On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny
Teknik demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat
the water to 1
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
[snip]
A proven COP of 2 is more important than a doubtful COP of 6.
[snip]
Best regards,
Peter
So very true.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes,the Essen reports states: "At the end of the horizontal section
there is an auxiliary electric heater to initialize the burning and
also to act as a safety if the heat evolution should get out of
Am 20.09.2011 22:55, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
2011/9/20 Peter Heckert:
I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a
secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80
kg box my doubts are even increased.
Least thing what Rossi wants in this p
What are the 2 extra wires(22) for ?
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:10:34 +0200
> From: peter.heck...@arcor.de
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
>
> Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:
> > They state there is an auxillar
That wasn't me. I've never posted to that site. But so what? Is that the
best you can do?
- Original Message -
From: "Terry Blanton"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terr
To ay the matter to rest I was not the one to use the word dribble. It was
HH.
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:41 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Horace:
The first thing I thought of when Joe use
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner
wrote:
Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
atmos
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
>>> powered woos? The water is obviously u
2011/9/20 Peter Heckert :
> I have never understood why do they treat the water and steam system as a
> secret. Why dont they open up the chimney to look inside. With this big 80
> kg box my doubts are even increased.
Least thing what Rossi wants in this phase that people start to
believe in his
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Terry Blanton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner
> wrote:
>
>> Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
>> powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
>> atmospheres pressure estima
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
> Sigh. Look at the video! Do you hear a gurgle gurgle gurgle or a high
> powered woos? The water is obviously under high pressure. The couple
> atmospheres pressure estimate by others does not seem off. You need a
> numerical velocit
king at wo different
videos.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:46 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
> Yes a sealed
Am 20.09.2011 22:19, schrieb Joe Catania:
Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly
like the September test. Why shouldn't they be?
I dont want to convince anybody. I still have doubts myself.
Im just pointing to remarkable aspects that was mostly overseen in
public
Still I'm not convinced that those tests you mentioned weren't exactly like
the September test. Why shouldn't they be?
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Heckert"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am
Am 20.09.2011 21:51, schrieb Joe Catania:
They state there is an auxillary heater.
Yes but they examined all cables and even lifted the devices to see
whats below and I think this extra heater was connected to the blue
control box where they measured the input current. If not, then they
should
seals
the other valve. I doubt this as the water seems to be drainig with venting.
Why not ask Lewan how long it took to empty the E-Cat?
- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Really?
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Heckert"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:
I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure whether
Ros
They state there is an auxillary heater.
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Heckert"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wro
Am 20.09.2011 21:31, schrieb Jouni Valkonen:
But I have several times told to Horace if he bothered to look up the
report and see the data by himself, but he have refused to even look
the data available. This kind of attitude is very sad from him. –Jouni
Maybe not everybody has the time. I dont
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
> I am familiar with multivariate regression analysis.
> It is of comparatively little use when there are missing
> critical variables.
Therefore you must MEASURE the critical variables. ALL of them. This
much I require common sense.
> Your approach will tell us nothin
Am 20.09.2011 20:38, schrieb Horace Heffner:
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
In all demonstrations, January demo, Essen Kulander demo, 3 Ny Teknik
demos, the electrical input energy was not enough to heat the water
to 100° Celsius. (I dont know aout the Krivit demo)
There wa
2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out.
Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping". The water
On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:
I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure
whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The
continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and
e valve we have
nothing to discuss. The video runs for about 1 minute 20 seconds before
ending and the tank is still emptying. I assume ~20L of water in the tank.
- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulati
Am 20.09.2011 19:49, schrieb Horace Heffner:
I think my conclusion was good: "None of this indicates for sure
whether Rossi has anything of value or not. Maybe he does. The
continued failure to obtain independent high quality input and output
energy measurements prevents the public from knowi
On Sep 20, 2011, at 9:01 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that
there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and
enthalpy? Do
you discard it only because you were unable to come up with t
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out. Since its open to the
atmosphere it won't dribble. Or if air can infiltrate from the
bottom it won't dribble. I'm not saying the overlyin
On Sep 20, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I don't know the last time you inverted a gallon jug of water but
the water does not come dribbling out.
Of course it does. I didn't say "dripping". The water flows from a
gallon container in an unsteady stream. It doesn't spray out at high
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
>>
>> I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
>> correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and enthalpy? Do
>> you discard it only because you were unable to come up with the idea
>> yourself?
>>
> There is a correlation b
ssure. We also don't know how
long it takes to drain.
- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Joe, could you please explain why the water is ejected at such a high
velocity
On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:13 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
I was done commenting on your posts, but I see you want me to comment
more.
Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you
have never seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on
that, because it might fail you.
orace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric
pressure. The steam is being created upon water contacting hot
met
pressure in something open to the atmosphere. That should be your
experience.
- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 4:35 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
The device
On 11-09-20 02:48 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don
Horace, your 15 years of experience has it's limits because you have never
seen Rossi like setup before. You should not rely on that, because it might
fail you.
I am amazed why do you have so much difficulties to admit that there is a
correlation between steam production rate (i.e. pressure) and e
Excuses, excuses, excuses, piled on more excuses for using methods
which produce no reliable conclusions, for taking shortcuts around
things so simple teenagers can do them, and not diligently working to
disprove claims. How sad. I suppose you don't think you need bother
with calibration
2011/9/20 Horace Heffner :
> It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic scientific
> methods, known to every high school student who studies science, is
> overlooked.
> That is the importance of using experimental controls.
Uh. No way it is important!
What is required is that so
September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
See end of:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Best regards,
Horace He
It seems with regard to the E-cat that one of the most basic
scientific methods, known to every high school student who studies
science, is overlooked. That is the importance of using experimental
controls. In the case of the E-cat it is clearly important to
calibrate any calorimetry done
On Sep 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Man on Bridges wrote:
It's funny to notice everyone (believers and skeptics) is talking
about a 1 MW power plant, but if it has at least a COP of 6, which
Rossi claims, then the input is a maximum of 167 kW!
So if it's fake, there is only a 167 kW that can be
The device is open to atmosphere- therefore its at atmospheric pressure. The
steam is being created upon water contacting hot metal.
- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Joe Catania wrote:
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
See end of:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3264362.ece
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Hi,
On 20-9-2011 0:11, Horace Heffner wrote:
It is not necessarily true that the E-cat can not harm a fly if there
is no excess energy produced. This is because purely normal
electrical input may be enough to blow the thing up.The 4 metric
tons of mostly steel constitute an enormous therm
Why do you think the device is under pressure?
- Original Message -
From: "Horace Heffner"
To:
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
It's quite odd
On Sep 19, 2011, at 11:46 AM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely
unproven source of energy. Therefore, one would infer from such
conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW d
OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the subject
> of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely unproven source of
> energy. Therefore, one would infer from such conclusions that Rossi's 1 MW
> demonstration couldn't poss
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
wrote:
> Meanwhile, on the other side of the fence many who have followed CF
> for decades, and whose opinions I've learned to heed, are beginning to
> raise concerns,. . .
Please understand that most fences are quite an uncomfortab
I sed:
"Mr. Feyman! Pay no attention to the extension cord!
That's FeyNman!
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Terry sez:
> I agree with you and Horace. If it can explode, it will explode, and
> at the worst possible moment (Murphy's law and first corollary).
It's quite odd to notice that on the skeptical side of the fence the
subject of CF continues to be perceived as a bogus & completely
unproven sourc
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Horace Heffner wrote:
>
>>
>> If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow
>> up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam
>> could be released inside the container.
>
> Some friends o
Horace Heffner wrote:
> If I did the calculations right, then this indicates the device could blow
> up. If there are emergency steam relief valves on the devices the steam
> could be released inside the container.
>
Some friends of mine who wish to remain anonymous know a great deal about
hea
Am 19.09.2011 05:28, schrieb Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint:
Peter wrote:
"So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe diameter is 10^2 cm."
A "pipe diameter" of 100cm is one heck of a big pipe!
I think you mean "cross-sectional area"?
Correction:
So steam speed is about 64 m/s if the pipe cross section
nt: Sunday, September 18, 2011 12:32 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Calulations for 1 MW plant.
Am 18.09.2011 21:19, schrieb Peter Heckert:
>
> So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s
>
> If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the
> steam speed is
Horace wrote: »Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of
4160 kg! I wonder what the shipping cost on that is?»
Can anyone estimate what would be the building costs of this fake Megawatt
plant? If it is asumed that there is inside conventional fuel water boiler,
that can produce
Am 18.09.2011 23:22, schrieb Horace Heffner:
Assume the condensed water is being fed back at 100°C.
The energy to vaporize water at 100°C is 2260 J/g. If 1 MW is heating
100°C water then I estimate the flow has to be 442.5 gm/s, with a
volumetric flow of 737.5 liters/sec. This gives a flow v
> Side note: the 52 E-cats at 80 kg each should have a mass of 4160 kg! I
> wonder what the shipping cost on that is?
Must be cheap (compared to sending a space aircraft across the ocean).
Those containers are standard they can carry up to 25000 kg. A big
ship carries thousands of those.
see for
On Sep 18, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Peter Heckert wrote:
I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant.
Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar, @100 centigrade = 2675 J/
g (taken from an industrial steam table)
10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s.
Volume of steam = 1.7l / g
So steamf
Am 18.09.2011 21:19, schrieb Peter Heckert:
So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s
If the crosssectional area of the output pipe is 10^2 cm, then the
steam speed is 6.36 m/s.
Oops immediately after posting I found an error ;-)
1l = 1000 cm^3
636000 cm^3/s / 100 cm^2 = 6360 cm/s = 63.6 m/
I did some plausibility calculations for Rossis 1 MW plant.
Thermal Energy of saturated steam @1bar, @100 centigrade = 2675 J/g
(taken from an industrial steam table)
10^6 J*s^-1 / 2675 (J/g) = 374 g/s.
Volume of steam = 1.7l / g
So steamflow = 636 l/s = 636 cm^3 / s
If the crosssectional are
60 matches
Mail list logo
