaviour ? Also he can use an automated person distance detection system or both in combination or another person does it. Do you really believe this would work FLAWLESS in the environment Rossi has created ? He could have the switchbutton in his shoe, for example. Don't you think this sounds like kinda James Bond gadgets in Italian shoes ? Then you can obviously also tell us who might be Rossi's Q or not ? If somebody sees something unusual, this can be explained by the new high frequency device. Rossi always finds an explanation he is trained for 40 years or more. Yes, Rossi is an amazing engineer with a lot of capabilities but it seems to me he is not (and looks like he does not want to be) sufficiently trained or experienced in the area of social-engineering skills, and do you truly believe that 40 years of training is sufficient to provide an acceptable explanation for any anomaly occurring ? Aren't you looking for conventional answers to explain a Phenomenon that in reality might be like it is Science Jim but not as we know it ? Don't you think it's time to think outside the box and free your mind ? Kind regards, MoB
[Vo]:Huge Earnings at Oil Companies
Greetings Vortex, This seems to be downplayed in the media for obvious reasons: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shell-Exxon-profits-swell-on-rb-1478626168.html?x=0.v=5 The earning news it is strategically placed at the bottom of the webpage. This was headline news..then the title changed...after we don t don t want to upset the populace. Ron Kita, Chiralex
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Am 27.10.2011 20:33, schrieb Man on Bridges: Hi, On 27-10-2011 17:35, Peter Heckert wrote: No, if a trained person does this, nobody would notice. Think what magicians can do. So now you think Rossi is an illusionist a-la David Copperfield or someone else who is attending ? Do you really think that this fits with Rossi's flamboyant behaviour ? Don't you think it's time to think outside the box and free your mind ? If it works or not does not depend from my mind. My mind is free enough to consider and evaluate all possibilities. I predicted the september demonstration correctly before it happened. If you scan this list, you will find my prediction: I bet with two persons. With number won I bet it works and with number two I bet it doesnt work and at the end both will want their money. I knew this before. At the beginning Rossi promised a conclusive test at bologna university. But he finally delivered a test good enough for unbiased people. This this not enough. He must deliver a test good enough for biased people. There are no unbiased people. Unbiased people are complete idiots that know nothing. Anybody else is biased in this or in the other direction. Rossis engineering abilities are obviously not good enough to do this what any plumber master could have done easily. Or he abuses his abilities to fool us. This is what I think. From the previous demonstrations I got the impression he is great in designing systems that nobody is able to measure. If he has some kilowatt to show then he could have done this in january. So, from the psychology of this all and the persons I come to the conclusion this all is mocked up. However my mind is free enough to be happy when I am proven false again all my expectations. Best, Peter
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Peter Heckert wrote: The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input with the joule heaters. There can be a secret heater. No, there could not be. The wire going into the reactor is not heavy enough to support the anomalous power that was produced. It would have burned up. There was no other wire. People lifted the reactor off the table and put it on a weight scale. They would have noticed a wire. Also, previous devices have been completely disassembled by experts. They saw no sign of heaters batteries or chemical fuel. I think you should put aside this fantasy. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:RUNNING COST FOR THE 1MW E-Cat
Can you please give some price limits for 167 kWh electric energy and 1000 kWh thermal energy, say carried by steam 115 deg Celsius? Thanks, Peter On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Jorn Erik Ommang j...@enerley.com wrote: RUNNING COST FOR THE 1MW E-Cat: A lot have been written the last 2 days (on E-Cat blogs web sites) about the running cost of the 1 MW E-Cat Power Plant that has only focused on the cost of the nickel hydrogen fuel used. One should not forget that the I MW E-Cat Power Plant will not run in self-sustained mode due to safety issues. There will be a general minimum 1 to 6 gain in energy from the plant. I.e. the 1 MW E-Cat Power Plant will require a maximum of 167 kWh to run during the 6 months. So in addition to the fuel cost of 10 kg modified Nickel micro powder and 18 kg hydrogen gas one need to add the cost of purchasing 167 kWh for each hour the plant is running during the 6 months. This el-power running cost is much larger than the cost of the Nickel / Hydrogen fuel used. Se today's recent Andrea Rossi answer to my questions re. running cost of the 1 MW E-Cat Power Plant: Jorn Erik Ommang October 26th, 2011 at 3:50 PM Dear Andrea Rossi, Congratulation from Norway, Spain UK! 1.0 Is it correct that Your 1 MW E-Cat Container will require a maximum of 167 kW in el-power to run and generate the 1 MW of heath (a minimum 1 to 6 energy gain) (1 to 6 energy gain = 167 kW el-power in and 1 MW heat out)? 2.0 Will the cost of this el-power (maximum 167 kWh for 6 months) come in addition to the cost for fuel (10 kg nickel 18 kg hydrogen pr. 6 months)? I have been working as consultant in New Energy (since 1994) for management of Oil and Energy Companies in Norway (including Europe’s largest renewable energy company) as well as work the Government. The Consultant work has included training top management in what will come in the clean new energy field and have followed Your great work for a long time. Have also long time experience as Project Manager in the Norwegian Oil Gas Industry and as technical auditor for Shell Statoil. 3.0 I am interested in linking Norwegian, Spanish and UK Oil, Gas and Energy Companies to Your products to prepare for when Your revolutionary products come on the marked. Please advice how best to contact You for my contacts within these areas for purchasing MW-units and licenses. 4.0 Have You chosen the date of 28.09.2011 for Your demo for a special reason (i.e. are You aware that this date is one of the major dates for positive changes in alternative thinking)? All the best with Fridays major demonstration, verification testing Sincerely, Jorn-Erik Ommang, Engineer New Energy Specialist Enerley.com Spain / Norway / UK Andrea Rossi answered: October 27th, 2011 at 3:47 AM Dear Jorn Erik Ommang: 1- yes 2- yes 3- OK 4- Just a case Warm Regards, A.R. -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Am 27.10.2011 20:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input with the joule heaters. There can be a secret heater. No, there could not be. The wire going into the reactor is not heavy enough to support the anomalous power that was produced. It would have burned up. No, it would not burn up. This cable lies free on the floor and in ambient air. Lets say it has a temperature 5 degrees above ambient under full load. It is probably designed this way that it works safely under worst case conditions and 70° ambient temperatue for infinite time. If it conducts 2 times the maximum rating current then it has 20° over ambient after some hours but less after a shorter time. Nobody would notice this under this circumstances and it will still be perfectly safe.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
A couple of people have written to me to say that this is a test reactor so you would not need a permit for it. I doubt that. In the US you are not allowed to install a 1 MW conventional boiler without a license, and you are not allowed to operate it without a permit. I do not think they would make an exception for a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles. On the contrary, this would probably invite more scrutiny than usual. Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional . . . I agree. Plus you would need a week or two setting up and calibrating the instruments beforehand, and some days to take apart the machine and look inside it, either before the run or after. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote: The 1MW plant will create 1.2MW+ power with less than 2MW sustained input for over 8 hours. Do you mean less than 2 kW input? It is not difficult to produce 1.2 MW with 2 MW of input power. I would not dare make such detailed predictions for Rossi. It could be anything from a last-minute cancellation to a great success to an explosion. The only thing I predict is that the instrumentation will not be adequate. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
There are some ifs and buts associated with this subject. It has been known for over a hundred years how that hydrogen will defuse through a hot metal enclosure. The rate of diffusion is subject to the temperature and pressure of the hydrogen, together with the exact kind, thickness, and temperature of the metal. These are all variables in the calculation of the diffusion rate. Furthermore, the presence of oxides and/or carbides on the surface of the metal can reduce the rate of diffusion of hydrogen by up to 5 orders of magnitude. We don’t know for sure what the accurate values of some of these variables are and additionally they would vary widely within an operational range throughout the operational lifetime of the E-Cat. However, since hydrogen is very slippery and notoriously hard to contain, a good guess can be made that most of the hydrogen consumed by the Rossi reactor would be lost through diffusion through the hot walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. Because of all these large uncertainties, calculation of the nuclear reaction rates as a function of hydrogen consumption implying a clue to the nuclear processes going on inside the E-Cat reaction vessel cannot be made in my opinion. With best regards, Axil On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi October 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM Dear Thomas Blakeslee: Grams/Power for a 180 days charge Hydrogen: 18000 g Nickel: 1 g Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. At atomic weight of 1.0079 the 18000 gm of H is 1786 mols. At an atoommic weight of 58.69 the 10,000 gm of Ni is 170.4 mol. This means 10.48 atoms of H need be provided per 1 atom of Ni. Assuming the reaction is Ni-H, as claimed, only about 1 in 10 atoms of H is consumed, thus 170.4 mols of H and a170.4 mols of Ni are consumed, maximum. This involves the obviously wrong assumption that all the Ni atoms are transmuted, not a more realistic 3 percent. There is also an outside possibility the H reacts with daughter products, giving the possibility of 10 subsequent daughter reactions per primary Ni+H reaction. Three such reactions is an outside possibility. One MW for 180 days is 1.556x10^13 J, or 10^7 MJ. That is (6.241x10^24 eV/MJ)*(1.556x10^13 J)/(170.4 mol * 6.022x10^23 atoms /mol) = 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom). If there is one reaction per atom and all Ni is consumed by single reactions than that is 0.9464 MeV per Ni-H event. The gammas from this would be lethal at short range, even through 2 cm of lead. If it is assumed that 3% of the Ni is consumed then that is 0.9464 MeV/0.03 = 31.5 MeV per reaction. If there are an average of 3 daughter reactions per primary reactions that is about 10 Mev per reaction. If 10 MeV gammas are produced then 5 cm of lead shielding will be of no use in protecting the operators. If near 1 MeV gammas are produced the lead shielding is inadequate. One MW of gammas is 6.241x10^24 eV/s, or, for 1 MeV gammas, 6.24x10^18 gammas per second. using: I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L) where mu for 1 MeV is 0.02 cm^2/gm), and density of lead 11.34 gm/cm^3, we have for 5 cm of lead: I = (6.24x10^18 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5 cm)) I = 2x10^18 free gammas per second. About half that, or 10^18 gammas/s would be directed toward the interior of the container housing the E-cats, and most of the 2x10^18 gammas per second would end up escaping the container. This is an approximate calculation. Even if it is off by an order of magnitude, this kind of 1 MeV gamma flux, even 1/32 of it from one E-cat, would be readily detected by a geiger counter at significant range. It does not seem credible the energy from a Ni-H reaction, at least in the form of one gamma per reaction, provides any explanation for 1 MW of heat, if that thermal power is in fact achieved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~**hheffner/http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
Damn the measuring instruments, full speed ahead! Those instruments tell sometimes nasty things. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: A couple of people have written to me to say that this is a test reactor so you would not need a permit for it. I doubt that. In the US you are not allowed to install a 1 MW conventional boiler without a license, and you are not allowed to operate it without a permit. I do not think they would make an exception for a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles. On the contrary, this would probably invite more scrutiny than usual. Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional . . . I agree. Plus you would need a week or two setting up and calibrating the instruments beforehand, and some days to take apart the machine and look inside it, either before the run or after. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
This is a nonsensical argument. The less hydrogen available for nuclear reactions the *more* the MeV per reaction that is required to make the 1 MW output, thus the less effective any shielding would be, and the *less credible* it is that the MW heat comes from nuclear reactions. On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote: There are some ifs and buts associated with this subject. It has been known for over a hundred years how that hydrogen will defuse through a hot metal enclosure. The rate of diffusion is subject to the temperature and pressure of the hydrogen, together with the exact kind, thickness, and temperature of the metal. These are all variables in the calculation of the diffusion rate. Furthermore, the presence of oxides and/or carbides on the surface of the metal can reduce the rate of diffusion of hydrogen by up to 5 orders of magnitude. We don’t know for sure what the accurate values of some of these variables are and additionally they would vary widely within an operational range throughout the operational lifetime of the E-Cat. However, since hydrogen is very slippery and notoriously hard to contain, a good guess can be made that most of the hydrogen consumed by the Rossi reactor would be lost through diffusion through the hot walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. Because of all these large uncertainties, calculation of the nuclear reaction rates as a function of hydrogen consumption implying a clue to the nuclear processes going on inside the E-Cat reaction vessel cannot be made in my opinion. With best regards, Axil On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi October 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM Dear Thomas Blakeslee: Grams/Power for a 180 days charge Hydrogen: 18000 g Nickel: 1 g Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. At atomic weight of 1.0079 the 18000 gm of H is 1786 mols. At an atoommic weight of 58.69 the 10,000 gm of Ni is 170.4 mol. This means 10.48 atoms of H need be provided per 1 atom of Ni. Assuming the reaction is Ni-H, as claimed, only about 1 in 10 atoms of H is consumed, thus 170.4 mols of H and a170.4 mols of Ni are consumed, maximum. This involves the obviously wrong assumption that all the Ni atoms are transmuted, not a more realistic 3 percent. There is also an outside possibility the H reacts with daughter products, giving the possibility of 10 subsequent daughter reactions per primary Ni+H reaction. Three such reactions is an outside possibility. One MW for 180 days is 1.556x10^13 J, or 10^7 MJ. That is (6.241x10^24 eV/MJ)*(1.556x10^13 J)/(170.4 mol * 6.022x10^23 atoms / mol) = 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom). If there is one reaction per atom and all Ni is consumed by single reactions than that is 0.9464 MeV per Ni-H event. The gammas from this would be lethal at short range, even through 2 cm of lead. If it is assumed that 3% of the Ni is consumed then that is 0.9464 MeV/0.03 = 31.5 MeV per reaction. If there are an average of 3 daughter reactions per primary reactions that is about 10 Mev per reaction. If 10 MeV gammas are produced then 5 cm of lead shielding will be of no use in protecting the operators. If near 1 MeV gammas are produced the lead shielding is inadequate. One MW of gammas is 6.241x10^24 eV/s, or, for 1 MeV gammas, 6.24x10^18 gammas per second. using: I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L) where mu for 1 MeV is 0.02 cm^2/gm), and density of lead 11.34 gm/ cm^3, we have for 5 cm of lead: I = (6.24x10^18 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5 cm)) I = 2x10^18 free gammas per second. About half that, or 10^18 gammas/s would be directed toward the interior of the container housing the E-cats, and most of the 2x10^18 gammas per second would end up escaping the container. This is an approximate calculation. Even if it is off by an order of magnitude, this kind of 1 MeV gamma flux, even 1/32 of it from one E-cat, would be readily detected by a geiger counter at significant range. It does not seem credible the energy from a Ni-H reaction, at least in the form of one gamma per reaction, provides any explanation for 1 MW of heat, if that thermal power is in fact achieved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Hi, On 27-10-2011 21:04, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 27.10.2011 20:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input with the joule heaters. There can be a secret heater. No, there could not be. The wire going into the reactor is not heavy enough to support the anomalous power that was produced. It would have burned up. No, it would not burn up. This cable lies free on the floor and in ambient air. Lets say it has a temperature 5 degrees above ambient under full load. It is probably designed this way that it works safely under worst case conditions and 70° ambient temperatue for infinite time. If it conducts 2 times the maximum rating current then it has 20° over ambient after some hours but less after a shorter time. Nobody would notice this under this circumstances and it will still be perfectly safe. WRONG! Have you ever seen what happens to a certified extension cord which is used for twice or more the current for a longer period? Well it becomes hot, and the neoprene around it will finally melt and what happens, is that the Live and Neutral wire will create a short-circuit with sparks and you think no-one will notice this? Kind regards, MoB
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Peter Heckert wrote: No, it would not burn up. This cable lies free on the floor and in ambient air. In your dreams. But okay suppose that is true. How do you explain the fact that when there was power going in and when people were looking at the meter, after anomalous power began, more power was coming out than was going in. It was hotter than it had been with electric power only before that. There was only 1 wire, and it was metered. Never mind. I am sure you will wave your hands and come up with some contrived explanation. A pathological skeptic is someone who will believe any number of impossible things rather than the obvious, indisputable truth. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
The test has already began, if you count inspecting the machine as part of the test: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1095 2011/10/27 Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com Damn the measuring instruments, full speed ahead! Those instruments tell sometimes nasty things. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: A couple of people have written to me to say that this is a test reactor so you would not need a permit for it. I doubt that. In the US you are not allowed to install a 1 MW conventional boiler without a license, and you are not allowed to operate it without a permit. I do not think they would make an exception for a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles. On the contrary, this would probably invite more scrutiny than usual. Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional . . . I agree. Plus you would need a week or two setting up and calibrating the instruments beforehand, and some days to take apart the machine and look inside it, either before the run or after. - Jed -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
There is one perspective that us believers in cold fusion might not understand or not consider operative in the minds of the naysayers. They think that Cold fusion is simply lot of non-sense and that Rossi is just another wacko who is just configured a Robe Goldberg Machine of pipes that mean absolutely nothing. At most, it is a scam and won’t work a damn. To officially acknowledge the slightest possibility that this reactor may be real will bring on withering ridicule and humiliating news coverage that will destroy reputations. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A couple of people have written to me to say that this is a test reactor so you would not need a permit for it. I doubt that. In the US you are not allowed to install a 1 MW conventional boiler without a license, and you are not allowed to operate it without a permit. I do not think they would make an exception for a nuclear reactor that works by unknown principles. On the contrary, this would probably invite more scrutiny than usual. Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: At such a great scale The Oct. 28 Test is a contradiction in terms- it has to be at least the 3 days test starting on Oct. 28 No company having elementary idea of engineering would accept a short test for such a Behemoth, there are necessary hours to make all the 52 Fat-Cats functional . . . I agree. Plus you would need a week or two setting up and calibrating the instruments beforehand, and some days to take apart the machine and look inside it, either before the run or after. - Jed
[Vo]:Update to Rossi 6 Oct 2011 Experiment Data Review
My review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf has been updated. Improved graph formats were provided. I will be available to discuss this once my finite element analysis is done. Meanwhile, I'll hopefully resume lurk mode. A significant part of the update is inclusion of the following sections: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACTIVE CONTROL To make any sense of the data with a non-nuclear explanation, it appears the electric heating power is separated into two parts, one part which heats the water directly, and one part which heats an internal metal mass. In addition, it appears there needs to be an active control which affects the thermal conductivity between a large thermal mass and the water, and thus division of the input power into a third part. This control must produce minimum thermal resistance between a hot thermal mass and the water when no power is applied to it. Further, it must be controlled with about 300 mA * 240 V = 7.2 watts of power, because the power from the “frequency generator” must be enough to regulate the thermal output power. When main heater power was cut and when the “frequency generator” power was cut, there was an immediate surge of thermal power out. In both cases, a power cut to the heater(s), and a power cut to the frequency generator, a large thermal pulse resulted immediately upon the power cut. One means of achieving the necessary power control is to use the actuator from a zone valve to make or release contact between large area (e.g. 29 cm by 29 cm) slabs of thermal conductors. This can be accomplished by spring loading the slabs to a closed position and using the actuator from a zone valve (.e.g. Taco Power Head) to press the plates apart. A typical US residential zone valve operates in the appropriate power range, and is activated by about 10 V at 1 A. The power is applied to a resistive material which expands thermally to open a zone valve. In a hot environment such an actuator could expand with less than normal power. An alternative to changing slab separation is to control convective flow of a thermal transfer fluid. In this case when power is applied then flow must be cut off. DYNAMIC FEA SIMULATION A dynamic linear FEA simulation program is being developed to look at potential thermal storage mechanisms. A sample of some run input data is located here: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/RptR4 Report of the results will be made separately from this review. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
Am 27.10.2011 21:25, schrieb Man on Bridges: Hi, On 27-10-2011 21:04, Peter Heckert wrote: Am 27.10.2011 20:55, schrieb Jed Rothwell: Peter Heckert wrote: The anomalous power greatly exceeded the total power that you can input with the joule heaters. There can be a secret heater. No, there could not be. The wire going into the reactor is not heavy enough to support the anomalous power that was produced. It would have burned up. No, it would not burn up. This cable lies free on the floor and in ambient air. Lets say it has a temperature 5 degrees above ambient under full load. It is probably designed this way that it works safely under worst case conditions and 70° ambient temperatue for infinite time. If it conducts 2 times the maximum rating current then it has 20° over ambient after some hours but less after a shorter time. Nobody would notice this under this circumstances and it will still be perfectly safe. WRONG! Have you ever seen what happens to a certified extension cord which is used for twice or more the current for a longer period? Well it becomes hot, and the neoprene around it will finally melt and what happens, is that the Live and Neutral wire will create a short-circuit with sparks and you think no-one will notice this? This can happen if it is partially broken. If it is new not. The temperature above ambient is proportional to the squared current. Now put a cable under maximum load and measure the overtemperature. Then you can calculate the current where the isolation melts if you know the melting point. Of course if it is broken it will start to burn there and earlier.
Re: [Vo]:Rossi's customer
Daniel Rocha wrote: The test has already began, if you count inspecting the machine as part of the test: http://ecatnews.com/?p=1095 That's good. It should have begun weeks ago, but that's good. When I predicted that the instrumentation would be inadequate, I meant that would be the case if Rossi is in charge. If he really does have a customer who is setting up instrumentation I make no predictions. However, I think a prudent, professional customer would take a lot longer than one day set up instrumentation for a 1 MW test. Instruments adequate to do a test of 1 to 10 kW can be set up in a day or two if all goes well. Ideally, you should use something like this: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GrabowskiKrobustperf.pdf I have no idea how you would go about measuring 1 MW. It seems like a nightmare assignment to me. I doubt the signal-to-noise ratio would be as good as you get from a 10 kW measurement. - Jed
[Vo]:Update to Rossi 6 Oct 2011 Experiment Data Review
This post is not archiving for some reason. I have inserted a blank into the URLs as a test. My review at: http://www.mta online.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf has been updated. Improved graph formats were provided. I will be available to discuss this once my finite element analysis is done. Meanwhile, I'll hopefully resume lurk mode. A significant part of the update is inclusion of the following sections: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACTIVE CONTROL To make any sense of the data with a non-nuclear explanation, it appears the electric heating power is separated into two parts, one part which heats the water directly, and one part which heats an internal metal mass. In addition, it appears there needs to be an active control which affects the thermal conductivity between a large thermal mass and the water, and thus division of the input power into a third part. This control must produce minimum thermal resistance between a hot thermal mass and the water when no power is applied to it. Further, it must be controlled with about 300 mA * 240 V = 7.2 watts of power, because the power from the “frequency generator” must be enough to regulate the thermal output power. When main heater power was cut and when the “frequency generator” power was cut, there was an immediate surge of thermal power out. In both cases, a power cut to the heater(s), and a power cut to the frequency generator, a large thermal pulse resulted immediately upon the power cut. One means of achieving the necessary power control is to use the actuator from a zone valve to make or release contact between large area (e.g. 29 cm by 29 cm) slabs of thermal conductors. This can be accomplished by spring loading the slabs to a closed position and using the actuator from a zone valve (.e.g. Taco Power Head) to press the plates apart. A typical US residential zone valve operates in the appropriate power range, and is activated by about 10 V at 1 A. The power is applied to a resistive material which expands thermally to open a zone valve. In a hot environment such an actuator could expand with less than normal power. An alternative to changing slab separation is to control convective flow of a thermal transfer fluid. In this case when power is applied then flow must be cut off. DYNAMIC FEA SIMULATION A dynamic linear FEA simulation program is being developed to look at potential thermal storage mechanisms. A sample of some run input data is located here: http://www.mta online.net/~hheffner/RptR4 Report of the results will be made separately from this review. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mta online.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:Speculation - Another theory that might explain the anomalous heat.
The following is pure speculation on my part: Is it possible that the anomalous heat recorded in Rossi's eCats has nothing to do with a nuclear reaction - and particularly as having anything to do with the nucleus of nickel. I'm wondering if it possible that the anomalous heat is actually due to how hydrogen in close proximity is forced to react to being atomically close to nickel atoms, where the surrounding environment is simultaneously being held at a carefully controlled high temperature. I'm wondering if it might be feasible that the anomalous heat is actually due to the rapidly fluctuating states of hydrogen as the element disassociates back and forth between molecular and mono-atomic states. I bring up this speculation due to my memory of the infamous balmer line experiment that BLP had advertised as proof that massive amounts of heat were being generated from a supply of rarified hydrogen held at near vacuum. The individual hydrogen atoms were recorded to have been in a highly excited state while being bombarded with (I believe) UV (or microwave) radiation. The point being: There appeared to have been a massive amount of anomalous heat that was being generated, far more than could be accounted for through traditional chemical means. For some inexplicable reason, I keep thinking of Fran's work. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Update to Rossi 6 Oct 2011 Experiment Data Review
Hello Horace, I have generated an additional review which I plan to publish soon. The new analysis I have completed shows absolute proof of LENR by my thinking. I found a way to read the data that is very interesting. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net To: Vortex-L vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 3:42 pm Subject: [Vo]:Update to Rossi 6 Oct 2011 Experiment Data Review My review at: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf has been updated. Improved graph formats were provided. I will be vailable to discuss this once my finite element analysis is done. eanwhile, I'll hopefully resume lurk mode. A significant part of the update is inclusion of the following sections: snip. Horace Heffner ttp://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
In the Miley presentation that he has recently released, Miley shows transmutation to 39 isotopes over possible contamination levels. The nuclear reactions and transmutation patterns that are going on inside the Rossi reactor are similar to what Miley documents as mentioned in Rossi’s original patent. The presence of a large amount of iron in the Miley results is interesting and similar iron contamination was found in the Rossi ash(10%) when they were analyzed by the swedes. The assumption that the nuclear reactions taking place in the Rossi reaction are exclusively restricted to copper transmutation is mistaken in my opinion. The possibility that the reactions going on are hydrogen only cannot be ignored with the production of copper as only one of many reactions going on. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: This is a nonsensical argument. The less hydrogen available for nuclear reactions the *more* the MeV per reaction that is required to make the 1 MW output, thus the less effective any shielding would be, and the *less credible* it is that the MW heat comes from nuclear reactions. On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote: There are some ifs and buts associated with this subject. It has been known for over a hundred years how that hydrogen will defuse through a hot metal enclosure. The rate of diffusion is subject to the temperature and pressure of the hydrogen, together with the exact kind, thickness, and temperature of the metal. These are all variables in the calculation of the diffusion rate. Furthermore, the presence of oxides and/or carbides on the surface of the metal can reduce the rate of diffusion of hydrogen by up to 5 orders of magnitude. We don’t know for sure what the accurate values of some of these variables are and additionally they would vary widely within an operational range throughout the operational lifetime of the E-Cat. However, since hydrogen is very slippery and notoriously hard to contain, a good guess can be made that most of the hydrogen consumed by the Rossi reactor would be lost through diffusion through the hot walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. Because of all these large uncertainties, calculation of the nuclear reaction rates as a function of hydrogen consumption implying a clue to the nuclear processes going on inside the E-Cat reaction vessel cannot be made in my opinion. With best regards, Axil On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi October 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM Dear Thomas Blakeslee: Grams/Power for a 180 days charge Hydrogen: 18000 g Nickel: 1 g Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. At atomic weight of 1.0079 the 18000 gm of H is 1786 mols. At an atoommic weight of 58.69 the 10,000 gm of Ni is 170.4 mol. This means 10.48 atoms of H need be provided per 1 atom of Ni. Assuming the reaction is Ni-H, as claimed, only about 1 in 10 atoms of H is consumed, thus 170.4 mols of H and a170.4 mols of Ni are consumed, maximum. This involves the obviously wrong assumption that all the Ni atoms are transmuted, not a more realistic 3 percent. There is also an outside possibility the H reacts with daughter products, giving the possibility of 10 subsequent daughter reactions per primary Ni+H reaction. Three such reactions is an outside possibility. One MW for 180 days is 1.556x10^13 J, or 10^7 MJ. That is (6.241x10^24 eV/MJ)*(1.556x10^13 J)/(170.4 mol * 6.022x10^23 atoms /mol) = 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom). If there is one reaction per atom and all Ni is consumed by single reactions than that is 0.9464 MeV per Ni-H event. The gammas from this would be lethal at short range, even through 2 cm of lead. If it is assumed that 3% of the Ni is consumed then that is 0.9464 MeV/0.03 = 31.5 MeV per reaction. If there are an average of 3 daughter reactions per primary reactions that is about 10 Mev per reaction. If 10 MeV gammas are produced then 5 cm of lead shielding will be of no use in protecting the operators. If near 1 MeV gammas are produced the lead shielding is inadequate. One MW of gammas is 6.241x10^24 eV/s, or, for 1 MeV gammas, 6.24x10^18 gammas per second. using: I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L) where mu for 1 MeV is 0.02 cm^2/gm), and density of lead 11.34 gm/cm^3, we have for 5 cm of lead: I = (6.24x10^18 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) *(5 cm)) I = 2x10^18 free gammas per second. About half that, or 10^18 gammas/s would be directed toward the interior of the container housing the E-cats, and most of the 2x10^18 gammas per second would end up escaping the container. This is an approximate calculation. Even if it is off by an order of magnitude, this kind of 1 MeV gamma flux,
Re: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:49 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: On Thurs Oct 27, 2011 Horace said [snip] It does not seem credible the energy from a Ni-H reaction, at least in the form of one gamma per reaction, provides any explanation for 1 MW of heat, if that thermal power is in fact achieved.[/snip] Horace, Assuming the thermal power is in fact achieved, and the reaction is not Ni-H, what do you feel is the next most credible theory ? Fran A Ni-H or even p-e-p nuclear interaction catalyzed by a Ni nucleus is not ruled out given there is a mechanism to disperse the nuclear energy in small increments and avoid radioactive products. I think the reaction begins with a Ni electron being momentarily delayed in the Ni nucleus in a deflated state interaction with a proton or quark, as defined here: http://www.mta online.net/~hheffner/FusionUpQuark.pdf http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/DeflateP1.pdf This provides the Ni nucleus with a very large magnetic moment, and magnetic gradient, which permits it to be the target of tunneling of deflated state hydrogen from the lattice. This results in multiple hydrogen nuclei present in the Ni nucleus, and a highly de-energized Ni-H deflated nucleus cluster, with multiple trapped electrons which then radiate energy or transfer it directly to k-shell electrons via near field interactions. Various apparently non-radioactive products are thereby made feasible. Non-radioactive products are the branches nature prefers because they are the least energy products. It is notable that no nuclear reaction may result from a given Ni-H deflated cluster, and yet nuclear heat, in the form of zero point energy, is released and then replenished by the zero point field after the cluster breaks up. See: http://mta online.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf Discussion of this could be very academic if there is in fact no excess heat from the Rossi experiments. I am hoping to write a FAQ on deflation fusion, but have not had the time. I will be happy to discuss this at a later time. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mta online.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Rossi H and Ni consumption
You are off on a tangent. My point is that Rossi's claims are in conflict with the observed results. I will no longer respond for now. On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Axil Axil wrote: In the Miley presentation that he has recently released, Miley shows transmutation to 39 isotopes over possible contamination levels. The nuclear reactions and transmutation patterns that are going on inside the Rossi reactor are similar to what Miley documents as mentioned in Rossi’s original patent. The presence of a large amount of iron in the Miley results is interesting and similar iron contamination was found in the Rossi ash(10%) when they were analyzed by the swedes. The assumption that the nuclear reactions taking place in the Rossi reaction are exclusively restricted to copper transmutation is mistaken in my opinion. The possibility that the reactions going on are hydrogen only cannot be ignored with the production of copper as only one of many reactions going on. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: This is a nonsensical argument. The less hydrogen available for nuclear reactions the *more* the MeV per reaction that is required to make the 1 MW output, thus the less effective any shielding would be, and the *less credible* it is that the MW heat comes from nuclear reactions. On Oct 27, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Axil Axil wrote: There are some ifs and buts associated with this subject. It has been known for over a hundred years how that hydrogen will defuse through a hot metal enclosure. The rate of diffusion is subject to the temperature and pressure of the hydrogen, together with the exact kind, thickness, and temperature of the metal. These are all variables in the calculation of the diffusion rate. Furthermore, the presence of oxides and/or carbides on the surface of the metal can reduce the rate of diffusion of hydrogen by up to 5 orders of magnitude. We don’t know for sure what the accurate values of some of these variables are and additionally they would vary widely within an operational range throughout the operational lifetime of the E-Cat. However, since hydrogen is very slippery and notoriously hard to contain, a good guess can be made that most of the hydrogen consumed by the Rossi reactor would be lost through diffusion through the hot walls of the stainless steel reaction vessel. Because of all these large uncertainties, calculation of the nuclear reaction rates as a function of hydrogen consumption implying a clue to the nuclear processes going on inside the E- Cat reaction vessel cannot be made in my opinion. With best regards, Axil On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net wrote: From: http://www.rossilivecat.com/ Quote: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrea Rossi October 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM Dear Thomas Blakeslee: Grams/Power for a 180 days charge Hydrogen: 18000 g Nickel: 1 g Warm Regards, A.R. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - End quote. At atomic weight of 1.0079 the 18000 gm of H is 1786 mols. At an atoommic weight of 58.69 the 10,000 gm of Ni is 170.4 mol. This means 10.48 atoms of H need be provided per 1 atom of Ni. Assuming the reaction is Ni-H, as claimed, only about 1 in 10 atoms of H is consumed, thus 170.4 mols of H and a170.4 mols of Ni are consumed, maximum. This involves the obviously wrong assumption that all the Ni atoms are transmuted, not a more realistic 3 percent. There is also an outside possibility the H reacts with daughter products, giving the possibility of 10 subsequent daughter reactions per primary Ni+H reaction. Three such reactions is an outside possibility. One MW for 180 days is 1.556x10^13 J, or 10^7 MJ. That is (6.241x10^24 eV/MJ)*(1.556x10^13 J)/(170.4 mol * 6.022x10^23 atoms /mol) = 9.464x10^5 eV/(Ni atom). If there is one reaction per atom and all Ni is consumed by single reactions than that is 0.9464 MeV per Ni-H event. The gammas from this would be lethal at short range, even through 2 cm of lead. If it is assumed that 3% of the Ni is consumed then that is 0.9464 MeV/0.03 = 31.5 MeV per reaction. If there are an average of 3 daughter reactions per primary reactions that is about 10 Mev per reaction. If 10 MeV gammas are produced then 5 cm of lead shielding will be of no use in protecting the operators. If near 1 MeV gammas are produced the lead shielding is inadequate. One MW of gammas is 6.241x10^24 eV/s, or, for 1 MeV gammas, 6.24x10^18 gammas per second. using: I = I0 * exp(-mu * rho * L) where mu for 1 MeV is 0.02 cm^2/gm), and density of lead 11.34 gm/ cm^3, we have for 5 cm of lead: I = (6.24x10^18 s^-1) * exp(-(0.02 cm^2/gm) * (11.34 gm/cm^3) * (5 cm)) I = 2x10^18 free gammas per second. About half that, or 10^18 gammas/s would be directed toward the interior of the container
Re: [Vo]:Your Oct 28 Predictions
Cold Fusion with the help of Profesor George Miley has reached a critical mass. Therefore I give...Cold Fusion Technology including Rossi a 100 since it is merely a matter of time- and I am willing to wait. Ciao, Ron Kita Doylestown PA On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:44 AM, ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.comwrote: Please feel free to write your prediction about the Oct 28 1MW Rossi test. ** Please include a 0 to 100 prediction ** 0 is a scam is exposed, 25 is an unexposed scam, below 50 is failure, and 100 is commercially viable no doubt LENR power. Here is my prediction, mostly taken from comments on Rossi's blog. He starts a group of 6 reactors and waits until they are ready for self-sustaining mode, probably 3 reactors per side. Each reactor group will start quickly, perhaps less than 15 minutes, as the system will not be ice cold. Each successive group of reactors will be kept running with minimum power input as a new group starts. The steam will be condensed in dissipaters and recycled to the plant. Safety mechanisms will be in place to prevent an explosion and everyone will be kept at a safe distance. The 1MW plant will create 1.2MW+ power with less than 2MW sustained input for over 8 hours. Rossi may decide to keep the plant running indefinitely. (At one time he claimed for 2 months.) Rossi claims he has made much more progress than what has been seen in public demonstrations. This is the first big unveiling. My prediction is 90 -- major success but with some details remaining unknown or unverified. - Brad p.s. I've been collecting information from people interested in replicating the e-cat technology. Please email me or reply if you know others attempting replication.
RE: [Vo]:Manifold mismeasurement makes models meaningless
At 06:51 AM 10/27/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote: I examined pictures of the manifold and created a diagram to capture the important features. [I made a small .png version of the diagram that I am trying to include.] I am not sure it is schematically correct yet. A characteristic that I believe is very important in the analysis of the possible temperature contamination is the issue of the fittings used in the manifold. These use pipe threads, and appear to be NPT because of the use of pipe dope. At each junction of pipe threads, there will be a large thermal resistance compared to continuous brass. Analysis of these across-the-thread resistances are going to be hard, particularly with pipe dope and or Teflon tape present as is required to seal NPT. The resistance across the thread boundaries will be high and the net effect will be to significantly decouple the Tout thermocouple from the manifold. These thread boundary effects don't appear to be included in your model. Thanks for the diagram. So far I've just widened my original model to 12 cm ... and get results which are closer to the measured value. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php Update information is copied below : http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111027_spice_0001.png The bottom pane shows the new schematic. A is the extreme right, and B and C are the centers of the two steps. The thermocouple is on step C. The center pane shows the temperature across the manifold. A is now at 33.4 C (compared to the secondary water temperature of 30 C). The top pane shows the OFFSET in temperature from A. This new result shows that the result varies dramatically with the geometry -- and since the actual measurements are not known, the results are speculative. - - - - - - - I can easily add in a thread boundary as resistors between the steps. But I don't think I can draw any REAL conclusions from this model ... except to say that the thermocouple should not be ANYWHERE on the manifold!
Re: [Vo]:Making Sense of ECAT Water Pump Flow Rate
First Post here, decided to try to contribute in some small way. Jed is correct the Milton Roy LMI P183-363N3 is not a peristaltic pump. http://www.lmi-pumps.com/datasheets/Pseries-08-01.pdf I believe that the Manufactures specifications are not clear. I think that the spec is 12.1 l/h at 1.5 Bar (22 psi). My reasoning for this comes from the Manufactures Instruction Manual. http://www.rb-instrument.nl/attachments/458_LMI_P1_serie_ibv_eng.pdf Page 17 under troubleshooting Excessive pump output: Little or no pressure at injection point. If pressure at injection point is less than 1,5 bar (25 psi), an 4-FV should be installed. If the spec really is 12.1 l/h @ 1.5 Bar then the test that Mat Lewan made during his September test at room presure of 15.8 l/h is completely plausible . There is also a section of the manual that speaks to CHECKING PUMP FOR PROPER ZEROING (STROKE KNOB). So it may also be possible that the stroke can be mis-zeroed, and that may also contribute to flow greater than spec. John Page - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:46:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Making Sense of ECAT Water Pump Flow Rate Colin Hercus wrote: The manufacturers data sheet indicates it has variable rate and variable stroke pump and doesn't indicate that a tube can be replaced or even that it's a peristaltic pump. I believe it is a constant displacement pump, not peristaltic. Peristaltic pumps do not have variable strokes. The rotor goes full circle every time and pushes more fluid up the tube. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Rossi-September- Was Power continuously monitored?
This chart gives the fusing (melting) current for different sized copper wires: http://www.interfacebus.com/Copper_Wire_AWG_SIze.html T
Re: [Vo]:Video of Miley answering questions at recent conference
Miley gave his developments and then Keith read my paper. I should have went I know the paper better, but I did not feel like traveling. Thanks Keith. Next time I will go and help out. -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 5:40 am Subject: [Vo]:Video of Miley answering questions at recent conference See: http://www.youtube.com/user/kiholobay
Re: [Vo]:Manifold mismeasurement makes models meaningless
I think it is great you are pursuing this Alan. I think the temperature of the thick brass part may play a similar or even larger role than the steel nut. I noted on page 4 of my review: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011Review.pdf - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - This photo by Mats Lewan of NyTeknik of the 6 Oct Rossi Tout thermocouple that it can and probably did extend beyond the steel nut, toward the brass manifold: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/LewanTcoupleClose.jpg It was thus subject to the air temperature in the volume underneath the insulation and between the brass manifold and steel nut. It is especially notable that the frayed insulation, cut from around the probe tip, was not trimmed. This is very unusual. The frayed electrical insulation may have prevented good thermal contact of the thermocouple with the steel nut, and thus exposed the thermocouple primarily to the air temperature in the vicinity, which would be expected to be higher than that of the steel nut. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On Oct 27, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: At 06:51 AM 10/27/2011, Higgins Bob-CBH003 wrote: I examined pictures of the manifold and created a diagram to capture the important features. [I made a small .png version of the diagram that I am trying to include.] I am not sure it is schematically correct yet. A characteristic that I believe is very important in the analysis of the possible temperature contamination is the issue of the fittings used in the manifold. These use pipe threads, and appear to be NPT because of the use of pipe dope. At each junction of pipe threads, there will be a large thermal resistance compared to continuous brass. Analysis of these across-the-thread resistances are going to be hard, particularly with pipe dope and or Teflon tape present as is required to seal NPT. The resistance across the thread boundaries will be high and the net effect will be to significantly decouple the Tout thermocouple from the manifold. These thread boundary effects don't appear to be included in your model. Thanks for the diagram. So far I've just widened my original model to 12 cm ... and get results which are closer to the measured value. http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_ecat_oct11_spice.php Update information is copied below : http://lenr.qumbu.com/lenr_spicepics/111027_spice_0001.png The bottom pane shows the new schematic. A is the extreme right, and B and C are the centers of the two steps. The thermocouple is on step C. The center pane shows the temperature across the manifold. A is now at 33.4 C (compared to the secondary water temperature of 30 C). The top pane shows the OFFSET in temperature from A. This new result shows that the result varies dramatically with the geometry -- and since the actual measurements are not known, the results are speculative. - - - - - - - I can easily add in a thread boundary as resistors between the steps. But I don't think I can draw any REAL conclusions from this model ... except to say that the thermocouple should not be ANYWHERE on the manifold! Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
Here is an analysis that I just completed. It shows that Rossi has achieved what he has been suggesting. LENR is real and will only get better with time. Dave I have been reviewing the data obtained during the September and October tests and can now confirm that there is proof that the ECAT generates a large amount of excess energy. I would assume that the skeptic ones among our group will read this report and realize that the proof has been before us for a long time but is not easy to discern. Start with a graph of the temperature readings at the ECAT output thermocouple referred to as T2 during the October test. You must have a graph that includes all of the temperature-time pairs supplied by Mats Lewan in his Excel file. My analysis is as follows: Mr. Rossi performed a carefully controlled ECAT heating procedure. The pattern of setting the input power to “5”, then “6”, all the way to “9” is intended to slowly allow the internal components to reach ideal operation temperature. The reactor reaches equilibrium somewhere around 13000 seconds into the test. Once this has been achieved, a series of on and off power pulses (“9”) is applied to the core. This series of power applications occur at a frequency that is high enough to be well filtered by the low pass nature of the internal ECAT heat flow mechanism. This is evident by the smooth curve of T2 versus time that shows up from 13000 seconds through about 15500 seconds. It is important to note that the T2 curve is slowly falling throughout this time duration. The average T2 reading is 120.5 C and has a slight negative slope. I realized that the implication was that the ECAT output power would slowly begin to fall along with this curve since that temperature drives the check valve, etc. What can we make of this curve of T2 versus time? It turns out that a lot of information is revealed. I did an analysis of the input power pulse waveform starting at 11400 seconds until 14881 seconds to get the average filtered component of the drive signal and obtained a net power input of 1252 watts. Then I realized that all of this power must be causing the ECAT core module to reach some operational temperature. It then responds to the elevated temperature and the LENR effect within starts to generate extra energy. Next, the energy associated with the input power (1252 joules/second * time) adds to the newly released energy of the core. The two of these energy sources end up as heat which proceeds to add energy to the water contained within the ECAT. The water will now either increases or decrease in temperature, depending upon the heat that is lost from the system. We know of at least three loss paths. The main output leading to the heat exchanger, leakage water or vapor from the case, and heat leaving the case due to radiation or other means. All that we need to prove is that the sum of these loss factors is greater than 1252 watts in order to prove beyond doubt that LENR is functioning within the Rossi device. There is one subtle point to explain. There is a very slight negative slope in T2 versus time during this region. I performed a quick calculation and found that the power lost within the water tank as a result of this slope is ((122-120.7) C x 4.188 joules/(C-grams) x 3 grams)/1860 seconds = 87 joules/seconds or 87 watts. This calculation reveals that a very small increase in the drive power will allow the temperature of the water bath and hence output power to remain constant. This is a very important point to make. The ECAT will continue to put out the same power for as long as this input power (1252 watts) is applied. This may not be the ideal self-sustain mode that we all love, but it is significant. Of course I was not content to leave out the additional knowledge revealed by this region of the T2 temperature reading versus time. There is more wonderful evidence to glean. Notice the positive slope in T2 reading that begins at 16000 seconds. This slope is quite linear from 16000 seconds until the level “9” input power pulse ends at the start of the self-sustaining mode. An application of the identical formula as during the negative slope above shows the following: (3 C x 4.188 joules/C-grams x 3 grams)/2700 seconds = 139.6 watts. This calculation suggests that Rossi can increase the output power rather easily by driving the core with an application of full power “9” for a brief time. It is not clear at this time what the limits of safe and predictable operation are. We are fortunate to have additional information revealed by the same graph. The region following the peak in output power can help us determine how the unit responds to no drive conditions as when it is used for self-sustaining operation. Notice the slope after the peak at approximately 18000 seconds. This negative slope is caused by the end of input drive power resulting in reduced LENR activity. The slope has a value that
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. Have you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 probe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the steam is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in output temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. With the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water filling up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) would cause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water vaporized. Since we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would be opaque. And, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small changes in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its placement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless) David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Here is an analysis that I just completed. It shows that Rossi has achieved what he has been suggesting. LENR is real and will only get better with time. Dave I have been reviewing the data obtained during the September and October tests and can now confirm that there is proof that the ECAT generates a large amount of excess energy. I would assume that the skeptic ones among our group will read this report and realize that the proof has been before us for a long time but is not easy to discern. Start with a graph of the temperature readings at the ECAT output thermocouple referred to as T2 during the October test. You must have a graph that includes all of the temperature-time pairs supplied by Mats Lewan in his Excel file. My analysis is as follows: Mr. Rossi performed a carefully controlled ECAT heating procedure. The pattern of setting the input power to “5”, then “6”, all the way to “9” is intended to slowly allow the internal components to reach ideal operation temperature. The reactor reaches equilibrium somewhere around 13000 seconds into the test. Once this has been achieved, a series of on and off power pulses (“9”) is applied to the core. This series of power applications occur at a frequency that is high enough to be well filtered by the low pass nature of the internal ECAT heat flow mechanism. This is evident by the smooth curve of T2 versus time that shows up from 13000 seconds through about 15500 seconds. It is important to note that the T2 curve is slowly falling throughout this time duration. The average T2 reading is 120.5 C and has a slight negative slope. I realized that the implication was that the ECAT output power would slowly begin to fall along with this curve since that temperature drives the check valve, etc. What can we make of this curve of T2 versus time? It turns out that a lot of information is revealed. I did an analysis of the input power pulse waveform starting at 11400 seconds until 14881 seconds to get the average filtered component of the drive signal and obtained a net power input of 1252 watts. Then I realized that all of this power must be causing the ECAT core module to reach some operational temperature. It then responds to the elevated temperature and the LENR effect within starts to generate extra energy. Next, the energy associated with the input power (1252 joules/second * time) adds to the newly released energy of the core. The two of these energy sources end up as heat which proceeds to add energy to the water contained within the ECAT. The water will now either increases or decrease in temperature, depending upon the heat that is lost from the system. We know of at least three loss paths. The main output leading to the heat exchanger, leakage water or vapor from the case, and heat leaving the case due to radiation or other means. All that we need to prove is that the sum of these loss factors is greater than 1252 watts in order to prove beyond doubt that LENR is functioning within the Rossi device. There is one subtle point to explain. There is a very slight negative slope in T2 versus time during this region. I performed a quick calculation and found that the power lost within the water tank as a result of this slope is ((122-120.7) C x 4.188 joules/(C-grams) x 3 grams)/1860 seconds = 87 joules/seconds or 87 watts. This calculation reveals that a very small increase in the drive power will allow the temperature of the water bath and hence output power to remain constant. This is a very important point to make. The ECAT will continue to put out the same power for as long as this input power (1252 watts) is applied. This may not be the ideal self-sustain mode that we all love, but it is significant. Of course I was not content to leave out the additional knowledge revealed by this region of the T2 temperature reading versus time. There is more wonderful evidence to glean. Notice the positive slope in T2 reading that begins at 16000 seconds.
[Vo]:Rossi's customer
Just an update that I have had no responses from the 3 senior GE Press people I emailed yesterday. I had asked them if they could comment on whether GE had any involvement with Andrea Rossi or his eCat technology.CraigFree Energy Truth
[Vo]:About that Frequency Generator
Has anyone seen a photo? Does anyone know what make/model? Does anyone know the specific purpose it was serving? Does anyone know how it was hooked into the circuit? Was it electrically connected to the heater? Was it electrically connected to the E-Cat at all? Had anyone heard any reference to it before October 6? Was it needed for self-sustaining operation in September? David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Here is an analysis that I just completed. It shows that Rossi has achieved what he has been suggesting. LENR is real and will only get better with time. Dave I have been reviewing the data obtained during the September and October tests and can now confirm that there is proof that the ECAT generates a large amount of excess energy. I would assume that the skeptic ones among our group will read this report and realize that the proof has been before us for a long time but is not easy to discern. Start with a graph of the temperature readings at the ECAT output thermocouple referred to as T2 during the October test. You must have a graph that includes all of the temperature-time pairs supplied by Mats Lewan in his Excel file. My analysis is as follows: Mr. Rossi performed a carefully controlled ECAT heating procedure. The pattern of setting the input power to “5”, then “6”, all the way to “9” is intended to slowly allow the internal components to reach ideal operation temperature. The reactor reaches equilibrium somewhere around 13000 seconds into the test. Once this has been achieved, a series of on and off power pulses (“9”) is applied to the core. This series of power applications occur at a frequency that is high enough to be well filtered by the low pass nature of the internal ECAT heat flow mechanism. This is evident by the smooth curve of T2 versus time that shows up from 13000 seconds through about 15500 seconds. It is important to note that the T2 curve is slowly falling throughout this time duration. The average T2 reading is 120.5 C and has a slight negative slope. I realized that the implication was that the ECAT output power would slowly begin to fall along with this curve since that temperature drives the check valve, etc. What can we make of this curve of T2 versus time? It turns out that a lot of information is revealed. I did an analysis of the input power pulse waveform starting at 11400 seconds until 14881 seconds to get the average filtered component of the drive signal and obtained a net power input of 1252 watts. Then I realized that all of this power must be causing the ECAT core module to reach some operational temperature. It then responds to the elevated temperature and the LENR effect within starts to generate extra energy. Next, the energy associated with the input power (1252 joules/second * time) adds to the newly released energy of the core. The two of these energy sources end up as heat which proceeds to add energy to the water contained within the ECAT. The water will now either increases or decrease in temperature, depending upon the heat that is lost from the system. We know of at least three loss paths. The main output leading to the heat exchanger, leakage water or vapor from the case, and heat leaving the case due to radiation or other means. All that we need to prove is that the sum of these loss factors is greater than 1252 watts in order to prove beyond doubt that LENR is functioning within the Rossi device. There is one subtle point to explain. There is a very slight negative slope in T2 versus time during this region. I performed a quick calculation and found that the power lost within the water tank as a result of this slope is ((122-120.7) C x 4.188 joules/(C-grams) x 3 grams)/1860 seconds = 87 joules/seconds or 87 watts. This calculation reveals that a very small increase in the drive power will allow the temperature of the water bath and hence output power to remain constant. This is a very important point to make. The ECAT will continue to put out the same power for as long as this input power (1252 watts) is applied. This may not be the ideal self-sustain mode that we all love, but it is significant. Of course I was not content to leave out the additional knowledge revealed by this region of the T2 temperature reading versus time. There is more wonderful evidence to glean. Notice the positive slope in T2 reading that begins at 16000 seconds. This slope is quite linear from 16000 seconds until the level “9” input power pulse ends at the start of the self-sustaining mode. An application of the identical formula as during the negative slope above shows the following: (3 C x 4.188 joules/C-grams x 3 grams)/2700 seconds = 139.6 watts. This calculation suggests that Rossi can increase the output power rather easily by driving the core with an application of full power “9” for a brief time. It is not clear at this time what the limits of safe and predictable operation are. We are
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A small region of vapor probably exists above the water. I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. All indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated liquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at one atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the pipe. No one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked Mats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and temperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and other loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output presently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is much more reliable. There is no superheated steam. If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any unusual fast variations that can not be explained. It is well behaved and changes very slowly as extra heat is added to the water. The pressure changes are virtually all due to the temperature changes. Actually, there is one region that I cannot explain. That is where the relatively low temperature at T2 starts to rise most of the way through the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. ave you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 robe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the team is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in utput temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. ith the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water illing up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) would ause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water aporized. ince we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would e opaque. nd, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small hanges in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its lacement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless)
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
It appeared in the water dump at the end of the September video, that the E-Cat pressure was above 1 ATM. I was merely asking if you were considering that a pressure increase could be driving an increase in boiling temperature. No is a perfectly valid answer, it was just something that I had been entertaining. If the core were releasing enough energy to boil 1 gram/second of water, and condensation or overflow begins accumulating in the hose, the pressure could slowly increase, raising boiling temperature, and decreasing the amount of produced vapor (without an increase in core power required). It was the premise that I'd been using to explain the T2 increase. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A small region of vapor probably exists above the water. I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. All indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated liquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at one atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the pipe. No one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked Mats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and temperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and other loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output presently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is much more reliable. There is no superheated steam. If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any unusual fast variations that can not be explained. It is well behaved and changes very slowly as extra heat is added to the water. The pressure changes are virtually all due to the temperature changes. Actually, there is one region that I cannot explain. That is where the relatively low temperature at T2 starts to rise most of the way through the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. ave you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 robe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the team is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in utput temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. ith the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water illing up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) would ause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water aporized. ince we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would e opaque. nd, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small hanges in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its lacement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless)
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
David, how can you exclude the possibility of hidden chemical resources? 2011/10/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A small region of vapor probably exists above the water. I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. All indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated liquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at one atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the pipe. No one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked Mats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and temperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and other loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output presently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is much more reliable. There is no superheated steam. If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any unusual fast variations that can not be explained. It is well behaved and changes very slowly as extra heat is added to the water. The pressure changes are virtually all due to the temperature changes. Actually, there is one region that I cannot explain. That is where the relatively low temperature at T2 starts to rise most of the way through the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. Have you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 probe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the steam is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in output temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. With the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water filling up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) would cause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water vaporized. Since we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would be opaque. And, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small changes in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its placement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless)
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
That is OK Robert, I was just pointing out the analysis I conducted. I think it was pretty reasonable. I was thinking along that line myself. The question about pressure in the condenser gave me pause at first until I realized that any significant pressure at the ECAT end would purge the water fairly easy. I expect to see a little differential that would keep the water moving toward the sink. I do not think it takes much at the flow rate we are seeing. It would be interesting for someone to calculate the water friction within the plumbing to see just how high that is. I am confident that a check valve is in series with the output of the ECAT. This type of valve always has a pressure drop due to a spring working against a ball on a shoulder. It prevents reverse water or steam flow. In my opinion, that is the main reason for the pressure increase within the ECAT as the flow increases. And this is reflected as an increase in T2 required to achieve extra flow. I have been trying to determine the function relating the pressure and temperature within the ECAT versus power delivered to the heat exchanger. That is elusive so far since we do not have an accurate power measurement except at a couple of points. We need better data to complete a good understanding. I would appreciate it if you could help me obtain the function we both desire. Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production It appeared in the water dump at the end of the September video, that the E-Cat ressure was above 1 ATM. was merely asking if you were considering that a pressure increase could be riving an increase in boiling temperature. No is a perfectly valid answer, it as just something that I had been entertaining. If the core were releasing enough energy to boil 1 gram/second of water, and ondensation or overflow begins accumulating in the hose, the pressure could lowly increase, raising boiling temperature, and decreasing the amount of roduced vapor (without an increase in core power required). t was the premise that I'd been using to explain the T2 increase. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A small egion of vapor probably exists above the water. I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. ll indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated iquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at ne atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the pipe. o one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked ats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and emperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and ther loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output resently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is uch more reliable. There is no superheated steam. If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any unusual ast variations that can not be explained. It is well behaved and changes very lowly as extra heat is added to the water. The pressure changes are virtually ll due to the temperature changes. Actually, there is one region that I cannot xplain. That is where the relatively low temperature at T2 starts to rise most f the way through the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. ave you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 robe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the team is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in utput temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. ith the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water illing up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) would ause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water aporized. ince we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would e opaque. nd, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small hanges in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its lacement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless)
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
Magic is a subject about which I am not well informed. Please review the graph that I suggested where you take the raw data from Lewan's report and plot T2 versus Seconds in an XY plot. The correlation is essentially perfect between the driving pulse shape and what I expect to see at T2. The power input is the first derivative of energy with time and so a plot of the energy contained within a square power pulse is a perfect ramp during the high portion of the pulse and constant afterwards. The energy directly causes a temperature rise within the core. It becomes apparent that the core responds to temperature changes proportionally and emits energy into the heat sink, etc. Now, you see an almost perfect ramp in temperature rise at the T2 thermocouple as a result. After the peak of the linear ramp, the temperature curve takes a smooth rounded curve to begin falling as the extra heat energy of the core is conducted away. This is when the device heads into the self-sustaining mode where it rounds off and remains fairly constant. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production David, how can you exclude the possibility of hidden chemical resources? 2011/10/27 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A small region of vapor probably exists above the water. I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. All indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated liquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at one atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the pipe. No one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked Mats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and temperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and other loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output presently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is much more reliable. There is no superheated steam. If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any unusual fast variations that can not be explained. It is well behaved and changes very slowly as extra heat is added to the water. The pressure changes are virtually all due to the temperature changes. Actually, there is one region that I cannot explain. That is where the relatively low temperature at T2 starts to rise most of the way through the test. Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 6:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production You are placing a lot of stock on minor variances of the T2 temperature. ave you considered that no energy increase is necessary to increase the T2 robe temperature? It is highly unlikely that the E-Cat is bone dry, and the team is being superheated. It is much more likely that the fluctuations in utput temperature are caused by changes in the E-Cat pressure. ith the same, unchanged input power, a small increase in back pressure (water illing up the heat exchanger output house, or accumulating at hose bends) would ause an increase in T2 temperature, and a decrease in the amount of water aporized. ince we have no measure of the amount of water being boiled, this change would e opaque. nd, of course, the thermocouple at the output could see spikes from small hanges in the grams/second of water or water vapor. (this is assuming that its lacement has rendered the amplitude of its reading meaningless)
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
I tried early on to reconcile the heat exchanger readings with what could be occurring in the E-Cat. The placement of the thermocouple makes any power calculation based on the the delta T highly suspect. So, to avoid detrimental reliance on the amplitude of the heat exchanger secondary readings, it was time to concentrate on only the changes in the readings (the spikes). Trying to graph this, I, like you, was frustrated by the lack of data points. Still, looking at apparent increases while the E-Cat temp was decreasing, it was counter intuitive. My realization was this: if the E-Cat is boiling at a lower rate than water input, (say .5 grams/sec evaporation, with 3 grams/sec from the pump), an overflow may appear to be a large increase in power out. Horace Hefner also pointed out that slugs of water, due to a differing specific heat from steam, could cause large fluctuations in the energy seen at the heat exchanger. Not knowing the E-Cat volume, the pump input (it varies with back pressure, and wasn't at Max), and the E-Cat output volume, it seemed that absolutely all of the parameters that are necessary for any chance at reasoned assumptions were unknowns. I began graphing with tolerance bandsrepresenting uncertainties, and it quickly ran wild. It's great that you are trying to correlate this, and I wish you the best of luck. Your attempt to balance the E-Cat water level was a valiant one, though; it's only by trying that you get a grasp of the number of uncertainties. Kudos. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is OK Robert, I was just pointing out the analysis I conducted. I think it was pretty reasonable. I was thinking along that line myself. The question about pressure in the condenser gave me pause at first until I realized that any significant pressure at the ECAT end would purge the water fairly easy. I expect to see a little differential that would keep the water moving toward the sink. I do not think it takes much at the flow rate we are seeing. It would be interesting for someone to calculate the water friction within the plumbing to see just how high that is. I am confident that a check valve is in series with the output of the ECAT. This type of valve always has a pressure drop due to a spring working against a ball on a shoulder. It prevents reverse water or steam flow. In my opinion, that is the main reason for the pressure increase within the ECAT as the flow increases. And this is reflected as an increase in T2 required to achieve extra flow. I have been trying to determine the function relating the pressure and temperature within the ECAT versus power delivered to the heat exchanger. That is elusive so far since we do not have an accurate power measurement except at a couple of points. We need better data to complete a good understanding. I would appreciate it if you could help me obtain the function we both desire. Thanks, Dave -Original Message- From: Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 27, 2011 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production It appeared in the water dump at the end of the September video, that the E-Cat ressure was above 1 ATM. was merely asking if you were considering that a pressure increase could be riving an increase in boiling temperature. No is a perfectly valid answer, it as just something that I had been entertaining. If the core were releasing enough energy to boil 1 gram/second of water, and ondensation or overflow begins accumulating in the hose, the pressure could lowly increase, raising boiling temperature, and decreasing the amount of roduced vapor (without an increase in core power required). t was the premise that I'd been using to explain the T2 increase. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The ECAT is not dry during this time, in fact it is filled with water. A small egion of vapor probably exists above the water. I do not agree that T2 can change without energy being absorbed by the water. ll indications are that the water is in good contact with the probe. Of course the pressure will change with T2. That is expected for a saturated iquid with vapor above. The entrance to the heat exchanger is maintained at ne atmosphere +/- since any extra pressure would expel the water from the pipe. o one mentioned anything except smooth flow visible during the test. I asked ats Lewan about this issue regarding his measurement of water flow. There will be a direct relationship (function) between the pressure and emperature(T2) within the ECAT and output power delivered to the exchanger and ther loss items. We are seeing incorrect indications at the exchanger output resently because of thermocouple placement. The real power at the output is uch more reliable. There is no superheated steam. If you look at the T2 readings as a function of time you do not see any
Re: [Vo]:ECAT Measurements Confirm Excess Heat Production
Robert Leguillon robert.leguil...@hotmail.com wrote: I tried early on to reconcile the heat exchanger readings with what could be occurring in the E-Cat. The placement of the thermocouple makes any power calculation based on the the delta T highly suspect. I hope you realize that Houkes disagrees with this: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx You should review his analysis. Many people here seem to take it as settled that the thermocouple placement was hopelessly flawed. They should examine this and see if they find an error in it. - Jed
[Vo]:Vertical farming, urban farming
See: Despommier interview. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/is-the-world-re/ Hydroponic farm. Read the captions under the photos: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/gotham-greens-hydroponic-farm - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Vertical farming, urban farming
It just struck me that there is a tradeoff relationship between the use of land and energy production. When energy is expensive the use of land and associated food production loss is traded off against bio-fuel production. When energy is very cheap, energy use can be directly traded off for increased food production via vertical farming/ urban farming. On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: See: Despommier interview. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/is-the-world-re/ Hydroponic farm. Read the captions under the photos: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/gotham-greens-hydroponic-farm - Jed
